Bowman, I think you have lost track perhaps with the thread title. DavidW-- Yes, I did most willfully digress. It seemed possible that, if you found the two Resurrection links interesting, you might be similarly interested in the third, which, for a relatively small marginal investment, expands the scope of the arguments of the other two. One never knows for certain what will interest online interlocutors, but you have seemed to me to have a keen interest in ideas that are independent of the older "mediating" positions in theology and apologetics, and the three Wright videos certainly have such ideas. It seemed fitting to let you know about them.

Bowman,

I think you have lost track perhaps with the thread title.

There isnt really any problem integrating the focus on the Cross in the epistles with the ministry of Jesus in the gospels if one understands the contexts and with a holistic understanding. The issue in the thread title concerns attitude towards false religion and a deceptive counterfeit of Christianity, not discussion with it. .

My point was, scripture by all means but let it speak for itself. Different people’s opinions on it need to be tested to see whether they are valid interpretation or unbelief.

The point is the scripture supports Wright’s view that Christians are being saved, not just for their own sakes, but also for the sake of their role in God's plan to set his Creation right.

[quote] Evidence that Christ is not the Son of God? No. Wright is careful to link titles to their contexts as all biblical scholars are, but he does not deny this. [/quote] Ok so we can marginalise such as view as not really for Christian debate, rather for evangelism and witnessing to non-believers.

Carl,

As to your OP I fully agree with you. I agree that Fulcrum is one the few remaining places where there is any sort of interaction between liberals and conservatives, not just in the Anglican world but in any forum. And so far it seems to me to be doing a very good job of moderation indeed, especially as Bible believing Christians are being penalised and silenced on so many supposed Christian forums. Therefore I see no reason why it shouldn’t be supported financially on that basis alone.

PS where is Carl, havent seen him post for a while.

DavidW-- Sorry to have missed your last questions here. I know that you are very busy and that the videos are rather long, so I was not looking for such a rapid reply from you.

I presume the resurrection is in the other links.

The first link is a video presentation of Tom Wright's history of the Resurrection, just mentioned by Stephen on the Eyewitnesses thread.

The second link is also Wright, but takes up the problem of integrating the focus on the Cross in St Paul with the focus on the Kingdom ministry of Jesus in the gospels. As you may recall, several villagers seem to major in one or the other of the two. An historical understanding of the Resurrection, on which both hinge, helps one to make sense of both in the same integrated vision. I thought you might like that.

Bowman, there seems to be a common approach these days to respond to quoted and cited scripture with someone else’s opinion on it as though someone else’s opinion on it disproves it.

Yes, there is, and it is better than not engaging scripture at all, but it is not as good as a patient online discussion of texts would be. Phil, for example, uses scripture in a careful way, and brought a text the other day to Atonement. My guess is that we do too little of the latter because it requires cooler heads or more moderating.

I am hoping that we will, nevertheless, look at scripture more closely on the New Creation and Atonement threads as soon as the basic ideas are out. There are lots and lots of texts that relate, directly and indirectly, to both of these topics.

Not sure about Bishop Wright’s final comments about if all he thought it was about was telling the people the truth for them to go to heaven then why would he work to help the poor. The whole point of Christ’s NT message was both.

This will make more sense after the first video. On one hand, the biblical version of personal eschatology is quite far from popular misunderstanding, and on the other hand, personal eschatology is not all that the bible gives us. Wright sees Christians as being saved, not just for their own sakes, but also for the sake of their role in God's plan to set his Creation aright. So a Christian has a profound motive to help the poor, for example, that is not available to others who merely feel sorry for them.

But this is only in the sphere of Christ as the risen Son of God, tell me is there anything in the other links he says about evidence that Christ is not the risen Son of God ?  (which has been proposed on this forum)

Evidence that Christ is not the Son of God? No. Wright is careful to link titles to their contexts as all biblical scholars are, but he does not deny this.

Stephen Kuhrt,

I know you are getting many thanks for the Richard Bauckham links, may I add my thanks. The summary review is really good.

All,

But if we step back one stage, I came to born again faith through the message, that which I read in the Bible. I came through kicking and screaming rationalisation about it historically, scientifically, philosophicaly etc, Christ revealed Himself through His testimony. This is a common type of testimony.

Therefore one ought to be aware that the discussion here is primarily about whether what the gospel claims is true.. Bauckman's work is invaluable perhaps more for non-believers to sow doubt into their non-belief.

Thanks Stephen for noting RB’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses specifically.  When I mentioned RB and LH in an earlier post - and Pluralist goes on to mention only LH in reply - it was rather the former’s Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Eerdmans, 2008) I had especially in mind.  RB’s two books combined are particularly powerful in addressing Pluralist’s concerns re the Trinity and the revised nature of ‘God’ - all from a very early stage in the history of the nascent Christian Faith.

Hi Stephen

Well i have ordered the booklet, it took me ages, there was one complication after the other but anyway i ordered it in the end. So it depends on how long it takes to come now. I was going to get the e book i have one but i really like a book in my hands without the worry of charging up the ereader and then it always takes me ages to remember how to load it and download it, so i simply am usually done in before i get to the book. Its a real problem when you forget everything unless you do it every day that is. I remember studying this in college it fascinated me then and it fascinates me now, this issue of how we see things at the same time in the same place but we see it differently, to me its what personalizes the Gospel. So i look forward to reading the booklet, i am always reading the grove booklets, they are quick ways to refresh my memory when preparing other things.

Angela

Thanks, Stephen, for your commendation of Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Bauckham explains his approach in broad strokes in videos here and here. This review summarises his argument. A substantial part of the book can be found here.

His unpublished lectures are sometimes relevant to particular points made in the book.


 

Unfortunately I don't have the book. I have others that comment on 'what if eyewitness testinomy' and all that. On top of all that, there is also straight reading and the simple question each time and over the whole of 'What does it look like?' It looks like a created biography with stories to make a point within and hefty emphasis of dramatics at the Easter end. I was amused at the Mark Goodacre comments highlighted very recently from Thinking Anglicans once you get over the simplest 'Did Jesus exist?'  question and why he neither likes John Crossan nor N T Wright.

Since the conversation has turned to the gospels and eyewitness testimony can I suggest that people read Richard Bauckham's brilliant book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Bauckham has summarised his case in a Grove book in the Biblical Series and his arguments are hugely compelling. Pluralist - I would be fascinated to hear your response to them because they convinced me that, far from being material that primarily reflects the agenda of the early church (too much evidence simply doesn't fit the thesis) there are numerous arguments for approaching the gospels as very deliberately constructed to show that they were based on eyewitness testimony. Haven't got time to summarise Baukham's argument (I'm just off to our evening service) but I will perhaps return to this if people are interested. But best of all read the books and see what you think. Not sure anyone has yet made a credible critique of Bauckham's claims 

Pluralist,

What would the lack of evidence be for the the lack of eyewitness material in a fairly straightforward university course of the New Testament? I mean the BIble, where the idea comes from, records it being eye-witness. Did you mean the course doesnt believe the original accounts the overwhemling number of ancient documents describe actually happened?

WATERANGEL,

I agree with you that no-one today has seen the events of those times, so its a question of faith, faith in the account being true or faith in it not being true

You have lost me on ‘whether one follows the traditional route of the Word,"

Could you explain what that means please.

Now it has not been suggested that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all eye-witnesses despite you referring to them as such, Luke most people would claim was not.

Please could you give me an example of what you described as an account that one saw, as opposed to an account of what one believed one saw. To me that sounds like complete nonsense. Sure one might give an account of what they thought they saw but were deceived, but they would still have been an eye-witness.

Bowman,

Thanks for the link but it might have been better to have made your point as well as provide the links.

I have so far listened to the last link.

I agree with Bishop Wright apart from where he says the rapture is a myth. The rapture is as based on scripture as Bishop Wright’s ideas. Whilst I think that from scripture Bishop Wright’s ideas the clip from the rapture dramatisation is hardly appropriate as it is an embellished dramatisation including myth.

Bowman, there seems to be a common approach these days to respond to quoted and cited scripture with someone else’s opinion on it as though someone else’s opinion on it disproves it.

I presume the resurrection is in the other links.

Not sure about Bishop Wright’s final comments about if all he thought it was about was telling the people the truth for them to go to heaven then why would he work to help the poor. The whole point of Christ’s NT message was both.

But this is only in the sphere of Christ as the risen Son of God, tell me is there anything in the other links he says about evidence that Christ is not the risen Son of God ?  (which has been proposed on this forum)