Here what might have helped is if NT said, "The authors wrote about their experiences using the genre of their time. No, most of scripture is not poetry although we do have poetry throughout. But the authors use figurative language just as we do. When you judge ancient culture by modern standards it is called anachronism. It is a textbook fallacy. Wright should have said ancient authors would exaggerate numbers of size of armies for obvious reasons. Ancient Mesopotamian authors had a prescientific worldview that would be represented in their understanding, that was shared by Jewish writers. But their is a very different monotheism that arises 12-14 centuries BCE. The various stories have consistent themes. It is not a textbook, and Wright is right about American Rationalism having a deleterious impact on how people in the U.S. view the Bible since the 1880s and crescendoing in the 1920s with the fundamentalists. It is still endemic to Evangelicalism at the lay level.

@ravissary79

6 жыл бұрын

agreed, but then he'd be spending more time trying to explain the basic concepts instead of diving in and using them. He keeps trying to get into the story itself and why it's useful and intelligible, as he said, the brits don't have these sorts of philosophical hangups on what "story" means, so while I agree with you that we should have explained things a little more straight forwardly like you are, it's kind of sad that he has to waste all of that time at all when it's plain to see and it's far more interesting to talk about what the stories are actually saying and not spend so much time justifying the existence of stories to begin with.

Great man

@davidd6972

2 жыл бұрын

thNKA.

It 'll be nice to see a discussion on what the implications of the Bible as 'story' (defended by N. T. Wright) are; including the idea that one characteristic about stories is that nearly everyone's story is different; could the text support an idea of "precedents", and or "patterns" : since everybody's story put together may yield precedents and patterns (roughly but not completely like how judicial precedent works)?

@bobpolo2964

6 жыл бұрын

Could you simplify

@samuelarthur887

6 жыл бұрын

Sure, I could, but I will explain it in an email.

@blesspascal6016

6 жыл бұрын

See his Christian Origens and the Question of God series for this, particularly the first volume!

Important point at the end that the Bible is a poetic book, with whole books on poetic verse, and of course also on NT Jesus himself can be seen to have the phrases of the poet. Who takes poetry 'literally' anywhere else?

@ravissary79

6 жыл бұрын

Well, to be specific it's indeed a poetic book, but really that comment is to short. It's several books and each has it's own literary genre take on an existing literary genre from it's time of authorship. So yes, after a fashion all of it is poetic, but not all of it is strictly "poetry" as in, belonging to the genre of literature called poetry that isn't at all prose, or narrative accounts, or philosophical/proverb musings, or "apocalypse" literature, etc. The Bible is full of diverse genres that all require their genre to be accounted for in order to avoid making interpretive blunders. Really, a lot of this is pretty clear when you approach it asking these sorts of nuanced questions. And it's clear that even in works that are more straight forward, like the Gospels or the Epistles, poetry exists and should be viewed as such when used, but more as a sort of reference or excerpts, like when Jesus cites something and then talks in a rhythmic escalating and de escalating pattern called a Chiasmus. It was prose before the CHiasmus and it's prose after the chiasmus, but the "quote" section that's more rhythm is poetry. There's also stories inside stories that follow the rules of metaphor, like a sort of myth for the purpose of illustrating a principle. This can be tricky to catch for the new reader because you're just trying to get into it and follow the characters and actions on a basic level, and since it's not structured like modern stories it's easy to get bored or lose which party is doing what, especially if it's hard to care about whether it's the Ammonites or the Amorites being judged at this moment in the Pentateuch for example. Really, this sort of thing should be covered in every classical literature class in the country as the Bible is such an incredibly influential book to most of the important authors from virgil to shakespeare to Milton and Chaucer, to even many of the modern authors, if for no other reason than as a sort of polemical response, like the poetry of Virginia Wolfe, or the ideas of Freud and Nische in other fields, etc. Really, we've grown incredibly ignorant of how to read such old books and it's sad because we only got where we are via advancement by standing on the shoulders of the past, and this book is one of those foundational pieces.

Oeeee best one to ask these questions is philosopher Esther Meek! See would make this 'story thing' explode with her covenant epistomology! :)

(4:50) three philosophical ways of dealing with Truth? anyone knows what they are?

@Alex-kn4im

3 жыл бұрын

Not sure but I think it's something like mathematical, scientific and deduction (first hand experiences and senses etc.) Dont quote me on that but its something I've heard firas zahibi speak on a lot, hes a Muslim MMA trainer with a PhD in philosophy, I would reccomend watching some of his videos on randomness and free will (try his episode on joe rogans podcast)

@MSA-uj7cp

3 жыл бұрын

@@Alex-kn4im thanks great to meet a fellow joe rogan fan watching an n t wright interview :)

Oh wow, being a Catholic, I have to admit this Anglican priest did a great job at defending the Bible. Thank you!

@davidd6972

2 жыл бұрын

you're welcome

NT Wright is so anointed.I drink his thinking.How Christ let's us dwell in Israel by Ancestral cleansing Blood.And God saw that it was very good.

I'd recommend talking to Physicist and Theologian Gerald Schroeder in Israel.

@ravissary79

6 жыл бұрын

wow, this is possibly one of the only academically astute comments in this desert of a comments section. Agreed. He's a little esoteric for most people, but like Roger Penrose, he's as difficult for the casual student as he is brilliant. A real joy to read his stuff, though I confess some of it was over my head.

@deandesune5665

5 жыл бұрын

Godspeed. The works of Gerry allowed me to drive some of my colleagues to Theism. Also, I would suggest reviewing the astronomer Hugh Ross, for his amazing claim about the fine tuning of the universe.

Do a series on philosophy of Hinduism, it would be brilliant ! 😍

Hi Sunshine, he was the first priest I actually heard the word Stories but then he mostly recanted his words. May peace an prosperity be with you always.

@ravissary79

6 жыл бұрын

there's nothing to recant when using the word "story". The news tells stories, History tells stories, hell science classes are FULL of stories, replete with characters and everything. I'm always amazed when words are so universally useful to describe the wide range of academic and human cumulative experience.... until you talk about religion to an atheist, and then none of those words mean those things anything, their ability to think immediately stops and the autism goes rig ht off the charts.

Wisdom=Sophia The Bible has different words for wisdom. If you love Wisdom then yes you have a "philo sophy of the Bible" You have to Love Wisdom. Wisdom in the Hebrew sense is dividing Good and Evil. The Bible also has a wisdom that divides between Philosophers and Sophemores. You can still be a wise-fool. Fools end in Death. The wise end in Life. The Bible has a framework of Dividing Good and Evil which man ate from at the wrong tree in the beginning Adam and Eve ate from the wrong tree. Now we have to define Good and Evil by the Tree Jesus died upon.

DISCUSSION. N.T. begins the discussion by emphasizing that the Bible is a poetic story where one must “step into the current of Scripture.” He takes issue with American Rationalism which treats the Bible as a “pseudo-textbook” where the Bible is read with a left brain perspective rather than from a right brain perspective for the purpose of Christian apologetics. N.T. begins the discussion by saying in regards to the question of the inerrancy of the Bible that it doesn’t matter to him if the history of the Bible is literally true. COMMENT. [Although I much prefer the more liberal point of view of the Bible that N.T. espouses rather than that of the more strident and fundamental apologists of Christianity, it seems that N.T. wants to have it both ways. Here he says that the Bible is poetry not to be taken literally and as inerrant as do the American Christian Rationalists. Okay N.T. so the Bible is not to be taken literally.] DISCUSSION. Wright then says “Obviously if there never was an Abraham, Moses, or David then I really don’t know what the story is about.” Further N.T. says “if somebody says it really doesn’t matter whether it happened because it is all about ideas in people’s heads - No, this is not the Biblical narrative at all.” When it is mentioned that there has been no historical evidence for the existence of Solomon, David, or a great kingdom of Israel, N.T. admits that “it could be troublesome if it actually turns out that none of those things happened.” COMMENT. [So after being dismissive of those American Christian Rationalists who treat the Bible as inerrant and as literal history, N.T. now admits that if the stories in the Hebrew Scriptures are not literally true, that would be “troublesome”. N.T. started out saying that the Bible is a story and poetry to be read with a right brain understanding. Then after being asked whether the story has to be literally true, that the stories about Abraham, Moses, and David have to be true, N.T. admits if those stories are not literally true, Christians have a problem.] DISCUSSION. After admitting that the stories in the Bible have to be literally true N.T. then says “For me the focus is always on Jesus. Who was Jesus? What do we know about him... If Jesus never existed or if he never did any of the things it says, then that really does matter and I would with great sorrow give up my faith, my priesthood...and I would do something quite different. I would probably be a music critic.” COMMENT. [So it seems that historicity does really matter after all to N.T. especially the historicity of the Christian New testament. The Bible is not just a story or a poetic drama then. N.T. now says that the stories must be literally true and if they are not true, particularly the stories about Jesus, then he would have to give up his Christian faith. How is this different from the American Christian Rationalist position? Both they and N.T. agree that the stories must be literally true yet N.T. begins the discussion by claiming the opposite.] DISCUSSION. At the end of the discussion N.T. says that “Historicity really does matter but we can get fixated on it and forget that most of the Bible is poetry. We have to approach it on many many levels…..and the fussiness about errancy and inerrancy goes with that left brain approach…” COMMENT. Does N.T. have a consistent and logical argument here? First the Bible is poetry and a story in which getting fussy about errancy and inerrancy misses the point. That those who insist on the literalness of the story and a left brain approach to reading the Bible are doing great damage to Christianity. But then N.T. admits that if the stories are not true then that is a serious matter. Further if it could be demonstrated that the stories are not true he would have to give up his faith in Jesus. It seems that N.T has faith in the Bible because he likes the story and the poetry in the Bible but the historicity of the Bible is a secondary matter. Should it not be the other way that the historicity of the stories in the Bible should be what generates the faith? In 1 Corinthians 15:17 Paul says if Jesus was not literally resurrected from the dead, that your faith is useless. I would add that if there were no Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, or David, then there was no Jesus and your faith is useless.

@luisferNoMyths

5 жыл бұрын

It has been always confusing to me. If the Bible is metaphoric poetry and Jesus historicity and identity is so important there is a contradiction between the metaphoric poetry and the core of Christianity then, because Jesus preached fantasies as if they were true. All the main doctrines of Christianity rely on the actual sin of Adam and Eve if this is just metaphorical then all Pauline theology is senseless from my point of view.

@mylord9340

5 жыл бұрын

@@luisferNoMyths that is precisely the point. N.T. Wright has authored dozens of books on Christianity. Yet, his discourse in this interview is vacuous. It seems the more intelligent and educated a religious person is the more they are capable of squelching cognitive dissonance with mind numbing explanations for their faith. Cheers.

Where are the Knights Templars when you need them!?

@ErraticFaith

5 жыл бұрын

Seek and you shall find.

All this badly needs to be said - especially in those parts of the USA in which one finds applied to the Bible an historically very recent dog-legged literalism of a particularly crazy variety.

@theophilus749

6 жыл бұрын

With pleasure: how about the notion of creation in six literal periods each of 24 hours and the belief that Adam and Eve were two real historical characters?

@bobpolo2964

6 жыл бұрын

Theo - Are you an of the unbelieving category? I don't wanna assume atheism

@theophilus749

6 жыл бұрын

Hello "bob", I am of the _believing_ category. Theo.

@bobpolo2964

6 жыл бұрын

theo - You believe Adam and Eve are fictional characters?

@theophilus749

6 жыл бұрын

Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: the whole story is allegorical - the two characters representing the creation and beginnings of mankind.

this guy will suck the energy out of every room

The problem with categories is that you've come slaved to them

Incredible! He’s so sure of his position, he barely takes time to defend it. Rather, he spends most of the time talking about how exciting the Bible and the Jesus story really are!

@Benjamin-to2zq

Жыл бұрын

You make that assessment on an 8 minute clip? You have not seen many videos or read any or his books if that's what you think.

@matthewturner4719

Жыл бұрын

@@Benjamin-to2zq I’ve read many of his books and watched several of his lectures. This kind of confidence without being condescending or redirecting the question is rarely seen elsewhere.

@Benjamin-to2zq

Жыл бұрын

@@matthewturner4719 do you mean this in a positive way?

@matthewturner4719

Жыл бұрын

@@Benjamin-to2zq I do.

@Benjamin-to2zq

Жыл бұрын

@@matthewturner4719 ok. I apologize. I misunderstood your original point. I thought you were being critical.

Yes it’s a story, The GREATEST story ever told. And like the story that colonizes the dissipative structure we call our bodies, it colonizes human history. It’s 2018 since Christ, all over the world.

@peterjongsma2754

6 жыл бұрын

HymnSake Well said.NT Wright shows how Christ transforms.

How can storytelling be proof of the fantastical claims that were made?

Would love if you interviewed Christian Scholar Dr. James White who has pointed out many errors of William Lane Craig for example like how Craig looks at and interprets the Bible through a Philosopher's lens instead of a Theological one. A difference in methodology when it comes to Bible interpretation, apologetic approach and so on. White has also addressed innerency quite a bit as well and is the foremost apologist for Calvinism (reformed theology)

@alexwarstler9000

6 жыл бұрын

You do realize that Calvinism is steeped in scholasticism, right?

@Apologia5

6 жыл бұрын

I wasn't defending Calvinism or speaking into it. Just giving some context as to who James White is and saying that he has tackled the issue of Philosophy and the Bible before, specifically on this issue. What about Calvinism specifically do you reject?

@1974jrod

6 жыл бұрын

James White has just as many problems with his interpretation of the bible as Bill Craig does regardless of the methodology they use. Craig is a Molinist and a synergist, which has issues, and White is a Calvinis and a monergist, which has issues. They both are Christians, and they both believe in Jesus. They both have different views, some of which are correct, and some of which are incorrect. We all have issues, and that's why God sent Jesus to clean up the issues.

@Apologia5

6 жыл бұрын

If both of these guys are wrong one their view of free will and the sovereignty of God then what do you think is the correct view. Where do you land? How did Jesus clean up this issue for you?

@Apologia5

6 жыл бұрын

To say that Calvinism prevents any legitimate conversation outside of its shell seems to be a stretch. Why don't you share what you think is illegitimate about it instead of just asserting?

But what is there to disprove about Jesus? Jesus basically taught morality and that he was the messiah? We can't disprove any of that 2000 years later... it's unfalsifiable

Ugh the Bible is not an open story. The story has an end.

@_a.z

5 жыл бұрын

Hey don't spoil it for me! Did it end well?

@_a.z

5 жыл бұрын

Wasn't he actually the one that drowned almost all life on earth, promoted slavery and treated women as second class citizens to be abused? Or do you mean Satan who killed a couple of guys? www.wired.com/2007/04/old-testament-m/

@jeremywilliams3465

5 жыл бұрын

Pete Miller that is what was said

@vinay4694

4 жыл бұрын

every story complete with "the end"

@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone

4 жыл бұрын

And I take the story as gospel.

Once upon a time I thought only those who cease their education at elementary level believe in stories in the Bible to be literally true. But the more I listen various podcasts and debates I realize there are smart, intelligent people fully accomplished in their fields of science who believe in those myths. It's beyond me why is that the case.

@alantinoalantonio

6 жыл бұрын

Josip Cmrečnjak because they are finding out they were never "myths" after all. It's simple.

@ethanbarnes8423

6 жыл бұрын

Smart people aren't immune to unsmart conclusions.

@itsJPhere

6 жыл бұрын

They were probably raised to believe in faith or they were otherwise vulnerable to the idea of faith as good instead of bad. It is crazy how in no other area of life is blind faith a good thing except with religion.

@blesspascal6016

6 жыл бұрын

Because God is beyond you XD It's called TRANSCENDENCE :):)

@_a.z

6 жыл бұрын

Josip Cmrečnjak One word: indoctrination!

Jesus is a Philosopher else he is nothing. It is the attraction of his philosophy of life to achieve justice, that enthuses Christians, and you don't have to believe in God to agree with the philosophy of Jesus.

@Alex-gg3qm

5 жыл бұрын

Except that Jesus teachings are dependent on his claim to divinity

Weak! Watching it I was 1/2 way done and no mention of Jesus. That's how I say the host is likable but it's all misleading for weak minds

Did you know this man has no PhD in Ancient History..so gets everything wrong logically and historically!

@rationalsceptic7634

4 жыл бұрын

@Harry Waddington The Man is self deluded..a very poor Historian: www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16858

@rationalsceptic7634

3 жыл бұрын

@Harry Waddington www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13752 kzread.info/dash/bejne/aW1-k8izgsrVgps.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/mYV4x9qKj7O8hc4.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/gaar3NeRos_UqNY.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/c5umx8emldHaow.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/Z3mKqc2lZ8_Qj5c.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/eIWa18ydnLKan7w.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/rGWsucukn8ScdMY.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/eIdkys6RqKveZ5s.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/en2WtbqterCTqto.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/kYCXx8RqeJiomM4.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/mIBmpLejlJXdm7w.html

Not one Christian knows what the beast of Daniel and Revelation is about or why the prophecies were written. The Bible is not a book of philosophy.

@ravissary79

6 жыл бұрын

he isn't saying it is, he's using philosophical language to explain how it functions via storytelling. There's a "philosophy of..." almost every academic study out there. "Philosophy of science", or better yet, the "History of the Philosophy of Science" is an incredibly enlightening field of study. The whole concept of "paradigm shifts" arose through the study of the history of the philosophy of science. While a paradigm isn't at all a scientific thing and you'd be hard pressed to study it scientifically, it's a concept that's very useful in talking about how scientific ideas evolve over time, partly as a function of raw factual discovery, but also as a function of cultural contextual change.

Just another example of mankind creating stories in an attempt to make sense of life. There are 10,000 religions throughout history..all have the truth, what does that alone tell you?

@user-ju7ze9to4k

5 жыл бұрын

Jay Cousins maybe they’re all telling the same story in different language.

@Cousinsjay

5 жыл бұрын

@@user-ju7ze9to4k nice try

@TheGuiltsOfUs

2 жыл бұрын

Very true!

Nce to hear a fundamentalist XXXian make it clear, again, that they are indeed interpreting their buy-bull, which they all have & all do, all the time....Oh, & then, the poetry of the buy-bull. Uh-huh....In other words, SECULAR HUMANISM is better.

_Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders? It is not when truth is dirty, but when it is shallow, that the lover of knowledge is reluctant to step into its waters._ -Friedrich Nietzsche, _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ _I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time._ -Friedrich Nietzsche 💕 ☮ 🌎

@houriaalgerie9288

6 жыл бұрын

If our lord christ acknowledged that religion is only for israelliens to take rights and money of people to raise esure and deined day of resurrection and occounting they would have followed and obeyed him and made him their king but he rejected blackmail and he commande spread gospel of religion to all all people will return will return

@theophilus749

6 жыл бұрын

Unlike, say, Richard Dawkins and the other philosophically feather-weight, play-dough, loony-tune characters of popular modern atheism, Friedrich Nietzsche at least knew the weight atheism has to bear. I have lot of time for him. However, even he badly misunderstood certain key aspects of Christian thinking. God does not _want_ or _need_ anything at all. This would be attribute to God a purely created human, or at least animal, psychology. _We_ creatures are the ones with needs, not God.

@uremove

6 жыл бұрын

totalfreedom45 You can never tell with Nietzsche whether he’s just messing with us... “There's a starman waiting in the sky, He'd like to come and meet us, But he thinks he'd blow our minds” -David Bowie

@bobpolo2964

6 жыл бұрын

Then he shouldn't believe in humanity either, since they explicitly desire praise from others

@ohyeah3365

6 жыл бұрын

Niko Well put

Please read the verse of Isaiah 45 : 7 in which the Biblical God proudly and unashamedly admitted that He also created evil and darkness. The Biblical God is also omni malevolent.

there are hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles none match each other or the original koine Greek NT Papyrus or Hebrew Tanakh or Dead sea scrolls... verify

@davidhawley1132

6 жыл бұрын

james ainors lookup textual criticism, because digital copying has only been around a few years. There are some excellent videos by the primary scholars demonstrating how well we have reconstructed the NT.

@MitzvosGolem1

6 жыл бұрын

David Hawley You maintain 1john 5:7-8,Mark 16:9-20 and hundreds of other known addition s. I only study the Hebrew Tanakh now.

@andrewdurand3181

6 жыл бұрын

When people say this it indicates how much they have read on the subject.

@MitzvosGolem1

6 жыл бұрын

Andrew Durand Actually verify my comment. Compare the original earliest koine Greek NT Papyrus from 125ce to any New Testament used today ... Then compare the Dead sea scrolls from 310bce to any Christian Old testament...

@andrewdurand3181

6 жыл бұрын

james ainors it’s exactly manuscripts like that which translations are based on. They are in different languages, so they have to be translated. And then we can also compare early extant translations and see that the preservation of Biblical texts is one of the more reliable sources of textual history. Not to mention quoted passages from other first and second century texts.

I never trusted N.T. wright

@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone

4 жыл бұрын

Elio Olivero Oh yeah, he's seen some stuff... 😳😬🤫

Historicity of Jesus, or Myth? Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God nor Man.

@Hermes1548

3 жыл бұрын

@MrJayguess I have read enough philosophy, poetry, science, history, law and other thousand books to know when an author is clarifying an obscure paradox. I don't need the author to be the Pope, but honest, thorough, clear, true to the facts. Critical thinking, my friend. Try that.

@Hermes1548

3 жыл бұрын

@MrJayguess Stop flogging yourself and accept it: no authority is needed when evidence is presented in a critical, honest, thorough way. That's science. You don't need to be the Pope or a Phd. You need to be courageous, bold, and present a new paradigm. That's Popper, that's critical thinking.

@Hermes1548

3 жыл бұрын

@MrJayguess Yes. A Santayanian, that is: a naturalist atheist who enjoys spirituality in a contemplative way. You do not need religion to be spiritual. This spirituality is non-existent. That is, essences do not exist, they just are in our minds.

Philosophy is not bible it was never used by men of God. Christian faith relays on the Word and the spirit

All religious books are useless, as they are not written by the utters. Metaphysician philosopher

I like what Prof. Wright says about the ongoing and unfinished story in the Bible... as long as you don’t take the book of Revelation and the ‘Rapture’ too literally (which he doesn’t). However, my problem with interpreters of the Bible is - they don’t speak to modern concerns. Hence the obsession of Christians with maintaining gender inequality, obsessing over sexual orientation, personal sin and individual salvation! Secular society has moved on! Meanwhile the planet is burning up, the Anthropocene extinction is well under way, authoritarian nationalism is on the rise, war is everywhere, inequality is rife, and society is bitterly divided. Has the Bible anything relevant to say to us? If so, why do churches led by experts like Dr Wright (as ex-Bishop of Durham) so rarely campaign about stuff that REALLY matters in the 21st Century!? My fear is, too much focus on the Bible can get you mired in the issues of the past, about sex, sin and salvation. Maybe the ongoing story will tell how the Pharisees tamed Jesus’ once revolutionary progressive message back into a safer, more reactionary one (mostly about sex).

@bobpolo2964

6 жыл бұрын

How does the world address the overarching problem of death, apart from God's Word?

@uremove

6 жыл бұрын

bob polo IMO, the traditional Christian interpretation of the Bible makes the prospect of death worse than it is already. The stakes are high - an eternity in Hell or Heaven awaits you! Worse is the death of close family and friends who are non-Christian - do they suffer judgement and an eternity in perpetual torment? For me therefore, individual survival after death is anathema. I hope rather to dissolve back into the source of all being, from which new life comes. That is resurrection. Second only in importance to a good life, I will willingly embrace therefore what I hope will be a good death...

@jamaicanification

6 жыл бұрын

That a bit of a massive caricature. Many Christian theologians and Churche address issues of poverty, climate change and social justice. The current Pope has done it with his encyclical Laudato Si. The whole tradition of Liberation theology addresses those issues. Within the Anglican communion those things regularly come up in the Lambeth Conferences and Bishop Wright has been involved in social justice. I think that you might find that in many cases it's the opposite. Modern, secular, Western culture and society is obsessed with questions of sex and tends to look at the Church strictly through that lense. So the critique of the Church being obsessed with sex and gender, while valid in many cases to the extent that there are legitimate challenges that should be made against gender equality and the marginalization of sexual minorities, is often times I feel a projection by secular western culture in terms of the issues it zeros in on.

@bobpolo2964

6 жыл бұрын

The question was, "How does the world address the overarching problem of death, apart from God's Word?"

@uremove

6 жыл бұрын

JANHOI MCCALLUM Big centenary celebrations in the U.K. as 100 years ago, 1918, women got the right to vote, and 1919, the first women were elected to Parliament as MPs. So... remind me... when were woman first allowed to be Anglican Bishops!? 70 years later in 1989... or nearer 97 in 2015! (Let’s not even mention the Catholic Church here!). Likewise with LGBT issues... (which I know Tom Wright has expressed views on), the Church seems back in the 1950s and getting its knickers in a twist about something that secular society has long since resolved eg. www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/07/rowan%E2%80%99s-reflections-unpacking-the-archbishop%E2%80%99s-statement/ In the above paper, Bishop Wright defends this refusal to change, by claiming it is “morality”, not “prejudice”. Yet it’s not that the church won’t eventually come around, as they reluctantly have with women bishops. It just seems to take them much, much longer. Already, some within the church are rebelling as vicars in gay partnerships, and in the end, with glacial speed, we all know, that will be accepted too. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4548648.stm So, don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-religion, just the opposite... but all the major churches do seem to be dragging their heels, NOT leading, in challenging ingrained prejudice and bigotry. More often, they plead to be excepted! Maybe they do take an active role in issues like climate change, but if so, it takes second place to the huge red herrings above, with their accompanying schisms and internal debates. So a “bit of a caricature”, possibly... a “massive caricature”, sadly NOT!

Q ) What happens when philosophers who believe in the Bible try to construct a “philosophy of the Bible”? A ) They lose whatever credibility they had prior to this video.

@davidhawley1132

6 жыл бұрын

jorgedefoe1 Sure, religious cooties. But I would have liked to have heard what he meant by ‘philosophy of the bible’.

@1974jrod

6 жыл бұрын

What do you mean when you say Philosophy? Do you have your own definition or are you using the classical definition?

@blesspascal6016

6 жыл бұрын

@David Hawley. Check out his book The New Testament and the People of God, first 100 pages for that. He is very accurate about calling the philosophy of the bible a story instead of belief system, from a christian standpoint. Story is open to persons and Person, intentions, aims, etc. And all reality is made in relationship according to the bible (the Father made the world through the Son). So truth then is not so much objective or subjective, but relational. Or, you might say: The most objective truth is God himself als a Person in relationship, all else is shaped by Him and looks like him. Epistemology then becomes a real conversation with reality. This challenges the whole of Eastern and Western philosophy.

@mensetens6391

6 жыл бұрын

jorgedefoe _They lose whatever credibility they had prior to this video._ Why on earth would they do that?

@TheGuiltsOfUs

2 жыл бұрын

lmao

NT Wright, denies the inerrancy of the scriptures? Lol. Why is he a priest then? Jesus constantly referred to the scripture. Peter tells the reader that there is a more sure word, called prophecy in the scriptures. If the words of the Lord in the OT scriptures are false, then Jesus is false, and you might as well throw the entire book away. Jesus refers to the words of the Lord in OT because Jesus is the WORD of the Lord who gave the words to the prophets in the first place.

Pure theological nonsense. Nothing more and nothing less.

Finding relevant philosophy is the Bible is like trying to find deep artistic meaning in Pulp Fiction, only less satisfying.

What a load of nonsense!

@luisurgelles2631

5 жыл бұрын

you mean what you just said? a self referential claim to your own pedantic ignorance?

There does not exist some great, all-encompassing, unified philosophical message in the bible. When texts in the bible make a claim that counters our understanding of the world it should be scrutinized and people would have questioned the veracity of the bible long before the late 1700's but unfortunately his people (the church) murdered anyone who spoke out against them because they viewed rationality and science as a competing dogma. The method of determining the truth and truth itself are timeless, and rationality wasn't different then than it is now, it's always been the same. Our ability to practice science is the only thing that has changed and he seems very much opposed to it because it compels believers of the bible to continuously change their interpretation to the point that it becomes meaningless to any thinking person.

@1974jrod

6 жыл бұрын

Well, yes there is an all encompassing message in the bible. God created, God saved what he created.

A desperate theologian trying to reconcile rational thought with a mythical book

The bible is primitive storytelling, hardly worth wasting any time over!

@_a.z

6 жыл бұрын

Peasant Scrublord I don't think a great deal of knowledge is ever going to be gleaned from the bible, but the insight into history certainly makes the bible an incredible book. The problem I have is that it is not presented in that way, instead it is rammed down children's throats with the message that if you don't believe the superstitious nonsense you will suffer in eternity. One day the world will look back and laugh at the folly, as we have with every other defunct idea!

@_a.z

6 жыл бұрын

Peasant Scrublord Please give an example of biblical knowledge, other than pi = 3.000 ? My points were connected in the following way: It's crap, therefore don't teach it!

@ErraticFaith

5 жыл бұрын

If you shut yourself off to what is before you, then of course it is a waste of time. Any endeavour is. The Bible is hardly primitive. But it does require great discernment. Which is beyond you and your need to convince yourself of it. You will either come to see, or you will not. That’s the entire point.