Love the way NT Wright comments on the disagreement with the tone of a gentleman and true Christ follower. In essentials, Unity, In non essentials, Liberty, in all things, Charity
Bob Dole to make that claim is to first assume that you know every single Christ follower on the planet and not to be rude, but that is impossible let alone remotely true. I get that you’re skeptical of the above statement, but refuting with an impossible answer does nothing to help your case against the claim. Just FYI.
Wright holds to a nuanced view of partial preterism. Such a view is not even remotely heretical, but it is "strange" and "peculiar" to the ears of many modern evangelicals, especially those who have been so heavily influenced by dispensationalism...
That's because ones you start to understand Old Testament in it's own context. It perfectly carries into the New Testament. And completely destroys dispensationalism, even denominations.
I was a hyper-dispensationalist for very many years and when I learned the partial-Preterist view it was an amazing eye opening event in my life. I’m no longer a dispensationalist and now I hold a view (Partial-Preterism) that I believe exalts the Lord Jesus much more than the Dispensational view couldn’t even hint at. Praise the Lord!
Part of that problem is we’ve been, perhaps unintentionally, neglected to teach congregants biblical hermeneutics for which this is most fundamental. Our preachers and teachers are often guilty of bringing more background into our sermons, in the sense that most people want sensational explanations and answers to thinks in a fast and dirty manner. It’s rather tragic, because it squarely forces churches from this name it, claim mentality. There’s an old saying, “The Bible can never mean what it never meant.” We’re 2000+ years separated from all this and often forget that we don’t live in that time or culture. We have to look back and learn about it and then come to the text with the original audiences eyes and ears, namely ears as this was an oral culture and there wasn’t a compendium of the biblical literature then as we have it now.
** What sin led to God's wrath? Adam/Eve & all humans were created without moral law. So they didn't have the forbidden knowledge of good and evil. But when they & all humans disobeyed God's command in Gen2:17 & chose the forbidden moral law, God's wrath came upon them. Jesus redeemed us from the forbidden knowledge of good and evil (moral law) as per Rom7:4,6 ('But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held'). Have you accepted the deliverance? If not you are not saved from God's wrath (Rom4:15: 'the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression'). Be saved from God's wrath.
I added portuguese subtitles to this video. I sent it to a lot of friends of mine to be verified and approved. But I guess it still needs the channel's approval
%; What sin led to God's wrath? Adam/Eve & all humans were created without moral law. So they didn't have the forbidden knowledge of good and evil. But when they & all humans disobeyed God's command in Gen2:17 & chose the forbidden moral law, God's wrath came upon them. Jesus redeemed us from the forbidden knowledge of good and evil (moral law) as per Rom7:4,6 ('But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held'). Have you accepted the deliverance? If not you are not saved from God's wrath (Rom4:15: 'the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression'). Be saved from God's wrath.
It occurs to me while listening to this explanation of the temple clash and the vindication of Jesus, the Son of Man, that he began the very public part of His ministry with the dialogue with the woman at the well, answering her question about this very temple issue. Where is God and where do we go to worship Him? Jesus’ answer, “Woman, believe me, the hour will come when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father...But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to be His worshipers. God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” Jesus brought a new Way, and that Way was a death match with the old temple way, and Jesus’ Way, beginning with His resurrection, and then ascension about 40 days later, was fully vindicated about 40 years later with the complete and utter destruction of the temple, i.e., the old order. I will pray and search the scriptures about this more. I love how this Jesus movement was referred to several times in the book of Acts as “the Way”.
Jesus said "I am the Way." He built His Church to embody "the Way". The earliest followers of Jesus were called "the Way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; 22:4; 24:14,22).
I loved his "long" answer and would love to sit and hear the even longer answer. The interwoven threads of the bible fascinate me. No commentator/scholar gets it all right and they often have slightly different views but the good ones are striving toward the same goal. The goal that Paul told the Ephesians, "...to comprehend the length and width and height and depth of the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge..."
Could be the best way to see the escatological passages. Amazing insight from NT Wright. All his books are amazing, especially once you get through the first 100 pages! I could see this as a way to avoid the extremes of dispensationalism and full preterist.
@Sue Blue No I don't he is being being arrogant. He doesn't strike me as being like that at all. He has a right to his interpretation and I think He has an incredible amount of breadth of knowledge on the Scriptures. I have read many of his books including the big thick ones. He has a great clarity of thought of early Christian history and the relevance to the culture of that time. To call him a heretic is astounding to me . He believes in the resurrection and Jesus as Lord. He has a very humble attitude and great depth of the first century beliefs that his bibliographies could be longer that many books. Your condemnation of him may put you under this verse "Mt 5:21 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." There are at least six methods or views of interpreting Revelations. There are at least about 15 ways of interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis. Yes I have read my bible - on and off for about 40 years or so. I have read other books and commentaries on this topic as well. There are many ways of looking at things but condemning this man as a heretic doesn't seem like the Spirit of Christ at all to me. Try looking up convenant theology. Even if you disagree with it - you may be surprised at the many insights it has to offer. :}
Or look at the classic Reformation theology of eschatology. The historical flow of prophecy. And understand the cyclical thinking of the Hebrew writer.
Sue Blue, perhaps you are a dispensationalist or a futurist when it comes to eschatology. the dispensationalists are the new kids on the block. Many of the church fathers are partial preterists. You should not engage in ad hominem. Rather give your rebuttal on the items that you don't agree with NT Wright.
Really helpful, I love listening to NT Wright. Could I suggest a quick summary at the start, followed by a ‘here’s why’ might help anyone who doesn’t follow all of the in depth explanation. Love it though!
I think he has got it so right abut the “temple”, 2nd coming, Jesus’ work, and new creation with man having dominion over the earth. (No playing harps in heaven:) It all fits together from Adam and Eve in Genesis, Israel, Jesus birth, life, death, resurrection then on to Revelation. Now the WHOLE Bible comes together and it all fits and makes so much sense. It clicks!!!! The truth is here.
Short coverage but I think NT Wright unleashed a profound insight on the theology of the "Temple"; how Jesus treat it vis-a-vis the OT Jews proponents (and Christ haters). He peg the issue clearly in unpacking the meaning of Coming on clouds of Daniel 7:13.
I love how NT Wright's awesome Biblical insights using the Bible and First Century historical documents confound 21st century American Protestants who are only used to their myopic reading of the New Testament, or even, rather, traditions that have been handed to them by their preachers.
@@alpinewonders What sin led to God's wrath? Adam/Eve & all humans were created without moral law. So they didn't have the forbidden knowledge of good and evil. But when they & all humans disobeyed God's command in Gen2:17 & chose the forbidden moral law, God's wrath came upon them. Jesus redeemed us from the forbidden knowledge of good and evil (moral law) as per Rom7:4,6 ('But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held'). Have you accepted the deliverance? If not you are not saved from God's wrath (Rom4:15: 'the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression'). Be saved from God's wrath.
@@savedchristian4754 Rom 7,6 equates the law with the written code. There was no written law for Adam to choose when he sinned. But I`ll think further about what you wrote. Thank you for posting
@@alpinewonders Fine. All forms of law show the difference between good & evil. Right from Adam God creates all humans from birth without the forbidden knowledge of good and evil.
@alpinewonders Of course there was a law for Adam to break. The command to not eat the fruit, a law which Adam passed on to Eve. And once they ate of the fruit, they gained the knowledge of good and evil, which is the law written on their hearts (inherently knowing the commands of God). This is what all men inherited from Adam which gives us the ability to willingly violate the laws of God (sin) whether we've ever read the 10 Commandments or not. This is what Paul clearly lays out in Romans chapters 1-5.
I thought this was a much better answer than the video on Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Persuasive parsing out of the apocalyptic passages in the gospels.
All of Church history understood the incredible significance of 70AD and the many scriptures that speak of it. And many in the Church still do. But, those in or influenced by American Evangelicalism, due to a teaching that began some 200 years ago (Dispensationalism), no longer understand this all important truth.
You are so correct!!!! The 70 a.d. story has been buried, smeared, ignored and flat out denied by those who prefer an easier route, a path of least resistance .!!!! Without the 70 a.d. info. the Olivet Discourse would make no sense. Matt. 23 would have no conclusion. And an explanation for the demise of the old covenant would be totally absent without the Olivet Discourse.!!!!!!! And Jesus condemnation of the bankrupt sacrificial system would have little merit if 70 a d. we're confused with "our time". And there are people out there that believe we are the Matt.24 generation. Absolutely not!!!!!!
He's on point, the old priestly order & temple sin sacrifice are done & gone, we now have a great High Priest in Christ, His once for all time propitiation for the sin of the world is sufficient & perfect. The New Covenant bought by the blood of Christ Jesus. He came in judgement to Jerusalem for unbelief & vindication & will come again to put all things to right
I wander if you could ask NT Wright what his opinion is of the scholar Michael Heizer and his book the unseen realm I’ve read it I even checked with the language specialists That I know and they say Dr. Heizners correct with the languages I find this book fascinating it also makes more sense of a whole lot of things when looking through the eyes of first century Jewish believers what do you think Mr. NT right
Something that I have noticed about W. L. Craig - whom I respect immensely and who has greatly influenced me - is that he doesn't seem to understand or grant that the Olivet Discourse can be read as NOT being about the second coming of Jesus, as N. T. Wright says here. He also doesn't seem to explore the idea that perhaps some of the Olivet Discourse is about A.D. 70 and some of it is about the return of Jesus. For Craig, it is all and only about the return of Jesus, and so anyone who says that it is about A.D. 70 therefore is a full preterist who believes only in an invisible "coming" of Jesus at the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. But as Wright says, it can be read as being about A.D. 70 and NOT about the second coming, which is based on other texts in the NT.
Wow. Really insightful perspective that prophecy to the "Son of Man coming on the clouds" pointed to the 1st Coming and the ramifications to the world. That certainly makes more sense from Daniel's perspective in the timeline and Jesus' reuse of the imagery at the time. Really enjoy NT Wright's insights and approach to biblical exploration.
Given that, my response might be that Scripture is clear that Gods ways and thoughts are not ours. If Christians are to claim that the Bible is our authority and basis for knowing God, then we must first align ourselves with the mind and thoughts of God and allow the indwelling of the Spirit to work in and through us in perfect submission. The sum of Wright’s work being that the Good News is better than that, with “that” being, we’re not meant to be hanging around all day for a Star Trek beam out.
Simple question...when NT says "This is all fine...it is how we learn from each other" I ask, "Does God then give people this flexibility?" These men are teaching the masses about God, Heaven, Hell, etc... They better be walking in the fear of God because they are extremely accountable before God. Yes? We live in the Internet age...99.9% of the population lived in villages and had maybe ONE church to attend and took on that pastor's views. Where is God's grace in this? People trust in a pastor who got it wrong? In a church, a pastor, especially when most people were illiterate trusted in that man to teach them truth. He had tremendous influence. If you respond by, "We are all accountable to search the scriptures" think about how these men who spend their entire lives, the brightest, can't even agree on the same scriptures!
Yes, Mr. Wright could you please explain; Was there ever a point when you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and how did that effect your life? Please take all the time you need to respond.
Another key verse foreshadowing the inadequacy of a physical temple vs the higher reality of a "Spiritual Temple of the Body of Christ': 'Heaven is my throne & Earth is my footstool, what kind of house will you build for Me, says the LORD ?" - Acts 7:49
The prophecy of Daniel has a dual application. The literal destruction of the Temple in AD 70 has the same characteristics as the second advent. The apostles understood this. Matthew 23, 24, 25; Mark 13; Luke 21 and John wrote the book of revelation to explain this. What form has the Abomination of Desolation taken in the last days? The disciples asked Jesus two questions and he answered both together: Matthew 24:3 And as he sat on the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
It's NOT the end of the "world". That's a mistranslation from the KJV. It's the end of the AGE, the Old Covenant age of Israel. All things written in the Old Covenant law and prophets were FULFILLED in 70 AD when apostate Old Covenant Jerusalem was destroyed, and the birth of the New Covenant age of the church began. EVERY apocalyptic verse in the New Testament revolves around 70 AD. Look at the first verse of Revelation which speaks of things that will SHORTLY come to pass.
70 AD no not everything was fulfilled. What happen to Jesus ruling with a “rod of Iron” that means by force all are subject to His authority. What happened to no more death? Who was the antichrist? What was the mark of the beast? There is more to point out, but lets start here.
@@livepoetic390 What's all this about, "by force all are subject to His authority"? Who do you think we are....Muslims?😁 Jesus told His Apostles, "shake the dust from your feet if they don't listen", Matthew 10, 14. The "mark of the beast" was probably 1st century Caesar worship. The Christians had to swear their allegiance to the Caesars who thought they were gods, otherwise buying and selling was impossible. Whether you can apply this "mark" to the 21st century, in a spiritual sense only, is another matter. There's all kinds of evil things today which anyone can interpret as being the "mark of the beast". That's all up for debate.
@AnarchoRepublican Mystery Babylon was apostate Old Covenant JERUSALEM. Having the "beast", which was Rome (Caesar Nero) riding the "whore of Babylon", which you also think is Rome wouldn't make sense. Jerusalem colluded with the Romans when persecuting the Saints. Also, the concept of harlotry (whore/Mystery Babylon) comes from having a covenantal relationship with God and breaking that covenant (by violating Torah). This could only be Jerusalem, which fell into a state of apostacy before it was destroyed in 70 AD.
Could someone please explain what Wright said about "the ad 72 destruction of Jerusalem and the temple". Why does he say that the church is constituted on a belief that is "dangerous and scary", is he saying that the EARTH is where heaven and earth are coming together now? He kind of got cut off at the end, so I just want to understand...
Ah, well, he said that the Temple was a symbol of the reality of Heaven and that when it becomes mistaken as the reality itself, then you have idolatry. So he then in an offhanded way says that the same has happened with the church, an implication of the building we call a church being mistaken as the reality of the place where God dwells.
David, Whright has a head filled with philosophical claptrap rather than real Bible learning. His final statement about it being dangerous to believe heaven and Earth come together in these End Times is Satanic nonsense as of course when Jesus returns in a few years time it will be to set up the kingdom of heaven on Earth. In that kingdom raptured Christians and a few Jews and the first resuurectees will live a wonderful life just as Adam and Eve enjoyed in Eden. You will not find any preacher or 'expert' telling this truth but I do.
@@rosewhite--- I don't know where you get your theology but the one with Philosophical craziness is you. *The rapture is based on the Greek Philosophy of the Soul.* And it's completely foreign to the Bible. You need to start doing *Biblical Word Studies* specifically Hebrew words. Even when the Jewish elders translated the Old Testament into Greek in 200BC. They didn't carry on the Greek Philosophical ideas of Soul into the translation. It's a complete modern ideology mixed with Greek Philosophy forced into Biblical Interpretation. *NT Wright knows this fact, and stays away from it.*
That was a "politically correct" answer in order not to antagonise the belief based on church creeds. If you accept the 70CE destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as a biblically significant eschatological event, then Daniel 12 would confirm that it was the second coming of Jesus (Parousia). Daniel 12 was the time of the end of the age when the power of the holy people was completely shattered (70CE) and the resurrection of the dead for judgement occurred. Resurrection and judgement occurred only at the Parousia of Jesus when Jesus the high priest came out from the heavenly holy of holies to complete the atonement for the people of God, their redemption and salvation to inherit the Kingdom of God (Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, Hebrews 12:22-28). In another words, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70CE signified the second coming of Jesus.
How about when he sends his angels to gather his elect? Could angles mean (messengers) as in the gospel being preached and people believing in the kingdom?
Reading through these comments is comical. This person rejects this whackadoodlism and accepts that whackadoodlism, while that person accepts this whackadoodlism and rejects that whackadoodlism. Did it ever occur to any of you people to try to live your lives in demonstrable reality?
I don't understand the very last statement. Can someone elaborate? He says "the church is constituted on this belief, which is dangerous and scary" What belief is he reffering to?
So for you to understand this. You track a few things. *#1 Eden as Temple, #2 Sacred Space, #3 Isaiah Burning Coal, #4 Ezekiel River of Life, #5 Matthew 24 and Revelations 22.* These is more to it. But I believe this give you a solid understanding into Temple talk. 1 and 2 you will probably going to have a lot of material to read. But it's really important to understand that. NT really dives deep into OT meaning of Temples.
There’s not anyway possible that Matthew 24 is talking about the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Was the abomination of desolation standing in the temple in AD 70? Was the the destruction of the temple in AD 70 the greatest tribulation the world will ever see? The answer to both of those questions is no.
Jesus ascending to the right hand of the Father is not to rule now, but await His time to rule. Psalm 110 could not be more clear about this, "The Lord said to my Lord, "come sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool."
Rev 1,5 ...the ruler of the kings of the earth... Mt 28.18 ...all authority has been given to me in heaven and earth... Sounds like a done deal to me. If He is not ruling now, why do we call Him Lord? Hhhhmmm? :)
I agree with NT Wright, if I understand him correctly. What Daniel sees is not the Son of Man descending to the earth but ascending to be before God (Dan. 7:13,14) . Daniels saw the Son of Man coming on the clouds in His ASCENSION after His resurrection. It corresponds to Revelation chapter 5 about the Lion/Lamb appearing in heaven and adored to receive great authority. I thank the Lord for the labors of both scholars, Craig and Wright.
I was thinking that God's vindication of Jesus is in raising him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand. I therefore find it difficult to attach great significance to the destruction of the temple.
Here is the William Lane Craig video - ruclips.net/video/NjkjjSp27TY/видео.html I watched it and it left me scratching my head...so I went looking for clarification and found THIS! Thank you!
When Daniel prophesied that the Son of Man will be placed on the right side of God, did he not mean that the Son of Man, or us humans need to realize the Holy Spirit present within us, and from that realization become one with the Supreme Consciousness? Jesus also stated that the kingdom of heaven is within us? So, was he also asking us to uplift our spiritual consciousness, to reach out within ourselves and find, or recognize Him within us?
No, that's east religion philosophy. The understand the residency of Holy Spirit in us. You have to understand the *Biblical idea of Sacred Space.* The whole Bible explains Human are horrible at making decisions on their own. Every object of desire has destroyed humans, even knowledge. You could understand further more in the *Biblical reasoning of God's Justice.* It's part the foundation of all things. And it's impossible for humanity to comprehend.
Can one of you more intelligent theologians tell me what Tom Wrights particular beliefs are about the second coming? I am guessing he leans more Amill......can anyone confirm? Thanks...
No John the Baptist's mission was to spread the news that the Messiah has come. And prep the Israelites for exiting exile into Kingdom of God. Baptism is symbol of Noah's flood story and Crossing of the Red Sea. John stands greater then Noah and Moses. (Which also ties into Ezekiel River of Life vision.)
Preterism has a strong position. I have heard, understand, and agree with his "appearing" passages. But I would like him to be clear on the "second coming" as well. Does he think it is based on the gospel to "pante al ethna?"
I think Acts 1 holds a clue: “Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking up into the sky? This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven." He will come back, “in the same way” - which connotes a rising, not so much a descending.
Scripture itself tells us that Christ is seated at the right hand of God BEFORE the destruction of the 2nd temple. NT Wright is reading later historical perspective into the writing of the Apostles before it existed.
Listen again, but more closely and generously. He did not say that. He said that at the end of the Gospels He claimed to already be seated there. Wright also said that the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 was "VINDICATION" of Jesus as a final sign of His authority that was already in heaven. Please, let's all use more generosity with our ears with each other and less venom in our tongues. Thank you Lester for at least not having venom in your words.
@@TheRootedWord Blessings, it is unfortunate that a critique of a teaching and view is sometimes seen as a personal attack. And yes, I fully agree that ad-hominem attacks are unjustified. Internal evidence as well as early Church tradition holds that The Gospels (apart from the Book of John) are written before the fall of the temple in AD 70. The writers of Scripture do not have the "vindication" view in mind when it comes to the 70 AD event. The Apostle's and the Church's view at the writing of the Gospel was that the "vindication" is the RESURRECTION of Christ from death. I found Wright's interpretation troubling mainly because it is anachronistic, he's reading into the text later events that the writers themselves do not know of, nor make a reference of.
@@lesterchua2677 I wholeheartedly agree. I studied under J.I. Packer as my mentor and he had similar serious issues with Wright, though he respected the man. I find that some theologians enjoy inventing new twists and combinations over dinner then searching for scraps of justification in Scripture. It seems to be the case here as well.
@@lesterchua2677 Even the Book of Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. We have both Internal evidence (from the Book of Revelation) and external evidence Whereas those who say it was written after the fall has only one dubious external evidence written by Iraneus and no internal evidence from the Book of Revelation itself.
I watched William Lane Craig’s assumption about NT Wright before coming here. Disappointing. Scholars, please, be more careful in making accusations when you don’t have enough information. I knew Craig was way off base 30 seconds into his video. It was clear he hasn’t taken the time to study Wright’s view on the subject. So why comment so confidently?
@@TheRootedWord Let's face facts and be honest graciously. The Second Coming did NOT happen as it's written within a generation and the time has long gone when it would happen. The apostles were sadly mistaken including Paul as you can read in 1Thess, 4:15 and 5:2.
@@richardjohnson909 The word "generation" is γενεὰ in the Greek and means "this which has been brought to be". It has been translated generation, race, or offspring. Yet, it literally means "this which has been brought to be". So then, these passages become a bit more ambiguous than our faulty English translators have led us to believe. For example, Matthew 24:34 when translated becomes: "Truly I am laying forth to you, that this which has come to be may certainly not come alongside, until whensoever all these things may come to be." Now, in light of an accurate and true translation of the Greek, without regard to defending some doctrine men have invented and have invested in, we can discuss what this means. If not, then not.
@@TheRootedWord As I read your post I couldn’t help but feel you are trying to “pull a Pilate” and wash your hands of the facts. So, let’s examine the Greek word for "generation." Strong's Number G1074 matches the Greek γενεά (genea), which occurs 42 times in 37 verses and translates it in the following manner: generation (37x), time (2x), age (2x), nation (1x). But you can check other sources such as Vine’s Expository Dictionary, Thayers’s Greek Lexicon, Young’s Analytical Concordance and Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible and you can verify for yourself. They are in Biblical parlance “of one accord.” Strong’s advocates that a generation is a period of 30-33 years. I acknowledge this but I will hold fast to the understanding that in the Bible a generation is 40 years. C. H. Dodd among the greatest of twentieth-century New Testament scholars popularized the idea of realized eschatology. Clearly, the statement, “Truly, I say to you, THIS GENERATION will not pass away till all these things take place” did not happen (Matthew 24:34). “This” is in the present tense and not “that” the demonstrative adjective and refers to the time in which Jesus lived. The end of the age and return of Jesus was a major belief of the early Christians. As I pointed out in my previous post, the apostle Paul taught it and the Galatians Christians believed that Jesus would come “like a thief in the night” (1 Thess.4:15, 5:2 and 2 Thess. 1:7). It was imminent. But they were all wrong. The literal second coming of Christ did not happen, but when John wrote later, he sees the coming of the Holy Spirit as the second coming of Christ.
@@richardjohnson909 Sorry to say the English translators are all incorrect. They tried to find what made most sense to them within their theological frameworks, rather than taking the word at its face meaning. I am in fact a professional Linguist and Translator of the Scriptures. What I have uncovered is a gross mismanagement of translation of the Greek terms without regard to their actual meanings and this also runs across the Greek grammar as well. I have already given you the break down of the word, which you can verify in any good Greek dictionary simply by looking ONLY at the literal meaning of the word and its roots. Ignore the additional terms that imply some additional overlay of meaning, such as metaphors or "by extension". That is another way for saying that they want to interpret the word to fit their own theological framework. Let the words be what they are. It is not generation as in 30-33 years. The word itself is not that limited and the textual contexts do not require that specific limitation. In fact, the texts make more sense with what I laid out for you in my last comment. If you cannot accept that, then we have no basis on which to have this discussion. I will not have a discussion with interpretations that are made to fit a modern theological framework, only of the text, the literal meanings of the words, and the roots of those words. Thank you, though, for doing some extra work, though the sources and methods used were the same deception we have put up with in the English translations for centuries.
This is wonderful it also deals withe the objections atheist scholars have twords Christianity. They rey tocsay the prophesy was wrong amd he never came back. This expalians those texts beautifully to scholars
“And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.” Mark 13:26-27 ESV You see that’s clearly about the destruction of the temple and not remotely about the second coming…
What a lot of waffle. How is Dani 7 important to Jesus (and I am not saying it is not important) when He never referred to it:but Jesus did make a specific reference to Daniel 9, 11&12 in Matthew and Mark. Amazing THAT this escapes N. T who is supposedly bringing truth out from Scripture. I think he is N(ot) T(otally) Wright, most of the time.
Seems to me that if the destiny of human beings following death (eternity with God in heaven or some other unpleasant destiny) depends on what we do and/or believe while on earth, God would articulate the rules of the game in such a way that everybody understands them upon first telling. The fact that hundreds of biblical scholars and theologians differ at a fundamental level 2000 years after the critical "revelation" leads me to conclude that an actual god is not at the root of Christianity at all.
It's difficult to truly convey the meaning of an ancient language. I would encourage you to read passages such as Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Colossians 1:19-20. There is no eternal separation of any sort in the light of such passages. Of course, most people will tell you to view such passages in the light of passages such as Matthew 25:31-46 which suggest eternal separation (at least in most translations,) but you can just as easily tell those people to read the passages which seem to speak of eternal separation in the light of the passages which suggest otherwise.
Very weird to observe a foolish old man wasting his apparently good organic intelligence parsing out the ancient superstitious lore of a religious cult. He's playing a sort of Dungeons and Dragons game, with the unfortunate stipulation that he actually believes the arcane BS he's fooling with. It's an excellent example of the insight that functional stupidity is not correlated with a lack of organic intellectual capacity, but is simply the acquisition of false, unwarranted beliefs, which occurs for an enormously complex array of reasons. When the body of false beliefs is large enough, complex enough, and central enough to one's life, one's good mental capacities may be used primarily to service, elaborate, and rationalize those beliefs, precluding the achievement of socially useful work. This is certainly the case with WLCraig also, who has gone to the length of acquiring as good an understanding of modern physics as one could ever expect of a scientific lay person. Unfortunately, having found that his scientific knowledge does not actually support his belief system, Craig has proceeded to selectively adopt an array of positions, relative to physics, that are not accepted by people in the field. For example, he rejects relativistic spacetime (which Craig calls block time) for a model of traditional "sequential" time (I forget what he calls it) in which only the present moment enjoys the status of being real and in which each present moment in time would be shared in determinate simultaneity across the universe. Also, he interprets the Bord-Guth-Valenkin Theorem to mean that the universe had a beginning, prior to which there was an era of timeless nothingness, which of course is rejected by the authors of the theorem. Craig has no scientific theoretical rationale to support these positions, nor the intellectual resources to create one, but they are adopted because they are necessary to support his prior belief in God. He has acquired such knowledge of physics and mathematics as he has in order to service this prior belief, not to test it. One wishes to ask Craig for the mathematical elaboration of a necessary theory to replace General Relativity, so that the Nobel Committee can render him his due and we can place his bust on the shelf with Einstein and Newton. When I look at someone like Craig, I have to ponder what "belief" actually means. Craig would seem to be too intelligent not to recognize the intellectual dishonesty of his positions on physics topics. One gets the impression that Craig has followed physics out to such rarified regions in order to dazzle ordinary people with his scientific sophistication, while knowing that his arguments break down in a realm too remote for those people to understand.
David Bentley Hart should not be taken seriously when being used to discredit people. He has said plenty about NT wright himself. If you disagree with him, you might as well be an idiot.
@@Jordan-hz1wr no stroke, my point is he lambasts people who disagree with him as being idiots and is extremely hyperbolic about people's shortcomings, including WLC's.
@@hudsonensz2858 Ah, I'm with you. Yes, I agree. He's not so tactful. But I do think DBH is as true a philosopher as one can find. WLC is a great guy, but he is deeply rooted in the legal orientation of western theology. He's essentially a modern day pharisee in the patristic sense.I'm sure WLC has the best of intentions, but he's begun his theological reasoning on an entirely false view of the nature of who God is.
@@Jordan-hz1wr I like WLC when he is in his element arguing apologetics As a well rounded philosopher, I don't know, haven't heard much from him other than his bread and butter. Hart is definitely a different philosopher and has his own flaws. More of a classical tour de force though.
I was raised to believe in the modern Left Behind style form of eschatology and a few years ago someone introduced me to the Preterist view. At first I refused to believe it and set out to prove it wrong. The more I dug into the idea the texts became more and more clear. The most important things to consider when interpreting the bible are context and original intent. Context would be such things as: Historical, Biblical and documentary. Original Intent would be such things as: Intended Meaning of the Author, Original Audience Meaning and the Historical Grammatical Method. Clear your mind of all preconceived ideas, pray to our Father that He will bring you clarity and show you His truth and read Matthew 23 and 24. Picture yourself there as a disciple listening to Christ's words and pay close attention to the time indicators in both chapters 23 and 24. When does Jesus indicate "ALL THESE THINGS" are to take place? He uses that exact phrase in both chapters. Once you've done that read Revelation. When you read it think about two particular things: 1) Who was Revelation written to and 2) what are the time indicators in the beginning, middle and end of the book. How would the recipients (7 churches of Asia) have understood the book if it was speaking of things that would take place 2000 years in the future? How would those words given them any hope against the trials and persecutions they were experiencing from both Rome and the Jews? I have come to understand that Preterism is simply irrefutable. We must never take biblical text out of its original context and must consider how the original and intended audience would have taken and understand the words. Grace and Peace to you!
The amillennial preterist view has existed for a very long time. As has the historical premillennial view. It is the dispensational view which is very recent, and one might even say 'peculiar'. But, in all these secondary matters we disagree with love, and trust in the grace of the Lord Jesus.
The problem with NTW's explanation here is that it was clearly not what the apostles thought in the decades following Jesus' death. Paul thought that the 2nd coming was supposed to happen in his lifetime or shortly thereafter and in 2 Peter the expectation was that it would be happening soon and any delays that might occur are just God wanting to give more people a but more time to do the right thing. If the apostles, who were supposedly possessed of and guided in their understanding by, the Holy Spirit didn't understand it - why are we taking their writings as God breathed and inspired Holy Scripture?
Seal up the documents until the End Times when knowledge will increase? GOD did not intend the truth be easily seen as His schedule had another 2000 years to work out.
Your body may have rotted to dust by the time Jesus returns. As GOD and Jesus designed-i.e wrote the DNA of the human body as well as all other life on Earth they will know exactly how to recreate bodies for the dead to stand in for judgment. This is why Jesus said all the hairs on our heads are counted and known - because the amount of hair on our head depends on our personal DNA!
@Jubei Yang how can you say no when I gave you proof from scripture. John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made Colossians 1 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
@@rosewhite--- you are probably a dispensationalist which is a rather new teaching. This is what happens when Protestants engage in Flights of Fancy. Do your homework study the early church fathers they were closer to the truth than those ministers in your church right now
Why do Christians due time and History Changed The name of the following religion in name ?? Nazareens, Christians, Trinitytarians etc what was the first name of followers of the religion Christianity ???
Tarik Ramadaan “Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” Acts 11:25-26 NIV
Even in the first century the Christians had disagreements over beliefs. Gradually over the years there were major divisions....people started their own “churches.” Some pagan beliefs were also incorporated into the “churches”. Now we have so many religions! Some saying that only “they” have the truth and no one else. Beware of those.... so far none of them have proven true in the sense that they mean. I have found that the scholars don’t seem to have the complete Bible truths either. But one can learn some truths from most of them and continue to add to the whole truth that one is searching for... Jesus loves those who love truth and are searching for it.
The problem with Wright's views is he wants to pretend we're on firm ground believing it was all metaphor, when there's no reason to do that. Plenty of ancient texts, from the Bible and beyond, envision literal heavenly signs that also have symbolic meanings, literal judgements, and literal supernatural events (darkness, trumpets blaring, stars falling, dead rising, etc.). Even if Daniel 7 is about the Son of Man traveling *up* rather than down, Paul repurposes the Dan7 language in 1 Thes 4, to have Jesus (who he no doubt identifies as the Son of Man) traveling and coming in a downward direction. The Gospel writers easily could've have been doing the same.
@@alanrutherford93 Wright argues that the apocalyptic language attributed to Jesus in the gospels (e.g. Mark 13, Matt 24-25, etc) is all symbolically referring to Jesus's vindication as the true king/messiah, thus he thinks its about the exaltation of "the son of man (Jesus) coming" UP to the throne, seated next to God. Wright is correct that in **Daniel** the language refers to one like a son of man ascending upward. But he then goes a step too far and says that's what the gospels MUST mean by the son of man coming. My point is we are not on firm ground imagining that Mark (or Jesus, or Paul, or any of their contemporaries) were using the Daniel 7 imagery that way. Sure, they might've been. But there's lots of good reasons to believe they meant literal cosmic events, and a Son of Man (Jesus or otherwise) traveling downward, "coming to earth".
@@benholman6 Well, the Gospels explicitly have Jesus saying that the events he is describing will occur in *that* generation, so whichever direction you think the travel may be, it still boils down to AD70.
Your not paying attention!!!!! N.T. Wright is exactly correct. I found out about Daniel 7:13 on my own and the transition in my own understanding of new testament theology is amazing and life changing. Now I see Jesus in a whole new light, magnified and magnificent!!!!!
Round and round but the answer is : No. Jesus did not return in AD70 but He will one day. Would really be interested to hear NT clearly say that and which scripture he would use, as he says is it is "all over the New Testament"
"Of course"? Not all biblical scholars believe Jesus preached a literal, future "second coming." Crossan and the late Marcus Borg come to mind. And early Nazarenes and gentile Christians who thought Jesus was coming back during their generation were clearly wrong. Perhaps after two thousand years more of us can question the legitimacy of such a claim and expectation.
I love WLC and have even been to a live debate, but I've noticed a habit of his in listening to him over the past couple months. He has a tendency to play stupid when responding to or going over the work of others that may differ from his perspective. He uses this to form some sort of straw man in order to refute it. It has gotten kind of annoying.
Love the way NT Wright comments on the disagreement with the tone of a gentleman and true Christ follower. In essentials, Unity, In non essentials, Liberty, in all things, Charity
Bob Dole, what makes you say that? Supposedly? Check your disbelief at the door
Bob Dole to make that claim is to first assume that you know every single Christ follower on the planet and not to be rude, but that is impossible let alone remotely true. I get that you’re skeptical of the above statement, but refuting with an impossible answer does nothing to help your case against the claim. Just FYI.
God bless you all
@President Joe Biden Makes Trumpanzees Cry paul
But Wright is wrong on justification which is essential
Wright holds to a nuanced view of partial preterism. Such a view is not even remotely heretical, but it is "strange" and "peculiar" to the ears of many modern evangelicals, especially those who have been so heavily influenced by dispensationalism...
Yes rightly said
That's because ones you start to understand Old Testament in it's own context. It perfectly carries into the New Testament. And completely destroys dispensationalism, even denominations.
I was a hyper-dispensationalist for very many years and when I learned the partial-Preterist view it was an amazing eye opening event in my life. I’m no longer a dispensationalist and now I hold a view (Partial-Preterism) that I believe exalts the Lord Jesus much more than the Dispensational view couldn’t even hint at. Praise the Lord!
It is definitely NOT heresy! However, he is not listening to the text. He is squeezing it into his presuppositions.
@@OrthodoxJourney359 I've been going through the same thing.
His comments on Daniel 6 and 7 are awesome! I had never considered such before. It all kind of fits together.
Agreed!
Part of that problem is we’ve been, perhaps unintentionally, neglected to teach congregants biblical hermeneutics for which this is most fundamental. Our preachers and teachers are often guilty of bringing more background into our sermons, in the sense that most people want sensational explanations and answers to thinks in a fast and dirty manner. It’s rather tragic, because it squarely forces churches from this name it, claim mentality. There’s an old saying, “The Bible can never mean what it never meant.” We’re 2000+ years separated from all this and often forget that we don’t live in that time or culture. We have to look back and learn about it and then come to the text with the original audiences eyes and ears, namely ears as this was an oral culture and there wasn’t a compendium of the biblical literature then as we have it now.
NT Wright is so articulate and gracious to those who have different opinions! I love him for that!
** What sin led to God's wrath?
Adam/Eve & all humans were created without moral law. So they didn't have the forbidden knowledge of good and evil. But when they & all humans disobeyed God's command in Gen2:17 & chose the forbidden moral law, God's wrath came upon them.
Jesus redeemed us from the forbidden knowledge of good and evil (moral law) as per Rom7:4,6 ('But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held').
Have you accepted the deliverance? If not you are not saved from God's wrath (Rom4:15: 'the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression').
Be saved from God's wrath.
@@savedchristian4754Let God love you!
@@ralphstarling6707
I am saved. Be saved.
@@savedchristian4754 I suggest you step out of being Theo and let God determine peoples destiny! Love wins!
@@ralphstarling6707
Destiny is decided by believing in Jesus who redeemed us from the moral law.
I added portuguese subtitles to this video. I sent it to a lot of friends of mine to be verified and approved. But I guess it still needs the channel's approval
%; What sin led to God's wrath?
Adam/Eve & all humans were created without moral law. So they didn't have the forbidden knowledge of good and evil. But when they & all humans disobeyed God's command in Gen2:17 & chose the forbidden moral law, God's wrath came upon them.
Jesus redeemed us from the forbidden knowledge of good and evil (moral law) as per Rom7:4,6 ('But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held').
Have you accepted the deliverance? If not you are not saved from God's wrath (Rom4:15: 'the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression').
Be saved from God's wrath.
Wow! I so love listening to NT Wright. Illuminating too the see how the great WL Craig had interpreted him.
It occurs to me while listening to this explanation of the temple clash and the vindication of Jesus, the Son of Man, that he began the very public part of His ministry with the dialogue with the woman at the well, answering her question about this very temple issue. Where is God and where do we go to worship Him? Jesus’ answer, “Woman, believe me, the hour will come when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father...But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to be His worshipers. God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” Jesus brought a new Way, and that Way was a death match with the old temple way, and Jesus’ Way, beginning with His resurrection, and then ascension about 40 days later, was fully vindicated about 40 years later with the complete and utter destruction of the temple, i.e., the old order. I will pray and search the scriptures about this more. I love how this Jesus movement was referred to several times in the book of Acts as “the Way”.
Lyndon Wilson, amen...walking in the Way of the Master
yes and if God is Spirit He is ONE not three.Jesus is the living temple and inside it's the Spirit,the presence of God Himself.
Jesus said "I am the Way." He built His Church to embody "the Way". The earliest followers of Jesus were called "the Way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; 22:4; 24:14,22).
Lyndon! This is some smoke! Good observation.
This is just brilliant.
An outstanding answer.
I loved his "long" answer and would love to sit and hear the even longer answer. The interwoven threads of the bible fascinate me. No commentator/scholar gets it all right and they often have slightly different views but the good ones are striving toward the same goal. The goal that Paul told the Ephesians, "...to comprehend the length and width and height and depth of the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge..."
Definitely pick up his books, they’re wonderful reads. Surprised by Hope is my favorite.
Could be the best way to see the escatological passages.
Amazing insight from NT Wright. All his books are amazing, especially once you get through the first 100 pages!
I could see this as a way to avoid the extremes of dispensationalism and full preterist.
@Sue Blue No I don't he is being being arrogant. He doesn't strike me as being like that at all. He has a right to his interpretation and I think He has an incredible amount of breadth of knowledge on the Scriptures. I have read many of his books including the big thick ones. He has a great clarity of thought of early Christian history and the relevance to the culture of that time. To call him a heretic is astounding to me . He believes in the resurrection and Jesus as Lord. He has a very humble attitude and great depth of the first century beliefs that his bibliographies could be longer that many books. Your condemnation of him may put you under this verse
"Mt 5:21
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."
There are at least six methods or views of interpreting Revelations. There are at least about 15 ways of interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis. Yes I have read my bible - on and off for about 40 years or so. I have read other books and commentaries on this topic as well. There are many ways of looking at things but condemning this man as a heretic doesn't seem like the Spirit of Christ at all to me. Try looking up convenant theology. Even if you disagree with it - you may be surprised at the many insights it has to offer. :}
Or look at the classic Reformation theology of eschatology. The historical flow of prophecy. And understand the cyclical thinking of the Hebrew writer.
Sue Blue you are a very sad person
@Sue Blue It would be a tad arrogant if he had said that, but he didn't.
Sue Blue, perhaps you are a dispensationalist or a futurist when it comes to eschatology. the dispensationalists are the new kids on the block. Many of the church fathers are partial preterists. You should not engage in ad hominem. Rather give your rebuttal on the items that you don't agree with NT Wright.
They need to have a debate.
N.T. Wright does a great job, and correctly so, of completely smashing the heretical dispensational system.
Not just a good answer but an example of how a Christian should answer those who question and disagree with him - with grace!
Sinner like me I cannot think that I will be judging ppl but I just want to be with CHRIST
Nailed it! Right on NT Wright.
Really helpful, I love listening to NT Wright. Could I suggest a quick summary at the start, followed by a ‘here’s why’ might help anyone who doesn’t follow all of the in depth explanation. Love it though!
I think he has got it so right abut the “temple”, 2nd coming, Jesus’ work, and new creation with man having dominion over the earth. (No playing harps in heaven:)
It all fits together from Adam and Eve in Genesis, Israel, Jesus birth, life, death, resurrection then on to Revelation.
Now the WHOLE Bible comes together and it all fits and makes so much sense. It clicks!!!!
The truth is here.
Short coverage but I think NT Wright unleashed a profound insight on the theology of the "Temple"; how Jesus treat it vis-a-vis the OT Jews proponents (and Christ haters). He peg the issue clearly in unpacking the meaning of Coming on clouds of Daniel 7:13.
I love how NT Wright's awesome Biblical insights using the Bible and First Century historical documents confound 21st century American Protestants who are only used to their myopic reading of the New Testament, or even, rather, traditions that have been handed to them by their preachers.
but there also plenty of Americans who would side with NT on this eg Steve Gregg of thenarrowpath.com
@@alpinewonders
What sin led to God's wrath?
Adam/Eve & all humans were created without moral law. So they didn't have the forbidden knowledge of good and evil. But when they & all humans disobeyed God's command in Gen2:17 & chose the forbidden moral law, God's wrath came upon them.
Jesus redeemed us from the forbidden knowledge of good and evil (moral law) as per Rom7:4,6 ('But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held').
Have you accepted the deliverance? If not you are not saved from God's wrath (Rom4:15: 'the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression').
Be saved from God's wrath.
@@savedchristian4754 Rom 7,6 equates the law with the written code. There was no written law for Adam to choose when he sinned. But I`ll think further about what you wrote. Thank you for posting
@@alpinewonders
Fine. All forms of law show the difference between good & evil. Right from Adam God creates all humans from birth without the forbidden knowledge of good and evil.
@alpinewonders Of course there was a law for Adam to break. The command to not eat the fruit, a law which Adam passed on to Eve. And once they ate of the fruit, they gained the knowledge of good and evil, which is the law written on their hearts (inherently knowing the commands of God). This is what all men inherited from Adam which gives us the ability to willingly violate the laws of God (sin) whether we've ever read the 10 Commandments or not. This is what Paul clearly lays out in Romans chapters 1-5.
I thought this was a much better answer than the video on Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Persuasive parsing out of the apocalyptic passages in the gospels.
All of Church history understood the incredible significance of 70AD and the many scriptures that speak of it. And many in the Church still do. But, those in or influenced by American Evangelicalism, due to a teaching that began some 200 years ago (Dispensationalism), no longer understand this all important truth.
Well said. You're right.
You are so correct!!!! The 70 a.d. story has been buried, smeared, ignored and flat out denied by those who prefer an easier route, a path of least resistance .!!!! Without the 70 a.d. info. the Olivet Discourse would make no sense. Matt. 23 would have no conclusion. And an explanation for the demise of the old covenant would be totally absent without the Olivet Discourse.!!!!!!! And Jesus condemnation of the bankrupt sacrificial system would have little merit if 70 a d. we're confused with "our time". And there are people out there that believe we are the Matt.24 generation. Absolutely not!!!!!!
Aah now im clearer about the miss understanding between WLC and NT!
THIS -> "If you mistake the signpost for the reality, it becomes an idol!" (7:07)
This is gold!
He's on point, the old priestly order & temple sin sacrifice are done & gone, we now have a great High Priest in Christ, His once for all time propitiation for the sin of the world is sufficient & perfect. The New Covenant bought by the blood of Christ Jesus. He came in judgement to Jerusalem for unbelief & vindication & will come again to put all things to right
So glad NT is a historicist
N.T. is not a historicist. Historicism and everything associated with it went the way of the model T. !!!!!!
I wander if you could ask NT Wright what his opinion is of the scholar Michael Heizer and his book the unseen realm I’ve read it I even checked with the language specialists That I know and they say Dr. Heizners correct with the languages I find this book fascinating it also makes more sense of a whole lot of things when looking through the eyes of first century Jewish believers what do you think Mr. NT right
YES! YES! and YES!
Excellent Justin! As always!
Preteritism... solid insight from NT! 🔥
partial preterism
Look up Gene Kim
@@dochvtech22 will do, thanks
@@lateologiadelacalle Don't look up Gene Kim. He's a KJV only loon.
Just love NTWright.
In agreement with NT. W on this.
I agree with Wright. Would be nice to see a list of passages he thinks deals with Second Coming vs Coming on the clouds.
"Day of the triffids monsters," ha :)
Something that I have noticed about W. L. Craig - whom I respect immensely and who has greatly influenced me - is that he doesn't seem to understand or grant that the Olivet Discourse can be read as NOT being about the second coming of Jesus, as N. T. Wright says here. He also doesn't seem to explore the idea that perhaps some of the Olivet Discourse is about A.D. 70 and some of it is about the return of Jesus. For Craig, it is all and only about the return of Jesus, and so anyone who says that it is about A.D. 70 therefore is a full preterist who believes only in an invisible "coming" of Jesus at the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. But as Wright says, it can be read as being about A.D. 70 and NOT about the second coming, which is based on other texts in the NT.
"there's no question to what that means".
I have a question - why does the text say '....one LIKE the son of man'?
Wow. Really insightful perspective that prophecy to the "Son of Man coming on the clouds" pointed to the 1st Coming and the ramifications to the world. That certainly makes more sense from Daniel's perspective in the timeline and Jesus' reuse of the imagery at the time. Really enjoy NT Wright's insights and approach to biblical exploration.
WLC is a philosopher; NTW an historian and New Testament scholar. Appreciate NTW's perspective for sure on his AREA OF EXPERTISE!
Given that, my response might be that Scripture is clear that Gods ways and thoughts are not ours. If Christians are to claim that the Bible is our authority and basis for knowing God, then we must first align ourselves with the mind and thoughts of God and allow the indwelling of the Spirit to work in and through us in perfect submission. The sum of Wright’s work being that the Good News is better than that, with “that” being, we’re not meant to be hanging around all day for a Star Trek beam out.
Love these chats🎉❤
This is not a peculiar view but is very much a standard view of Jesus "coming on the clouds" and sitting at the right hand of judgment.
NT Wright is a reason I'm a Post Mil.
Simple question...when NT says "This is all fine...it is how we learn from each other" I ask, "Does God then give people this flexibility?" These men are teaching the masses about God, Heaven, Hell, etc... They better be walking in the fear of God because they are extremely accountable before God. Yes? We live in the Internet age...99.9% of the population lived in villages and had maybe ONE church to attend and took on that pastor's views. Where is God's grace in this? People trust in a pastor who got it wrong? In a church, a pastor, especially when most people were illiterate trusted in that man to teach them truth. He had tremendous influence. If you respond by, "We are all accountable to search the scriptures" think about how these men who spend their entire lives, the brightest, can't even agree on the same scriptures!
Yes, Mr. Wright could you please explain; Was there ever a point when you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and how did that effect your life? Please take all the time you need to respond.
Another key verse foreshadowing the inadequacy of a physical temple vs the higher reality of a "Spiritual Temple of the Body of Christ':
'Heaven is my throne & Earth is my footstool, what kind of house will you build for Me, says the LORD ?" - Acts 7:49
Great insight
The prophecy of Daniel has a dual application. The literal destruction of the Temple in AD 70 has the same characteristics as the second advent. The apostles understood this. Matthew 23, 24, 25; Mark 13; Luke 21 and John wrote the book of revelation to explain this. What form has the Abomination of Desolation taken in the last days?
The disciples asked Jesus two questions and he answered both together:
Matthew 24:3 And as he sat on the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
DonswatchingtheTube What do you mean John wrote revelation to explain it?
It's NOT the end of the "world". That's a mistranslation from the KJV. It's the end of the AGE, the Old Covenant age of Israel. All things written in the Old Covenant law and prophets were FULFILLED in 70 AD when apostate Old Covenant Jerusalem was destroyed, and the birth of the New Covenant age of the church began. EVERY apocalyptic verse in the New Testament revolves around 70 AD. Look at the first verse of Revelation which speaks of things that will SHORTLY come to pass.
70 AD no not everything was fulfilled. What happen to Jesus ruling with a “rod of Iron” that means by force all are subject to His authority. What happened to no more death? Who was the antichrist? What was the mark of the beast? There is more to point out, but lets start here.
@@livepoetic390
What's all this about, "by force all are subject to His authority"? Who do you think we are....Muslims?😁 Jesus told His Apostles, "shake the dust from your feet if they don't listen", Matthew 10, 14.
The "mark of the beast" was probably 1st century Caesar worship. The Christians had to swear their allegiance to the Caesars who thought they were gods, otherwise buying and selling was impossible. Whether you can apply this "mark" to the 21st century, in a spiritual sense only, is another matter. There's all kinds of evil things today which anyone can interpret as being the "mark of the beast". That's all up for debate.
@AnarchoRepublican
Mystery Babylon was apostate Old Covenant JERUSALEM. Having the "beast", which was Rome (Caesar Nero) riding the "whore of Babylon", which you also think is Rome wouldn't make sense. Jerusalem colluded with the Romans when persecuting the Saints. Also, the concept of harlotry (whore/Mystery Babylon) comes from having a covenantal relationship with God and breaking that covenant (by violating Torah). This could only be Jerusalem, which fell into a state of apostacy before it was destroyed in 70 AD.
Could someone please explain what Wright said about "the ad 72
destruction of Jerusalem and the temple". Why does he say that the church is constituted on a belief that is "dangerous and scary", is he saying that the EARTH is where heaven and earth are coming together now? He kind of got cut off at the end, so I just want to understand...
Ah, well, he said that the Temple was a symbol of the reality of Heaven and that when it becomes mistaken as the reality itself, then you have idolatry. So he then in an offhanded way says that the same has happened with the church, an implication of the building we call a church being mistaken as the reality of the place where God dwells.
David, Whright has a head filled with philosophical claptrap rather than real Bible learning.
His final statement about it being dangerous to believe heaven and Earth come together in these End Times is Satanic nonsense as of course when Jesus returns in a few years time it will be to set up the kingdom of heaven on Earth.
In that kingdom raptured Christians and a few Jews and the first resuurectees will live a wonderful life just as Adam and Eve enjoyed in Eden.
You will not find any preacher or 'expert' telling this truth but I do.
@@rosewhite--- Thanks for the warning.
@@rosewhite--- I don't know where you get your theology but the one with Philosophical craziness is you. *The rapture is based on the Greek Philosophy of the Soul.* And it's completely foreign to the Bible. You need to start doing *Biblical Word Studies* specifically Hebrew words. Even when the Jewish elders translated the Old Testament into Greek in 200BC. They didn't carry on the Greek Philosophical ideas of Soul into the translation. It's a complete modern ideology mixed with Greek Philosophy forced into Biblical Interpretation. *NT Wright knows this fact, and stays away from it.*
Interesting, very insightful! Gb
did he answer the question???
That was a "politically correct" answer in order not to antagonise the belief based on church creeds. If you accept the 70CE destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as a biblically significant eschatological event, then Daniel 12 would confirm that it was the second coming of Jesus (Parousia). Daniel 12 was the time of the end of the age when the power of the holy people was completely shattered (70CE) and the resurrection of the dead for judgement occurred. Resurrection and judgement occurred only at the Parousia of Jesus when Jesus the high priest came out from the heavenly holy of holies to complete the atonement for the people of God, their redemption and salvation to inherit the Kingdom of God (Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, Hebrews 12:22-28). In another words, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70CE signified the second coming of Jesus.
😂😂😂
@@martelljhixson His REAL answer to the question was only at the beginning. He said Craig misunderstood what he had written.
NO.
Interesting explanation.
NT Wright is a Pauline scholar, not a Escatology Scholar.
He has filled his head with too much philosophical claptrap rather than simple Bible truth.
So where is the second coming verses in NT Wrights view?
Plenty of other places like Paul. Just not in the Olivete Discourse.
How about when he sends his angels to gather his elect? Could angles mean (messengers) as in the gospel being preached and people believing in the kingdom?
It is amazing how many intellectual machinations are necessary to explain the fictions of the so-called New Testament.
Do you know what the probability of just 15 (of 324) of the prophecies of Jesus being fulfilled is? It’s 1 in 10 to the 50th power.
Reading through these comments is comical. This person rejects this whackadoodlism and accepts that whackadoodlism, while that person accepts this whackadoodlism and rejects that whackadoodlism. Did it ever occur to any of you people to try to live your lives in demonstrable reality?
I don't understand the very last statement. Can someone elaborate? He says "the church is constituted on this belief, which is dangerous and scary"
What belief is he reffering to?
That Jesus and his church are where heaven and earth are coming together, that they now constitute the temple.
So for you to understand this. You track a few things. *#1 Eden as Temple, #2 Sacred Space, #3 Isaiah Burning Coal, #4 Ezekiel River of Life, #5 Matthew 24 and Revelations 22.* These is more to it. But I believe this give you a solid understanding into Temple talk. 1 and 2 you will probably going to have a lot of material to read. But it's really important to understand that. NT really dives deep into OT meaning of Temples.
@@Kintizen The work of Meredith Kline (Kingdom Prologue) and Rikk Watts (among others) is helpful on this point.
There’s not anyway possible that Matthew 24 is talking about the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Was the abomination of desolation standing in the temple in AD 70? Was the the destruction of the temple in AD 70 the greatest tribulation the world will ever see? The answer to both of those questions is no.
Jesus ascending to the right hand of the Father is not to rule now, but await His time to rule. Psalm 110 could not be more clear about this, "The Lord said to my Lord, "come sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool."
Rev 1,5 ...the ruler of the kings of the earth... Mt 28.18 ...all authority has been given to me in heaven and earth... Sounds like a done deal to me. If He is not ruling now, why do we call Him Lord? Hhhhmmm? :)
So you believe Jesus #1 coming was to establish his Kingdom? Have you read the Gospel?
You're a bit off base there bro.
I agree with NT Wright, if I understand him correctly. What Daniel sees is not the Son of Man descending to the earth but ascending to be before God (Dan. 7:13,14) . Daniels saw the Son of Man coming on the clouds in His ASCENSION after His resurrection. It corresponds to Revelation chapter 5 about the Lion/Lamb appearing in heaven and adored to receive great authority. I thank the Lord for the labors of both scholars, Craig and Wright.
I was thinking that God's vindication of Jesus is in raising him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand. I therefore find it difficult to attach great significance to the destruction of the temple.
Here is the William Lane Craig video - ruclips.net/video/NjkjjSp27TY/видео.html I watched it and it left me scratching my head...so I went looking for clarification and found THIS! Thank you!
Rarely do I see someone who is attempting to refute this position actually describe it accurately.
When Daniel prophesied that the Son of Man will be placed on the right side of God, did he not mean that the Son of Man, or us humans need to realize the Holy Spirit present within us, and from that realization become one with the Supreme Consciousness? Jesus also stated that the kingdom of heaven is within us? So, was he also asking us to uplift our spiritual consciousness, to reach out within ourselves and find, or recognize Him within us?
No, that's east religion philosophy. The understand the residency of Holy Spirit in us. You have to understand the *Biblical idea of Sacred Space.* The whole Bible explains Human are horrible at making decisions on their own. Every object of desire has destroyed humans, even knowledge. You could understand further more in the *Biblical reasoning of God's Justice.* It's part the foundation of all things. And it's impossible for humanity to comprehend.
Can one of you more intelligent theologians tell me what Tom Wrights particular beliefs are about the second coming? I am guessing he leans more Amill......can anyone confirm? Thanks...
@@alexhamilton624 Thanks!!!
@@Albertanator What is his view? Is he amill? or
Yes....I believe so.@@batboy5569
Makes sense. That is why John the Baptist was the forerunner. He was a preists son, and yet established another system outside the city!
No John the Baptist's mission was to spread the news that the Messiah has come. And prep the Israelites for exiting exile into Kingdom of God. Baptism is symbol of Noah's flood story and Crossing of the Red Sea. John stands greater then Noah and Moses. (Which also ties into Ezekiel River of Life vision.)
How can we submit questions to Dr. Wright?
Preterism has a strong position. I have heard, understand, and agree with his "appearing" passages. But I would like him to be clear on the "second coming" as well. Does he think it is based on the gospel to "pante al ethna?"
I think Acts 1 holds a clue: “Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking up into the sky? This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven." He will come back, “in the same way” - which connotes a rising, not so much a descending.
Come back meaning?
In the same way refers with angels
Great observation. Never read it like that
Scripture itself tells us that Christ is seated at the right hand of God BEFORE the destruction of the 2nd temple.
NT Wright is reading later historical perspective into the writing of the Apostles before it existed.
Listen again, but more closely and generously. He did not say that. He said that at the end of the Gospels He claimed to already be seated there. Wright also said that the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 was "VINDICATION" of Jesus as a final sign of His authority that was already in heaven. Please, let's all use more generosity with our ears with each other and less venom in our tongues. Thank you Lester for at least not having venom in your words.
@@TheRootedWord Blessings, it is unfortunate that a critique of a teaching and view is sometimes seen as a personal attack. And yes, I fully agree that ad-hominem attacks are unjustified.
Internal evidence as well as early Church tradition holds that The Gospels (apart from the Book of John) are written before the fall of the temple in AD 70. The writers of Scripture do not have the "vindication" view in mind when it comes to the 70 AD event. The Apostle's and the Church's view at the writing of the Gospel was that the "vindication" is the RESURRECTION of Christ from death.
I found Wright's interpretation troubling mainly because it is anachronistic, he's reading into the text later events that the writers themselves do not know of, nor make a reference of.
@@lesterchua2677 I wholeheartedly agree. I studied under J.I. Packer as my mentor and he had similar serious issues with Wright, though he respected the man. I find that some theologians enjoy inventing new twists and combinations over dinner then searching for scraps of justification in Scripture. It seems to be the case here as well.
@@lesterchua2677 The dating of the gospels is not as clear cut as you make it to be. Many think only Mark was written before 70AD.
@@lesterchua2677 Even the Book of Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. We have both Internal evidence (from the Book of Revelation) and external evidence Whereas those who say it was written after the fall has only one dubious external evidence written by Iraneus and no internal evidence from the Book of Revelation itself.
I watched William Lane Craig’s assumption about NT Wright before coming here. Disappointing. Scholars, please, be more careful in making accusations when you don’t have enough information. I knew Craig was way off base 30 seconds into his video. It was clear he hasn’t taken the time to study Wright’s view on the subject. So why comment so confidently?
Yes, these things happen to the best of us. We need to have much more generosity and graciousness toward each other as brothers in the LORD.
@@TheRootedWord Let's face facts and be honest graciously. The Second Coming did NOT happen as it's written within a generation and the time has long gone when it would happen. The apostles were sadly mistaken including Paul as you can read in 1Thess, 4:15 and 5:2.
@@richardjohnson909 The word "generation" is γενεὰ in the Greek and means "this which has been brought to be". It has been translated generation, race, or offspring. Yet, it literally means "this which has been brought to be". So then, these passages become a bit more ambiguous than our faulty English translators have led us to believe. For example, Matthew 24:34 when translated becomes: "Truly I am laying forth to you, that this which has come to be may certainly not come alongside, until whensoever all these things may come to be." Now, in light of an accurate and true translation of the Greek, without regard to defending some doctrine men have invented and have invested in, we can discuss what this means. If not, then not.
@@TheRootedWord As I read your post I couldn’t help but feel you are trying to “pull a Pilate” and wash your hands of the facts. So, let’s examine the Greek word for "generation." Strong's Number G1074 matches the Greek γενεά (genea), which occurs 42 times in 37 verses and translates it in the following manner: generation (37x), time (2x), age (2x), nation (1x). But you can check other sources such as Vine’s Expository Dictionary, Thayers’s Greek Lexicon, Young’s Analytical Concordance and Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible and you can verify for yourself. They are in Biblical parlance “of one accord.” Strong’s advocates that a generation is a period of 30-33 years. I acknowledge this but I will hold fast to the understanding that in the Bible a generation is 40 years.
C. H. Dodd among the greatest of twentieth-century New Testament scholars popularized the idea of realized eschatology. Clearly, the statement, “Truly, I say to you, THIS GENERATION will not pass away till all these things take place” did not happen (Matthew 24:34). “This” is in the present tense and not “that” the demonstrative adjective and refers to the time in which Jesus lived. The end of the age and return of Jesus was a major belief of the early Christians. As I pointed out in my previous post, the apostle Paul taught it and the Galatians Christians believed that Jesus would come “like a thief in the night” (1 Thess.4:15, 5:2 and 2 Thess. 1:7). It was imminent. But they were all wrong. The literal second coming of Christ did not happen, but when John wrote later, he sees the coming of the Holy Spirit as the second coming of Christ.
@@richardjohnson909 Sorry to say the English translators are all incorrect. They tried to find what made most sense to them within their theological frameworks, rather than taking the word at its face meaning. I am in fact a professional Linguist and Translator of the Scriptures. What I have uncovered is a gross mismanagement of translation of the Greek terms without regard to their actual meanings and this also runs across the Greek grammar as well. I have already given you the break down of the word, which you can verify in any good Greek dictionary simply by looking ONLY at the literal meaning of the word and its roots. Ignore the additional terms that imply some additional overlay of meaning, such as metaphors or "by extension". That is another way for saying that they want to interpret the word to fit their own theological framework. Let the words be what they are. It is not generation as in 30-33 years. The word itself is not that limited and the textual contexts do not require that specific limitation. In fact, the texts make more sense with what I laid out for you in my last comment. If you cannot accept that, then we have no basis on which to have this discussion. I will not have a discussion with interpretations that are made to fit a modern theological framework, only of the text, the literal meanings of the words, and the roots of those words. Thank you, though, for doing some extra work, though the sources and methods used were the same deception we have put up with in the English translations for centuries.
THIS IS A GREAT INSIGHT INTO THE NEW FORM FOR CAMILLIAN DOCTRINE...
What's that?
Interesting point.
And yet, with all Mr Wright's complex erudition, Christianity in England is on its deathbed.
Preterism is the next reformation that needs to happen. There is plenty of time.
So when God allowed the previous temple to be destroyed what was the purpose in allowing it to be rebuilt.
Wow i am surprise on how he is viewing revelations
He is not talking at all about Revelation or revelations. Listen more closely.
@AnarchoRepublican nah cuz it says in revelation there will be judgement and all sorts of things that haven't happened.
You must compare this with Don Preston's 'Why Wright Is Wrong' videos.
This is wonderful it also deals withe the objections atheist scholars have twords Christianity. They rey tocsay the prophesy was wrong amd he never came back. This expalians those texts beautifully to scholars
Craig demonstrated he did not know NT Wrights view well enough to refute it.
“And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.”
Mark 13:26-27 ESV
You see that’s clearly about the destruction of the temple and not remotely about the second coming…
What a lot of waffle. How is Dani 7 important to Jesus (and I am not saying it is not important) when He never referred to it:but Jesus did make a specific reference to Daniel 9, 11&12 in Matthew and Mark. Amazing THAT this escapes N. T who is supposedly bringing truth out from Scripture. I think he is N(ot) T(otally) Wright, most of the time.
Seems to me that if the destiny of human beings following death (eternity with God in heaven or some other unpleasant destiny) depends on what we do and/or believe while on earth, God would articulate the rules of the game in such a way that everybody understands them upon first telling. The fact that hundreds of biblical scholars and theologians differ at a fundamental level 2000 years after the critical "revelation" leads me to conclude that an actual god is not at the root of Christianity at all.
It's difficult to truly convey the meaning of an ancient language.
I would encourage you to read passages such as Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Colossians 1:19-20. There is no eternal separation of any sort in the light of such passages.
Of course, most people will tell you to view such passages in the light of passages such as Matthew 25:31-46 which suggest eternal separation (at least in most translations,) but you can just as easily tell those people to read the passages which seem to speak of eternal separation in the light of the passages which suggest otherwise.
Very weird to observe a foolish old man wasting his apparently good organic intelligence parsing out the ancient superstitious lore of a religious cult. He's playing a sort of Dungeons and Dragons game, with the unfortunate stipulation that he actually believes the arcane BS he's fooling with. It's an excellent example of the insight that functional stupidity is not correlated with a lack of organic intellectual capacity, but is simply the acquisition of false, unwarranted beliefs, which occurs for an enormously complex array of reasons. When the body of false beliefs is large enough, complex enough, and central enough to one's life, one's good mental capacities may be used primarily to service, elaborate, and rationalize those beliefs, precluding the achievement of socially useful work.
This is certainly the case with WLCraig also, who has gone to the length of acquiring as good an understanding of modern physics as one could ever expect of a scientific lay person. Unfortunately, having found that his scientific knowledge does not actually support his belief system, Craig has proceeded to selectively adopt an array of positions, relative to physics, that are not accepted by people in the field. For example, he rejects relativistic spacetime (which Craig calls block time) for a model of traditional "sequential" time (I forget what he calls it) in which only the present moment enjoys the status of being real and in which each present moment in time would be shared in determinate simultaneity across the universe. Also, he interprets the Bord-Guth-Valenkin Theorem to mean that the universe had a beginning, prior to which there was an era of timeless nothingness, which of course is rejected by the authors of the theorem. Craig has no scientific theoretical rationale to support these positions, nor the intellectual resources to create one, but they are adopted because they are necessary to support his prior belief in God. He has acquired such knowledge of physics and mathematics as he has in order to service this prior belief, not to test it. One wishes to ask Craig for the mathematical elaboration of a necessary theory to replace General Relativity, so that the Nobel Committee can render him his due and we can place his bust on the shelf with Einstein and Newton.
When I look at someone like Craig, I have to ponder what "belief" actually means. Craig would seem to be too intelligent not to recognize the intellectual dishonesty of his positions on physics topics. One gets the impression that Craig has followed physics out to such rarified regions in order to dazzle ordinary people with his scientific sophistication, while knowing that his arguments break down in a realm too remote for those people to understand.
“William Lane Craig is a philosopher”
....
*Laughs in David Bentley Hart*
David Bentley Hart should not be taken seriously when being used to discredit people.
He has said plenty about NT wright himself.
If you disagree with him, you might as well be an idiot.
@@hudsonensz2858 I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at here. Either that, or I just had a stroke.
@@Jordan-hz1wr no stroke, my point is he lambasts people who disagree with him as being idiots and is extremely hyperbolic about people's shortcomings, including WLC's.
@@hudsonensz2858 Ah, I'm with you. Yes, I agree. He's not so tactful. But I do think DBH is as true a philosopher as one can find. WLC is a great guy, but he is deeply rooted in the legal orientation of western theology. He's essentially a modern day pharisee in the patristic sense.I'm sure WLC has the best of intentions, but he's begun his theological reasoning on an entirely false view of the nature of who God is.
@@Jordan-hz1wr I like WLC when he is in his element arguing apologetics
As a well rounded philosopher, I don't know, haven't heard much from him other than his bread and butter.
Hart is definitely a different philosopher and has his own flaws. More of a classical tour de force though.
Wright's reasoning is motivated by the cognitive dissonance produced by the fact that Jesus' literal predictions haven't come true after 2,000 years.
These passages arent for the second coming?are you serious?
this guy is an obfuscating lunatic. i'm not sure that he knows what he believes.
I was raised to believe in the modern Left Behind style form of eschatology and a few years ago someone introduced me to the Preterist view. At first I refused to believe it and set out to prove it wrong. The more I dug into the idea the texts became more and more clear. The most important things to consider when interpreting the bible are context and original intent. Context would be such things as: Historical, Biblical and documentary. Original Intent would be such things as: Intended Meaning of the Author, Original Audience Meaning and the Historical Grammatical Method.
Clear your mind of all preconceived ideas, pray to our Father that He will bring you clarity and show you His truth and read Matthew 23 and 24. Picture yourself there as a disciple listening to Christ's words and pay close attention to the time indicators in both chapters 23 and 24. When does Jesus indicate "ALL THESE THINGS" are to take place? He uses that exact phrase in both chapters.
Once you've done that read Revelation. When you read it think about two particular things: 1) Who was Revelation written to and 2) what are the time indicators in the beginning, middle and end of the book. How would the recipients (7 churches of Asia) have understood the book if it was speaking of things that would take place 2000 years in the future? How would those words given them any hope against the trials and persecutions they were experiencing from both Rome and the Jews?
I have come to understand that Preterism is simply irrefutable. We must never take biblical text out of its original context and must consider how the original and intended audience would have taken and understand the words.
Grace and Peace to you!
The amillennial preterist view has existed for a very long time.
As has the historical premillennial view.
It is the dispensational view which is very recent, and one might even say 'peculiar'.
But, in all these secondary matters we disagree with love, and trust in the grace of the Lord Jesus.
You listen very attentively and patiently to utter nonsense 😊
Spurgeon and Tozer also disagree with Tom Wright on this.
Gotta ask the Wright questions.
The problem with NTW's explanation here is that it was clearly not what the apostles thought in the decades following Jesus' death. Paul thought that the 2nd coming was supposed to happen in his lifetime or shortly thereafter and in 2 Peter the expectation was that it would be happening soon and any delays that might occur are just God wanting to give more people a but more time to do the right thing.
If the apostles, who were supposedly possessed of and guided in their understanding by, the Holy Spirit didn't understand it - why are we taking their writings as God breathed and inspired Holy Scripture?
When did wright say: the apostles didnt believe the second coming would happen in their lifetime?
Seal up the documents until the End Times when knowledge will increase?
GOD did not intend the truth be easily seen as His schedule had another 2000 years to work out.
ruclips.net/video/WvZ4aGLWTOs/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/sluNuVp2_TE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/8JEpM2vRyy8/видео.html
I have only read some of N.T. Wright, not a lot. Does he believe our bodies will be raised from the dead at the end of time?
Gary Huisman very much so! One of the main points
Your body may have rotted to dust by the time Jesus returns.
As GOD and Jesus designed-i.e wrote the DNA of the human body as well as all other life on Earth they will know exactly how to recreate bodies for the dead to stand in for judgment.
This is why Jesus said all the hairs on our heads are counted and known - because the amount of hair on our head depends on our personal DNA!
When NT Wright says 'God in Jesus' @46-47 does he belive that Jesus IS God or is he just a vessel that God dwells in?
He is trying to say that God the Father is building a new temple in Jesus.
If jesus has a God
Then that would mean us christians would be praying to 2 Gods.
That comes from arinaisim
That Jesus is not God
@Jubei Yang and that's called arinaisim. Not biblical.
John 1
In the beginning the word was with
God and the word Was God
@Jubei Yang how can you say no when I gave you proof from scripture. John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made
Colossians 1 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Excellent exposition by Wright. Well researched and solid.
Wright's usual philosphical claptrap.
He prefers man made nonsense over Bible truth!
@@rosewhite--- you are probably a dispensationalist which is a rather new teaching. This is what happens when Protestants engage in Flights of Fancy. Do your homework study the early church fathers they were closer to the truth than those ministers in your church right now
So the rock ( Jesus) coming down from heaven to the earth and destroying the kingdoms of man is not clearly seen in Daniel 2, filling the earth?
Why do Christians due time and History Changed The name of the following religion in name ?? Nazareens, Christians, Trinitytarians etc what was the first name of followers of the religion Christianity ???
Tarik Ramadaan “Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.”
Acts 11:25-26 NIV
Even in the first century the Christians had disagreements over beliefs. Gradually over the years there were major divisions....people started their own “churches.”
Some pagan beliefs were also incorporated into the “churches”.
Now we have so many religions!
Some saying that only “they” have the truth and no one else. Beware of those.... so far none of them have proven true in the sense that they mean.
I have found that the scholars don’t seem to have the complete Bible truths either. But one can learn some truths from most of them and continue to add to the whole truth that one is searching for... Jesus loves those who love truth and are searching for it.
The problem with Wright's views is he wants to pretend we're on firm ground believing it was all metaphor, when there's no reason to do that. Plenty of ancient texts, from the Bible and beyond, envision literal heavenly signs that also have symbolic meanings, literal judgements, and literal supernatural events (darkness, trumpets blaring, stars falling, dead rising, etc.). Even if Daniel 7 is about the Son of Man traveling *up* rather than down, Paul repurposes the Dan7 language in 1 Thes 4, to have Jesus (who he no doubt identifies as the Son of Man) traveling and coming in a downward direction. The Gospel writers easily could've have been doing the same.
I'm trying to understand your concern. What literal event did Wright classify as metaphor in these texts?
@@alanrutherford93 Wright argues that the apocalyptic language attributed to Jesus in the gospels (e.g. Mark 13, Matt 24-25, etc) is all symbolically referring to Jesus's vindication as the true king/messiah, thus he thinks its about the exaltation of "the son of man (Jesus) coming" UP to the throne, seated next to God. Wright is correct that in **Daniel** the language refers to one like a son of man ascending upward. But he then goes a step too far and says that's what the gospels MUST mean by the son of man coming. My point is we are not on firm ground imagining that Mark (or Jesus, or Paul, or any of their contemporaries) were using the Daniel 7 imagery that way. Sure, they might've been. But there's lots of good reasons to believe they meant literal cosmic events, and a Son of Man (Jesus or otherwise) traveling downward, "coming to earth".
@@benholman6 Well, the Gospels explicitly have Jesus saying that the events he is describing will occur in *that* generation, so whichever direction you think the travel may be, it still boils down to AD70.
Your not paying attention!!!!! N.T. Wright is exactly correct. I found out about Daniel 7:13 on my own and the transition in my own understanding of new testament theology is amazing and life changing. Now I see Jesus in a whole new light, magnified and magnificent!!!!!
Some passages are about the parousia, others are about Dan 7.
Round and round but the answer is : No. Jesus did not return in AD70 but He will one day. Would really be interested to hear NT clearly say that and which scripture he would use, as he says is it is "all over the New Testament"
"Of course"? Not all biblical scholars believe Jesus preached a literal, future "second coming." Crossan and the late Marcus Borg come to mind. And early Nazarenes and gentile Christians who thought Jesus was coming back during their generation were clearly wrong. Perhaps after two thousand years more of us can question the legitimacy of such a claim and expectation.
So he does believe in the 2nd coming - a literal reappearance of Jesus on this earth?
I love WLC and have even been to a live debate, but I've noticed a habit of his in listening to him over the past couple months. He has a tendency to play stupid when responding to or going over the work of others that may differ from his perspective. He uses this to form some sort of straw man in order to refute it. It has gotten kind of annoying.
WOW ! But the next book that is screaming to written is about what does Jesus actually say about His final coming?