Starting at 49:47 “[Good history requires] penitence to acknowledge that our traditions may have introduced attractive distortions and we, like Peter, have tried to save Jesus from his vocation.” Amen!
Listening to this a tune popped up in my head, and I had to think a moment to recognize what it was: Michael Smith's "Secret Ambition" -- "Nobody knew His secret ambition was to give His life away". Meanwhile it made me miss grad school with professors carefully and rationally making their case.
The questions were helpful this time. 1. What about motives? @53:43 2. Who else takes a similar approach? Where did Tom Wright learn this approach? @57:30 3. For scientists, hypotheses are only useful when there's a 'killer experiement at the end of it'. Are historians held to a standard as high? @59:14
He wants to reclaim the status of natural theology by basing it on historical criticism of the Bible and the first century of the church. This is good and necessary criteria but why would it be the only criteria? The Church is a living body and it’s the basis for all theology whatever the century.
Ptah Adam surely the one story of the Holy Bible, the one faith, is not up for grabs depending what influence on doctrine has conspired upon it. The Reformation succeeded 1500 years later than the false teachers warned of in the Holy Bible. Tom is picking up where the first century apostles lived, the resistance to accept the Messiah has attacked Christianity, so has the Papal role which is a multi faith religion of control, and gnosticism present in the first century and increasing now in my opinion. I like Tom's approach which I have had for the six years of study of my KJV, throw away the preconceptions, and deeply research scripture backwards to its source not forwards through man's interpretation. There is a tradition that Christ will return, yet he said he would in their lifetime but invisibly, we are to live by faith which is to trust he did in AD70. The tradition quickly arose when materialists saw no evidence. I am a Praeterist because I have faith, yet no mainstream Christianity has invented alternatives, make your choice if you wish or believe Jesus. This is why I like Tom.
I hear him saying he wants to place history of the 1st C. And 2nd Temple Judaism as part of ‘Nature’ and thus part of Natural Theology’s tasks. He wants to force us to face that cultural conditioning (epicurean bias) has distorted theology since 18th C. And thus Natural Theology has been playing defense and taking up the challenge with rules set against it by the enlightenment biases
@@Markph7 I can't agree more. As long as the rules are being set by enlightenment and the post-modernists, we cannot arrive at the truth. I have been a Christian and preacher for many years but when I start reading the bible without imposing a pre-conceived interpretation, the scriptures comes alive. I love NT Wright's work, very profound.
I’ll remember that one, excellent. Meaning can also be about magnitude (“very meaningful” vs not much meaning). Because the narrative it is in plays a role in a meta narrative. There is a “Giver of meaning” at the end.
Starting at 49:47
“[Good history requires] penitence to acknowledge that our traditions may have introduced attractive distortions and we, like Peter, have tried to save Jesus from his vocation.”
Amen!
Listening to this a tune popped up in my head, and I had to think a moment to recognize what it was: Michael Smith's "Secret Ambition" -- "Nobody knew His secret ambition was to give His life away".
Meanwhile it made me miss grad school with professors carefully and rationally making their case.
The questions were helpful this time.
1. What about motives? @53:43
2. Who else takes a similar approach? Where did Tom Wright learn this approach? @57:30
3. For scientists, hypotheses are only useful when there's a 'killer experiement at the end of it'. Are historians held to a standard as high? @59:14
Wonderful!
7:39 - the 4 definitions or meanings of history
He wants to reclaim the status of natural theology by basing it on historical criticism of the Bible and the first century of the church. This is good and necessary criteria but why would it be the only criteria? The Church is a living body and it’s the basis for all theology whatever the century.
Ptah Adam surely the one story of the Holy Bible, the one faith, is not up for grabs depending what influence on doctrine has conspired upon it. The Reformation succeeded 1500 years later than the false teachers warned of in the Holy Bible. Tom is picking up where the first century apostles lived, the resistance to accept the Messiah has attacked Christianity, so has the Papal role which is a multi faith religion of control, and gnosticism present in the first century and increasing now in my opinion.
I like Tom's approach which I have had for the six years of study of my KJV, throw away the preconceptions, and deeply research scripture backwards to its source not forwards through man's interpretation.
There is a tradition that Christ will return, yet he said he would in their lifetime but invisibly, we are to live by faith which is to trust he did in AD70.
The tradition quickly arose when materialists saw no evidence. I am a Praeterist because I have faith, yet no mainstream Christianity has invented alternatives, make your choice if you wish or believe Jesus. This is why I like Tom.
I hear him saying he wants to place history of the 1st C. And 2nd Temple Judaism as part of ‘Nature’ and thus part of Natural Theology’s tasks.
He wants to force us to face that cultural conditioning (epicurean bias) has distorted theology since 18th C. And thus Natural Theology has been playing defense and taking up the challenge with rules set against it by the enlightenment biases
@@Markph7 I can't agree more. As long as the rules are being set by enlightenment and the post-modernists, we cannot arrive at the truth. I have been a Christian and preacher for many years but when I start reading the bible without imposing a pre-conceived interpretation, the scriptures comes alive. I love NT Wright's work, very profound.
Thank you for articulating what I realized from Prof Wright
13:15 - the meaning of an event
I’ll remember that one, excellent. Meaning can also be about magnitude (“very meaningful” vs not much meaning). Because the narrative it is in plays a role in a meta narrative. There is a “Giver of meaning” at the end.
20:52 - first section summary.
7:09 - what do we mean by history?
32:08 - Theology
4:40 - Re Telos, Myth and Strauss
43:26 - what is history good for
6:28 - history, he will suggest...
42:58 - Illustration
3:47
42:00
46:43 text
17:10 - NPP
39:18 - guilty of eisegesis
43:41
43:49