Who was Jesus - N.T. Wright 

NT wright is fantastic.

Who was jesus (PBUH) a very wise and humble man respect from a Muslim

Great first video son. I know thier will be more videos. Love you dad

I am a time shaman as I once was so shell I be ,learning of my past to remember who I was and looking forward into time to see who I am and who I will be .....!

Amen for N T wright

This seems a very useful contribution to my understanding, and a useful contribution to the Church. I have for some years read the conclusions and summaries of NT Wright, whilst passing through bookshops, and though, "Obvious to anyone reading the NT." Passing on has been easy, as I had not realized quite how much digging out of prepared position needed to be done to allow some in the Church to encounter Jesus. Tom Wright seems to have a good pick and shovel, may he continue to find Jesus!

I went through the same sort of theological schooling as Tom Wright. The Dead Sea Scrolls had just been translated and commented-upon by Geza Vermes; whilst studies in Schweitzer, and many subsequent Christological scholars (Fredriksen, Spong, Bauckham, Ehrman, Kasemann, Moltmann, etc) had led to me becoming 'stuck' on the human being, Jesus of Nazareth a young Jewish teacher of 'apocalyptic'; unable to leap the 'Christological Chasm' to the Christ of faith. Sure, I was aware of Anselm's famous quotation: "I believe, in order that I might understand", but it took Richard Bauckham ('Jesus and the Eyewitnesses') and the wonderful Richard Rohr ('The Universal Christ') to enable me to leap that Christological Chasm. We are 'moderns'. Our sense of the scale of our Cosmos is simply inconceivably vast. So, of course 'simple faith' (ie simplistic faith!) is of little use to us. We want our faith to be 'reasonable'. "The Word became flesh: not flesh became the Word!" Wow! What a statement for those who would see the Bible as 'The Word of God'!

Somebody is definitely delusional, but it is not those who believe in Jesus Christ. The Hebrew Scripture predicted exactly what Jesus was and did. It was not the Romans, but the Jews who became the first Christians. How do you explain the conversion of Paul? All of miracles, including His resurrection proved that Jesus was divine. Harden not your heart, be open to the Holy Spirit, begin by accepting that whatever you believe, you may be wrong and take it from there. Where you will spend eternity depends on it!

Awesome! 😍😍

Very sorry to see that this teaching has been cut short as has the Q&A.

Great stuff.

Can this please be fixed? at minute 29 the sermon gets cut off!

The historical Jesus and the Jesus we give allegiance to/believe in is one and the same.

@sirdelrio Caring has nothing to do with sound analysis. Are you sure it was a "1" beside the "62"?

Brilliant.

My scholarship is based on and focused in the message of the Gospels as a sociolinguistic key to the Jesus movement of the first century. I appreciate NT Wright's focus on the Gospels.

Where is the 2nd part???? 😍😍😍

@sirdelrio So is NT Wright Catholic?

@NilDesperandum777 this is not a lecture about history, is a lecture about the sociology of the wizard of oz.

Hi, again, StormTrek. Me, too!

The evidence is overwhelming historically. From Jewish and Roman political figures, the historical and cultural figures and practices of different groups, the geographical locations and names, details about Jerusalem and the Temple which were destroyed in AD 70, after which it was given a different name and the fulfilment of Jewish Messianic prophecies provide a strong evidence for faith.

Wright never quite gets around to saying what Jesus was trying to *achieve* in his ministry.

@sirdelrio Always fit your conclusions to your preferred facts. Good job, Einsteino.

where and when did NTW give this talk

@sirdelrio (From cont.) 4) "what about the construction of the canon? " Be more specific. 5)"what about the events narrated that nobody could have witnessed?" Again, you'll have to be more specific. 6) "have you asked yourself why is pilate in the creed?" All events and persons affiliated with the life and death and resurrection of Christ would be accounted for. It's worthy to note that Pilate was a real procurator listed by extra Bibilcal sources. But what is your point?

@NilDesperandum777 the quotes were his. at 6:23 he virtually shows his inerrantism, well not inerrantism, but his lack of criticism on the integrity of the text, its origin, its possible authorship, it veracity.

@NilDesperandum777 after the first 8 minutes or so i already didn't care much about what he had to say. Now i'm listening with all atention: THIS IS A LECTURE ABOUT INERRANTISM AND LITERALISM

Well if you want to believe and if YOU WANT to believe it will make your life better... ;-)

@NilDesperandum777 but let's put NT aside, let's debate the subject. Do you think the gospels are historical portrayals of a living man? what do you have to say about pagan parallels? after analysing the resurrection narratives, doesn't it look like a mythification of a tale? what about the construction of the canon? what about the events narrated that nobody could have witnessed? have you asked yourself why is pilate in the creed?

I left the path to ordination as a young man precisely because I was being told the false things about Jesus that Bishop Wright denounces.

Yes, perhaps. But other than that, he was a nice guy and a sincere Christian.

Very true.

@sirdelrio It is an explanation, a brief introduction into his work. That's the point. The fact that you don't understand the context, or regard his explanation, and his description is YOUR problem. I see English is your second language, but not so secondary that you can't distinguish the difference generalization and specific scholarly work. Listen, if you're going to call this man a fraud, and point to other scholars by contrast, you should at least be brave enough to list them.

Agreed .

Do you have any evidence for...well any of that?

@sirdelrio and i don't mean logical sillogisms, an elaboration, an idea built from facts and inferences. ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT.

@sirdelrio And still, not a single specific criticism, minute and second of THIS video, on NT Wright. I'm shocked.

@sirdelrio I wrote in reference to your I! score. Again. The language barrier.

@sirdelrio And still, no specific criticism. Great job, sport. ;)

@sirdelrio Or your conclusions thus far, I agree.

I think Wrights point is that you cant have a good soteriological picture of Jesus if you dont have a good historical picture of Jesus. The Gospels were written, and describe events in a specific time and place, And the historical context would have greatly influenced the message Jesus taught, as well as how he went about conveying that message.

@sirdelrio "The more I listen". Ah, so you finally admit you didn't fully listen to the speech? And...you do realize this is a speech -- as I already mentioned -- to a crowd of people with a certain working knowledge. This wasn't meant to be a speech to the unintended per se. Again, try cracking open a few books.

@NilDesperandum777 the only reasonable conclusion. i'm not arguing against that.

@sirdelrio Right, because you citing the possibility of someone having a disability is so passe. We'll chalk it up to a linguistic deficiency on my part.

@NilDesperandum777 i do not need to listen to a whole seminar of kent hovind to realize what he has to say. Specially when i'm not a blank canvas on which he's going to insert his church stuff.

@sirdelrio (From Cont.)....And as for the oddity of a Catholic. Well a few things. NT Wright is an Anglican Bishop. Not quite Catholic in perfect theological consideration, but getting there. And if he was perfectly Catholic, which he isn't, his statement "we just need to restrict to the text, we don't need to go beyond the text" would be qualified as evidence of sufficiency to the point being made, not sufficiency in the universal understanding of the Church's deposit of faith.

@sirdelrio The beauty of YT. It's all recorded below. :)

@NilDesperandum777 "at one point you stated it wasn't a lecture, that it was a sermon. And now you're calling it a devotional lecture". OMG, is this all you have?

@sirdelrio Actually, I'd thank you for a coherent specific example of legitimate criticism from this video, because again, we know confidently, you know nothing of NT Wright aside from this video, addressed to audience already "in the know". But because you, a random YT viewer with no familiarity on Wright aside from this edited video, ergo, he must be a "charlatan". Again, what do you specifically cite as your reason for this criticism?

@sirdelrio Fair enough: 1) "Do you think the gospels are historical portrayals of a living man?" By "living man" you mean Jesus Christ? 2) "what do you have to say about pagan parallels? " Quite a bit. Horus, et all are easily dismantled. Hopefully you're not using Zeitgeist as your source material. 3) "after analysing the resurrection narratives, doesn't it look like a mythification of a tale?" Not at all. In fact it appears the opposite.4)"what about the construction of the canon? " (Cont.)

@NilDesperandum777 and why are you attacking my english, do you speak spanish as i do?

Calvin can speak for himself

@NilDesperandum777 "I can't understand", oh my god.

Does he ever breathe?

Just one question...does N.T.Wright believe that Jesus is God?

@NilDesperandum777 i know who he is, and his master output of preaching.

@sirdelrio Starting from the front and assuming one thing or another about me is silly. I asked you to define which type of inerrantism you referred to..did you simply skip that? Note, you havent asked me what I believe in, nor queried anything remotely interested in an honest investigation. And that's the point that you apparently refuse to see or simply are unable to see. Until you have a reasonable deposit of facts on any given thing, you should render your conclusions as undecided.

@NilDesperandum777 what? isn't that what you're doing with your "only logical conclusion"? is this history? acts grinding? hypothesis and falsification?

@sirdelrio No it's not, but, hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, this speech can be about whatever you like, amigo.

@NilDesperandum777 when i change my words, don't be so confident, you are not making me hestitate, i'm being precise. Aahhh, an argument from authority now.

@sirdelrio "Reasonable" and "conclusion" should not be paired by you in this conversation. "Emotional" and "conviction" and "prejudice", now those are suitable partners in your..."Summa".

@NilDesperandum777 if he's going to give me a nice beautiful narrative about his doctrine, then there's nothing to discuss.

@sirdelrio Of course, you did. "Back then" when you "left".

@sirdelrio I think what you're used to, are people who, when you throw around basic terms like "summa" don't counter a point you're making. Well, to say that your general criticism, that has no actual specific criticism from demonstration, and to say that that, is your , "Summa" (as though that would ever be applicable) is INSANE. Stop posing! How can you have a "treatise" without being able to name a specific point, and at that attach ownership of said "Summa" to an edited YT video!? LOL

@NilDesperandum777 help me sleep at night. That's so ironical. I LITERALLY do not sleep listening to biblical scholars.

@NilDesperandum777 requesting citations is nothing, and i gave it. constant correction?? what correction, that he's an anglican? that's pretty much catholic exotica. My inability to defend my position? my refusal to give you an answer. And haven't you ever heard code word before? i'm sorry i meant buzzword.

@NilDesperandum777 if only this video existed you should be thanking me.

Robert M Price, whatever one may think of him, demolishes NT Wright's book on Jesus. I say this not to troll, but to try and open minds.

@sirdelrio But, if you can't communicate a specific argument, in the language your audience understands, then your objective is compromised. Note, I'm not conversing in Spanish with you, because I don't possess proficiency enough to argue a point. The fact that you speak English secondarily isn'y my concern, any more than if we were on a football field, the contest is the contest . It's not hypocritical to point out blatant error. If you think it's ad Hominem, that's your problem, not mine.

@sirdelrio Why yes. That's the only reasonable conclusion from observation. Oh, and because you still haven't despite repeated specific request...what other reason would I need? LOL

@NilDesperandum777 ok show me i'm wrong, IS THIS HISTORY, ISN'T HE PREACHING?

@sirdelrio (From Cont.) On "exotic catholicism" (big "C" or little "c", conceptually speaking?) , well given that you've abstracted Wright's actual academic worth with your worldview comfort levels, I suspect "shock" wouldnt be the right word to describe the kind of aimless mental gymnastics required to again, fit facts to your conclusions. Apart from citing the obvious ie a Bishop erring on the side of inerrantism (though to what extent you never clarified), the question is begged...

@NilDesperandum777 Wright exceeds my understanding. NOW IS TIME FOR THE LOL. A codeword is not mystery. Is a bit of jargon, a technical world, used to give the appearance of rigour, to varnish a speech with shining lack of findings.

How exactly does a layman 'destroy' an actual historian? Could you give an example?

@sirdelrio So you want a Christian to remove his point of view for the sake of developing his point of view? that makes no sense, friend. I think what you're doing is conflating the notion that to support the Gospels is to be dogmatic without rigor. That's not the case in The Catholic (and Orthodox) Church and it's not the case with NT wright. If you'd investigate his scholarship you'd find this out, but alas...If you'll recall, Christ's Apostles began with severe incredulity.

@sirdelrio AGAIN -- if you base your criticism on this video, it is baseless. You are calling a world reninown Biblical scholar without having a working understanding of the scope of his historical spadework. It would be like me criticizing your Spanish on the basis of your English. Is this so hard to grasp?

must I weep, ... before you know it is me ?

@NilDesperandum777 i don't need to explain anything to you, specially if you think this is "the only reasonable conclusion". The gift of knowledge is for the one who seeks it, i don't think you are of that kind. NT Wright! you gotta be kidding.

@NilDesperandum777 to say this is a sermon is my summa. perhaps too much for you.

@NilDesperandum777 my entire criticism? i said he hasn't taught anything, that's not an offense. I said he just asserted stuff, that's not an offense. I said it was a sermon, that's not an offense. I said he is pathetic, there is the ofense. And what would i criticize here?? what has he said??? what argument has he given???

@NilDesperandum777 constant correction??? yeah you wish.

@sirdelrio But the point of this exchange is the criticism of this video. You don't get "close enough" in academic exchanges. You don't get an emotional pass because your English is "not bad". I'm not interested in giving you credit for an opinion that is articulated in such vague terms. I'm not here to cheer lead your development into the English language. Great, some people are impressed that your English is "not bad". Spanish has nothing to do with anything here, except perhaps your pride.

@sirdelrio Again, you're incapable of seeing the obvious. You're judging a man on the basis of 1) A speech to his peers, not the layman or the uninitiated. Ergo, it's no intended to be a thesis defence. 2) You admitted having not been familiar with his works. Ergo, it would be definitively prejudicial for you to render a conclusion based on a lack of evidence, and one might say a lack of credible filters on your part. Are these points that difficult for you to see? They apply in any situation.

@NilDesperandum777 62 what? give me one.

What Gospel did Jesus preached? The true gospel talks about the Kingdom of God. Luke 4:43 "I must preach the Kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose." Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom (NOT the Bible; NOT Jesus; NOT his Resurrection nor the Cross) will be proclaimed throughout the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Luke 9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God,... Luke 16:16 Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, There's ONLY one true Gospel...that is the Kingdom of God. All churches in the world have preached the wrong Gospel...

@NilDesperandum777 very nice spin on the asperger, way to evade your literary reading of contrary comments.

I disagree with the attempt to understand it part of your statement. I think what he is doing is showing most Christians is that THEY don't understand it.

So you are saying Charles Manson could have been Jesus?

@NilDesperandum777 how do you know that i can't?????????????????? because i haven't?

@NilDesperandum777 yeah, and my IQ score is not necessarily reflected in my english.

@NilDesperandum777 i have confronted you already, let's discuss the new testament.

@ford fairlane one response would have been enough ... many, many responses is just noise

@NilDesperandum777 "in order for a Christian scholar to be credible, he or she must essentially undermine Christian theology." NOOOO. I particularly think christianity is false. But i do not demand of you to start trying to prove it false. BUT TO START WITHOUT BIAS!!

@sirdelrio How would I lose, friendo? I repeatedlt asked you to base your conclusions on sound evidence to the charge that NT Wright was a charlatan, or "pathetic" and you haven't because you're simply not informed about the man, to which you've already admitted. You've simply stuck around so as to not give the appearance of "losing". But, that happened a loooooong time ago. NT Wright has several books with numerous arguments. But hey, you know better. So, is NTW a Catholic?

The Gospel of Mark and the Congressional Medal of Honor Many believe that Mark was written around 60 A.D., also the believe that the other gospels were written later is based on the modern atheist outlook. ….. +john logan That has been the conventional wisdom, especially among atheists and Muslims. who have a vested interest in pushing the dates of the autographs as far away from 30 CE as possible, However, on-going scholarship suggests that the Christian doctrine reflected in Acts 10: 34 = 43 was more or less solidified within the first year to 18 months after the cross and that the oral tradition reflected in Mark, most of which is attributed to Peter, was likewise more or less codified by 37. It is my contention that Mark was assembled by Cornelius after the 3 day debriefing with Peter in Acts 10, which occurred in 40 AD, from Peter’s testimony, from elements of routine Roman military bureaucratic surveillance files and from the Roman testimony which begins in Mark 14 and is reflected in the general content of the Gospel of Peter, which is testimony Cornelius provided Peter during their debriefing regarding the eyewitness testimony of the Romans about the actual moment of resurrection (this is not an endorsement of the Gospel of Peter, per se, but on the probable source of the material in the gospel, which Mark makes clear could not have been Peter after his denial of Jesus). Furthermore, it is likely that Mark was available to Luke by the time Paul was imprisoned by Felix in Caesarea in 59, which is when Luke was able to interview various participants in both Luke and Acts, including Mary, mother of Jesus and Cornelius, who was right there in town, It is clear to me that Acts 13, on, was being prepared as an amicus brief for the defense of Paul and that Greek was composed for Theophilus represented the Equestrian class, to whom he was to be delivered in Rome and that much of it was written in real time as events occurred (especially the sea voyage), which means that much of Acts was in writing by 66, at which time the project became moot with the execution of Paul. Sura Maryam 19: 1 - 33 confirms Luke;s version of the nativity, which Sura 74:30 reveals is the meaning of the Qur’an (Mohammad never understood that his mission was to lead Arabs to Jesus or, as likely, he understood but preferred to exploit his revelations for personal profit and prestige).. In any event, the final versions of Luke and Acts may have been composed later in the century, but the essential research (in addition to the basic narrative arc of Mark) for the project had been completed by 66. Mark is called “Mark” (and not Cornelius) for a number of reasons, the most important being that it was in the best interests of the Romans to keep their involvement in the Christian movement clandestine, at the very least. Given the Caesar worship movement sweeping the empire at the time, endorsing a Jewish insurrectionist as the Son of God promised a literal cross of their own for high treason, the only crime a Roman could be crucified for. Richard Bauchman’s speculation on the anonymous nature of some of the eyewitness in Mark(whose names are revealed in subsequent Gospel versions) were kept anonymous because these people were still being sought by the various authorities in the first decade after the cross. For these reason, Mark became the essential source of the autograph, in the beginning, and in the subsequent manuscripts , so people sought him out and they came away with a manuscript prepared by Mark. We know Mark went to Alexandria and it is probably he established a cottage industry of scribes for reproducing the autograph and subsequent Gospels as they became available. In spite of Paul’s missionary efforts around Antioch„ the region produced virtually no versions of any gospel until the 4th Century while the majority of the surviving manuscripts AND epistles generated out of Alexandria, the King James Only cult nothwithstanding. There apparently is a manuscript of Mark from the first century currently being authenticated by a reputable publisher (whose name escapes me). If authentic, it will probably be determined to ave originated in Alexandria as one of Mark’s copy of the autograph. We know that, thanks to P-51, that John, the last gospel in the canon to be written, was being copied as early as 90 and no later than 120. Matthew seems to have been located in Alexandria, which is one reason why his nativity narrative includes Egypt, However, I have come to the opinion resulting from the last revelation of the Qur’an in the Hidden Secret of Sura 74:30 that the Gospel of Matthew was composed in anticipation of Muslims seeking out Jesus in spite of the misdirection arising from Mohammad’s ambitions. In particular, Sura Yusaf 12 is the only story from the Hebrew bible told in its entirety (and accurately) and this sura is another guid post for Muslims seeking Jesus as Joseph is the only other blameless person in the Bible and, of course, Genesis 12 is the moment when Abraham appears, In terms of the desert traditions of Arabs, Matthew is probably the most accessible of the narratives for Muslims: the Six mountains of Matthew conform, in some regards, to the 6 elements of faith in Islam. Finally, Mark, as a genre, is best understood as journalism in the Atlantic Monthly profile sense of the word. While the content of the narrative, and the attendant theology and Christology, is largely Peter’s testimony, the narrator is someone for whom “duty” is the operative word, The portrait of Jesus that emerges is one of a person under authority and responsible for completing a particular task defined by this authority. The relentless drive of the narrative, the constant drium beat of “Immediately” defines the actions of an absolute, if not myopic, mission orientation. The modern analogy of this particular form of journalism are the various citations for valor which accompany the award of the Congressional Medal of Honor at White House ceremonies. The narrative of Mark begins when Jesus appears over the Roman military horizon wand ends when Jesus has completed the essential step in Bod’s plan of salvation. This is what Cornelius recognized in Jesus (as reflected in Matthew 8 and Luke &) and this is the story that the Roman soldiers who were there told the rest of the Roman legions around camp fires when the subject of the resurrection came up. Unlike the legends of Mohammad, which were not codified until 2 or three centuries after his death, the story of Jesus was being told by Roman soldiers to other Roman soldiers before the sun set on the first Easter. Mark is just the formal testimony of those events.

@NilDesperandum777 give me ONE SINGLE argument that he gave here. ONE

@sirdelrio So you've proved my question by essentially answering in the affirmative that in order for a Christian scholar to be credible, he or she must essentially undermine Christian theology. I'll add, your criticism of Wright being pathetic without you having a working knowledge of his work was demonstrative of extreme prejudice before...this on the other hand is an entirely new division of willful prejudice. And you actually prance about calling yourself a genius? Por favour.

@NilDesperandum777 "So is NT Wright Catholic?" do you have asperger's syndrome?? can you abstract something beyond a literal meaning? could you recognize similarities in apparently different things? it has a creed, stablish by councils, foundational theologians, it has clergy, a maximal authority, liturgy. It's an exotic catholicism.

@NilDesperandum777 my grammar, whatever.

@NilDesperandum777 AT 24:00 "and this can be asked as a matter of historical investigation. and the purspose of such investigation, i will go on repeating it, is not to replace the canon with a historian's recontruction, but to offer a hypothesis to explain what the church has not explained". IT COULDN'T GET ANY MORE PATHETIC THAN THAT. IT COULD NOT BE ANY MORE DOGMATIC.