Jesus - Wholly Man - Wholly God

The problem is you presented N.T.Wright and as a historian. He is not. Now if you presented him as Christian apologists as he is then I would have no.problem.Edited by Theodoric, : Are is

He is a theologian who has spent considerable time studying 1st century history.Edited by GDR, : Re worded an incredibly poorly written statement.

Yes the Jews took Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel, but the Church has always seen it as referring to Jesus. You see all this as inspired by people and I see it as inspired by God, in the supernatural sense of "God-breathed" so that the OT is, as Jesus Himself said (on the road to Emmaus I think), all about Him. There are revelations of the Messiah throughout the OT that often aren't recognized. I had some good Bible studies over the years that brought out these things.The disciples were wrong about the scriptures and Jesus had to set them straight. They didn't get it, of course, until Pentecost, as you also recognize.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Much better.

A moment ago you were calling it history.This is why I asked you right at the beginning why you think you have a special understanding such that we should listen to you. You don't; you've just read some bits of Christian theology uncritically, composed your beliefs from it incorporating your own personal spin, then set about spreading the good word as you see it.It's what believers have done down the ages.

But you should also point out that he is not a historian as you claimed.

The following is from this wiki siteA historian is a person who studies and writes about the past, and is regarded as an authority on it.[1] Historians are concerned with the continuous, methodical narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all history in time. If the individual is concerned with events preceding written history, the individual is a historian of prehistory. Some historians are recognized by publications or training and experience.Wright fits that definition perfectly. He has studied extensively on Christian history in the context of of it's time and culture. He has taught on the subject all over the world.

Do you ever read any non-Christian historians?

Sure. I already mentioned Josephus. I read Robert Wright's book "The Evolution of God". Wright calls himself an agnostic. Another Wright, I(I seem to be big on Wrights) is Ronald Wright book "A Short History of Progress". I've read Dawkins, Hitchens and others of the atheistic POV and read numerous books on basic physics by secularists like Brian Greene.

The "regarded as an authority" part is pretty iffy. Who's doing the regarding?I would think that the definition means that a historian is regarded as an authority by other historians. Wright may only be regarded as an authority by people who share his religious views.

Ok now provide us with who considers him an authority. Has he published in historical journals? Has he been employed as a historian? I do not see any position he has as a historian. They have all been theological and apologetics. Apologetics and theology are not history. They use history but in a biased way to arrive at a preordained outcome.

You get credit for reading those things but - with the exception of Josephus - they're not historical works. I was asking whether you'd read any historians that weren't also theologians writing about 1st century Christianity.I haven't btw, but if I was as interested as you are I would have done. If they exist that is.

This thread has gone off into some strange territory that makes no sense to me. All GDR was doing was raising an issue with Christians he thinks don't take the humanity of Jesus seriously enough while overemphasizing His deity. These are matters of doctrine about Jesus' nature that has historically been defined by the Church as "Wholly God and Wholly Man." This is "official" doctrine of the Church that was hammered out from scripture in the early years. This being the definition of the nature of Christ GDR claims some of us Christians slight the human part and his talk to the men's breakfast group was his rendition of the gospels with emphasis on Jesus' humanity..Nobody needs to be a certified historian to know this much and I don't get why this issue is on the table at all. I get that an unbeliever might want to take a swipe at Church doctrine as nothing "official" but just people in power declaring this or that, but that too is way off GDR's intent. His intent rests on a simple historical definition of the nature of Christ. Perhaps there isn't anywhere to go with it beyond where he's gone with it anyway, but all the rest of this discussion is off topic and irrelevant.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK. You are going to believe what you want. Wright is an ancient historian who can read the documents in their original languages. He is primarily a theologian who studies his theology within their historical context. If you want to reject all of that it is fine with me.The views that I expressed are my beliefs, (this is a faith and belief) forum and you reject Christianity completely, so everything I wrote is all poppycock (as somebody put it earlier) anyway. Carrying on this discussion of Wright's credentials is pointless. Yes, the vast majority of sites with articles concerning Wright is Christian because that is where he goes to teach and speak. His ministry is not aimed at non-Christians but aimed at Christians in order to advance Christian scholarship.Incidentally here is a link to a Time magazine article.Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop - TIME

What ancient languages can he read?