The Fact of the Crucifixion by N.T. Wright

By -
I don’t agree with everything that N.T. Wright writes (pun intended), but he is dead-on here. No comments needed – what he says stands for itself.



Comments

Gary said…
I agree 100%. I think mythicists are doing the Anti-Supernaturalism Movement a real disservice by peddling the nonsense that Jesus did not exist and that the crucifixion is a non-historical event.

The Resurrection, on the other hand...
4/14/2017 10:45:00 AM
im-skeptical said…
... that cultural shift is impossible to explain.

Scientology gained more adherents in a shorter time. It's NOT impossible to explain. People are gullible.
4/14/2017 01:21:00 PM
Anonymous said…
People are gullible, huh? I don't think that you are in a position to call them that, Skep. You seem to believe that life came from non-life. That's way more unlikelier than the Resurrection.
4/15/2017 05:07:00 AM
Bob said…
I wonder why Wright doesn't mention one single piece of evidence for the crucifixion. He says there are 'thousands of things' that serve as proof, so why not tell us about a single one? Would his 'evidence' stand up to scientific scrutiny?

Wright is ostensibly wrong when he says that 'From the very beginning, Christians made the cross the symbol of their movement" The early Chistians didn't portray the crucifiction at all; they used the 'fish' symbol to indicate their religion, and portrayed Jesus as a teacher (e.g. in the Roam catacombes). So if the portrayal of the crucifiction by early Christians is Wright's strongest evidence....
4/15/2017 06:45:00 AM
im-skeptical said…
People are gullible, huh? I don't think that you are in a position to call them that, Skep. You seem to believe that life came from non-life. That's way more unlikelier than the Resurrection.

Better to believe based on observable evidence and science than on unverifiable stories.
4/15/2017 08:43:00 AM
Gary said…
For millennia, humans have attributed events in nature to gods to later find out through the scientific method that very natural explanations lie behind these events. That does not mean that a god did not create the universe, it only means that before we assume again that "a god did it" we should withhold judgment until better evidence is available.

However, I do believe that the evidence is clear that even if a god did create the universe, it could not have been Yahweh. Any being who believes that a firmament (a dome) exists above the earth could not have created our complex universe.
4/15/2017 09:10:00 AM
Anonymous said…
Better to believe based on observable evidence and science than on unverifiable stories.

Whatever you say, Skep.
4/15/2017 09:32:00 AM
BK said…
Wow, what a bunch of interesting comments. Not particularly enlightening, but interesting.

im-skeptical - Yes, people are gullible. That's the reason so many people believe what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins write. And Don was 100% right that your faith in life springing from non-life is not based on observable evidence (which is what you claim to rely upon).

Bob, it's a short piece -- less than two minutes long. He was merely stating what historians accept, not providing the evidence in this clip.

Gary, agree with your first post but then you lose me on the second paragraph of the second. A debate for another day, perhaps.
4/15/2017 12:55:00 PM
im-skeptical said…
your faith in life springing from non-life is not based on observable evidence (which is what you claim to rely upon).

Tell me. When is the last time you saw God creating life?
4/15/2017 02:14:00 PM
BK said…
Relevancy?
4/15/2017 02:35:00 PM
Anonymous said…
There is none, BK. Skep is just grasping at straws like he always does.
4/15/2017 02:55:00 PM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
Fish does not predate cross. Fish came after anchor and anchor assumes cross. Fish was used as a response to persecution, So they were using the cross before tahtwhen they were not persecuted.

HERE
4/16/2017 09:04:00 AM
im-skeptical said…
Relevancy?

Are you serious? You just accused me of having no observable evidence for my naturalism (despite the obvious fact that EVERYTHING we observe has no visible supernatural element). Meanwhile, you believe that God created life, despite the fact that you have NEVER observed any such thing. You have never observed a supernatural being, let alone a supernatural being creating life. But you insist that your belief is based on evidence.
4/16/2017 09:46:00 AM
Bob said…
Joe, your reference says: "The first century symbol wasn't the cross; it was the anchor." Whether the symbol used by early Christians was a fish or an anchor, the conclusion remains that it was NOT the cross; so Wright is still wrong in trying to 'prove' the crucifixion.

So out of the thousands of pieces of evidence that he claims to have, he picks the one that is invalid. Very sad.

4/16/2017 02:04:00 PM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
why an anchor? Because it assumes a cross. it has the cross bar at the top. So it is a cross,

what you are saying is like saying "they didn't believe in Jesus Christ God'/s son as savior but iijm fish; that is what the fish meant.
4/16/2017 11:16:00 PM
Anonymous said…
IMS Are you serious? You just accused me of having no observable evidence for my naturalism (despite the obvious fact that EVERYTHING we observe has no visible supernatural element). Meanwhile, you believe that God created life, despite the fact that you have NEVER observed any such thing. You have never observed a supernatural being, let alone a supernatural being creating life. But you insist that your belief is based on evidence.

God acts outside of nature, so you can't see him. As Joe says, he is being itself.

And, while I have never seen God create life (none of us were there), I have never seen things create themselves without some conscious mind having to do with their creation.
4/17/2017 12:04:00 AM
BK said…
Don, please note that IMS's feigned outrage is nothing more than a distraction to avoid answering your original challenge. Really, his anemic understanding of evidence already rules him incapable of rational conversation. I don't know why you bother.
4/17/2017 06:18:00 AM
im-skeptical said…
Please tell me more about my anemic understanding of evidence. You're the one who believes that a third-hand story told by an unknown source, and subsequently edited to comply with church dogma, with zero corroboration outside the bible itself is something that constitutes credible evidence.

My evidence for naturalism is ubiquitous. I don't observe anything in the universe that is supernatural in origin. And your evidence is the same. You just believe that God had to be the maker of it all. But that's not evidence - it's just belief.

And why you address your remark to Don, when it wasn't his post, and he hasn't participated in this discussion so far, is yet another mystery that defies explanation. But that's par for the course when trying to engage in rational discussion with you.
4/17/2017 10:38:00 AM
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said…
Skep naturalism is not disproof of SN they are NOT mutually exclusive. SN assumes Nat.

It is false to think no proof SN, the basis of mystical experiences a porori proof of SN.
4/18/2017 01:33:00 AM
Bob said…
Joe, "why an anchor? Because it assumes a cross. it has the cross bar at the top. So it is a cross" doesn't convince me. The anchor was often depicted lying horizontally, unlike a - standing - cross. And the crossbar was often curved. Hence, no attempt was made to 'assume' a cross in these anchors.

Your reference mentions several reasons why the anchor was used a s a symbol, but NOT that it suggests a cross: the main reasons would have been a representation of Hebrews 6:19: "We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure." (NIV)

By the way, Wikipedia says "Among the symbols employed by the early Christians, that of the fish seems to have ranked first in importance."

Still no evidence for the crucifixion.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_symbolism
4/18/2017 11:08:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

By -
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated. In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article . Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I ...
Read more

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

By J. P Holding -
Image
I first made this post in 2012, and since then I've made a sort of mini-career out of tracking down bogus quotes like this one (including a video version below). It's a sort of fun microcosm of the way information is mishandled in the Information Age. ** I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. – Mahatma Gandhi A Christian can probably expect to get this quote thrown at them at least once in their lifetime, and waved in their face many more. I had it put to me recently, but my experience with this sort of thing immediately led me to wonder -- is it real? The evidence at this point seems to be no. The first signal of a problem was that anywhere I found it, no source was given. That's often a sign that something is being passed around uncritically. Whether online sources or books, no one seemed to have a source for this quote. A second warning was that the quote has been given more than one context. As ...
Read more

Do you say this of your own accord? (John 18:34, ESV)

By -
Image
One of the most well-known events in Scriptures is Jesus' exchange with Pontius Pilate at his trial as described in John 18. In verse 38 of that chapter, Pilate asks the question that may be the most ironic in the history of the world, "What is truth?" A less known but equally intriguing saying of Jesus from an apologetics viewpoint can be found in Jesus' response to an earlier question in the same trial. It is a question that is not often quoted, but on those rare occasions when it is quoted, Jesus' response is often overlooked as not particularly important or relevant to today's world. However, it is my experience (as well as the experience of many people who have truly spent time studying the Scriptures) that little, if any, of what Jesus said in the Bible lacks significance across time. To best understand the response, it's important to see the response in context. The situation is this: Jesus has been arrested following His betrayal by Judas I...
Read more

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

By -
A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer: You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels." Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus ...
Read more

Tillich, part 2: What does it mean to say "God is Being Itself?"

By -
 In this essay, which is a chapter from the new book I'm now working on, I'm moving toward defining what I think Tillich means exactly by being itself. It's a long journey but an important one. What does Tillich actually mean by “being itself?” Does he mean the same things as other theologians who use the phrase? It’s a mysterious sounding phrase and Tillich never actually comes out and says what he means by it. As I will show there is a reason for this, and I will show what I think that reason in is. In the mean time the task of this chapter is to deduce exactly what Tillich actually means by this phrase. There are three basic possibilities: Three alternatives as to meaning (1) The basic fact that things exist is all that the concept of “God” amounts to. (2) There is a special quality to being, an impersonal aspect” ground of being” or “being itself” and that quality constitutes ‘the divine.’ This possibility excludes God as “king of the universe.” (3) God is b...
Read more

On the Prior Probability of the Resurrection

By -
Image
Recently a friend on Facebook argued that Christians have no business declaring the Resurrection of Jesus to be the most probable ( a posteriori ) explanation for the relevant facts, since they are unable to first pin down the prior probability of the Resurrection independent of those facts. I think that's a reasonable enough objection and deserves a reply. After all, posterior probability by definition is a function of both likelihood on the evidence and prior probability. [1] Clearly, then, one cannot determine posterior probability without some idea of the prior.   My friend went on to say that the prior probability of a hypothesis is typically established as a ratio of previous instances of the event and total opportunities for the event to have occurred: "Normally we determine the probability of X by how many occasions of X we have seen out of how many opportunities for X there have been. Is the resurrection of Jesus some kind of exception?" This amounts t...
Read more

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

By -
Some days ago at the Facebook group "Reasonable Faith Debunked" atheist Cale Nearing [1] laid out what he calls "A positive argument for atheism." The basic idea behind the argument, as I see it, is that since the evidence for theism is compatible not only with theism but with any number of coherent and mutually exclusive hypotheses explaining the origin and life-permitting structure of our universe, the probability of theism being the one true hypothesis is very low; and, since atheism is simply the negation of theism, the probability that atheism is true is very high. Or as Nearing asserts, "Any rational inductor will conclude that Theism is almost certainly false, and therefore that Atheism (the negation of theism) is almost certainly true."   Now the argument as Nearing presents it appears quite sophisticated, making extensive use of the probability calculus generally and Bayes' Theorem in particular. Despite this apparent sophistication, ho...
Read more

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch

By -
Image
Jeff Lowder at Secular Outpost, argues against William Lane Craig's fine tuning argument. His objective is to show that even if the argument is valid it doesn't establish probability for God. Lowdwer's syllogism of the argument: 1. The life-permitting nature of the universe’s initial conditions is either the result of chance, necessity or design. (Premise) 2. It is not the result of chance or necessity. (Premise) 3. Therefore, it is the result of design. (From 1 and 2) This argument is clearly valid, i.e., the conclusion follows from the premises. We want to know the probability of (3). The probability of (3) will depend upon the probability of (2). If we have a very weak degree of belief that (2) is true, say we think Pr(2)=0.25, then, by itself, this argument only warrants the belief Pr(3)=0.25. N.B. I’m not claiming that (2) has an exact numerical probability equal to 0.25; that value is simply an example to illustrate the point. [1] Excluding it as a ...
Read more

Resurrection harmony

By -
Image
The purpose of this argument is merely to establish that the events described in the four canonical Gospel resurrection accounts can be construed as a coherent event. Atheists are always harping on the many differences in the accounts. They seem to feel that these amount to insurmountable contradictions, marking a totally contradictory story. But I will argue that we can pull together the events described in all four Gospels to create a unified harmony which shows that there was a single coherent event taking place.This may not mean that call differences vanish away, but most of them can be explained by the process of eye witness testimony and story telling based upon the accounts of eye witnesses. There may be a couple of loose ends, but I will argue that these are not important when one considers the over all agreement and ensuing harmony, (for harmony table click here) * my model: (1) women go to tomb find stone moved, immediately  they suspect the Romans or Sa...
Read more

Ignatius' Reliance on Paul's Letter to the Ephesians And More

By -
In an earlier post , I responded to the arguments of an online skeptic -- Quixie -- that 1 Clement showed awareness of none of Paul’s letters. He has since conceded that his analysis was greatly flawed and that the author of 1 Clement at least knew 1 Corinthians. Indeed, his “analysis” of 1 Clement can be fairly described as a massive failure of analysis because he simply ignored several of 1 Clement’s chapters. Nevertheless, Quixie appears to still claim that Ignatius lacked any knowledge of Paul’s letters except possibly a few allusions to the “opening” of 1 Corinthians. As an initial matter, Quixie does not explain why Ignatius’ awareness of at least part of one of Paul’s letters is insufficient to sink the “Dutch Radical” ideas with which he is enamored. If Ignatius is clearly dependent on the “opening” of 1 Corinthians -- whether by allusion or quotation -- does that not mean that Paul is a historical figure and at least one or more of his letters took a prominent place in...
Read more