Bishop Barron on John Dominic Crossan's Strange Jesus

[@silverpony1]

Fr Barron, one of the many things that makes your videos so good to watch is that you -never- demean or belittle those you disagree with. You seem to make sure to find something to compliment about them every time, even as you disagree with them, and that's very appealing (and an excellent example for your viewers to follow.)

[@therese1974]

I majored in Religion in college, and every single textbook I had to read about the New Testament was written by Crossan or members of the Jesus Seminar. Much of the scholarship was very valuable and enlightening, but there was always that underlying assumption that Jesus had to be explained away naturalistically. Only after my graduation did I discover the work of Fr. Raymond Brown or N. T. Wright, and I've felt a bit shortchanged and suspicious of my college professors ever since.

[@tombuckley7467]

I appreciate Crossan's arguments, and I respect and appreciate your point of view as well. My fundamental question is this: why is it necessary to focus on Jesus's divinity? Or, to put it another, more practical, way, why is it necessary to believe that Jesus is divine in order to embrace his teachings? If he didn't perform miracles, say, or rise from the dead, how does that invalidate the code of ethics he offers to us?

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Like almost everyone else on these forums, you have no idea what "faith" means. You equate it with credulity. Authentic faith is not below reason, though it pushes beyond reason. And my Christian faith is entirely grounded in evidence, that is to say, historical claims: eyewitnesses who went to their deaths defending what they saw. I'm all in favor of skepticism, but skepticism itself becomes irrational when it is exaggerated.

[@ryancain6012]

How do you feel about Kierkegaard's description of faith in the Postscript (and other writings of his). In the Postscript he argues that once we have an objective proof for God we have effectively disproven his existence by the proof. The argument is as complex as is hard to sum up in 500 characters, but I imagine you're familiar with the book given that you've studied existentialism so I assume you've read "the Father of Existentialism" (despite the probable assertion that K would deny that label--Satre can have it and negate the label by embracing it, from K's perspective). Anyways, there you have it.

[@ryancain6012]

Clarification: I am not asking so as to lay out a trap for you or to muddy the water with philosophical speculation, &c &c; I am asking as one who is seeking to be able to live a life of faith and would like to know what that actually means. Should I seek proofs and make those a foundation for my embracing Christ as truth, or would that subvert my attempts to become a disciple of Christ. For what that's worth.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 I invite you to be more skeptical of your skepticism. The people who originally communicated the story of Jesus travelled the known world announcing it and many of them died rather than renounce it. This is not the way traders in myth and literary invention behave. I'm just curious: what would you accept as legitimate evidence for the miraculous? Unless you can give me clear criteria, I'm sticking with my theory that you're prejudiced against the supernatural.

[@LarsPallesen]

Well, REALITY itself is prejudiced against the supernatural, if you will. That's why it's called SUPERnatural. It's something that (supposedly) exceeds the limitations of the natural world. Does it mean that nothing supernatural has ever happened? No. But it does mean that, at best, it has happened so rarely that none of us here have probably ever witnessed a supernatural event. For that reason there's good reason to be skeptical of supernatural claims. It should never be the first conclusion you jump to, just because you don't understand how nature works. Claims about supernatural events should always be prepared to answer questions. You can't just deflect them by saying "be skeptical of your skepticism". That's not gonna cut it if you're trying to convince anybody about the truth of virgin births, resurrections or how a cracker has turned into the literal flesh of Christ.

[@jonathanswires1264]

@Bestia z Wadowic Hello my brother in Christ. My name is Jonathan Swires and I'm a Catholic Christian who has studied theology, Philosophy, Biblical history and exegesis, early Church history, Patrology, Hebrew and Greek. I just feel that I have to educate you a bit, as you ignorantly think that Christianity is synonymous with mythology which couldn't be further from the truth. It's clear that you don't know the difference between Mythology and Biblical history. If you bothered to read and study the content of the Hebrew Bible (specifically the new testament) you would notice that it simply doesn't fit the mythological framework. Here's why: 1) Myths, which I love, are not history but rather literary expressions, archetypal abstractions of great general truths about nature, culture and society. Hence the reason why myths are not placed in a particular time but rather ONCE UPON A TIME, OR LONG AGO, OR A LONG TIME AGO IN A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY. 2) Furthermore, The mythic gods and goddesses are not real historical deities but rather personifications of different forces within nature that were unfortunately deified. For example, Zeus is the personification of the sky (a general truth), Neptune is the personification of the sea (a general truth), Anubis is the personification of the state of death, etc. The point is they were not particular historical events that happened, or figures who people met. Now, look at the New Testament. There are real people involved such as Jesus of Nazareth, Mary his mother, Mary Magdalene, king Herod, John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, Nicodemus, Peter and the 11 apostles, St. Paul, Timothy and Titus, etc. More to it, it took place- not once upon a time- but in real historical places like Israel, Judea, Galilee, with specific dates and years. Finally, a word regarding the historical fact of the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The reason it's true is not because I believe it, or was brought up to believe it. Rather, I believe it because it's true and also because I've looked at the evidence from the 1st century. One way of looking at the resurrection is to look at it against the backdrop of 1st Century Jewish messianic expectations. Jews knew perfectly well that if someone who claimed to be the messiah got killed by the enemies of Israel, that was the clearest sign possible that they were NOT the Messiah which is why, routinely, all the messianic movements before and after Jesus came to an end when the leader got done in: Simon Bar Giora, Simon Bar Kochba, and many others. And once their leader got executed, the followers did not continue the movement by going around the world- and to their deaths- we proclaiming that they had been raised from the dead. None of them did that! Yet, interestingly, that's exactly what the apostles and first Christians did. They boldly declared that the tomb was indeed empty and that they had met the risen Jesus and touched him. Peter says, in Acts 10, that they are and drank with Jesus after his resurrection from the dead. This is not the way myth writers talk. Please use your reasoning faculties and historical imagination, and then ask yourself this question: IF JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS AND SIMPLY STAYED IN THE TOMB, WHAT REASON WOULD THEY HAVE FOR MAKING UP HIS RESURRECTION, SINCE NONE OF THE OTHER FAILED MESSIANIC MOVEMENTS SAID THAT ABOUT THEIR LEADERS? Also, no Jews expected one individual to be raised in the middle of history, but rather everybody at the end of time. Therefore, how do you explain that on historical grounds? The apostles and early Christians who had seen the risen Jesus went around the world and to their deaths declaring the truth of the resurrection. With regards to myths, you are wrong. No one went as missionaries around the world and risked their lives defending the archetypal story of Horus, Osiris, Neptune, Mithrus, Thor, Hercules, Krishna, Brahman, Vishnu, Jupiter, Zeus, Apollo, or even founders such as Buddha (who is dead and buried), Confucius (who is dead and buried) etc. How come? Because those, as I said, are personifications of the general truths of nature. No one died saying that they saw Zeus rise from the dead, and then ate and drank with him. A last word. Whenever myths refer to dying and rising, they were, again, referring to the repeatable rhythms of the natural order, such as the dying and rising of the crops, the changing of the tides of the seas and rivers, and the different seasons etc. That's how they were- and are- meant to be read. Christianity, which emerged as a messianic movement, is historically unexplainable apart from the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead which is why the apostles said he was the Messiah and Lord! Remember what I said above. They lived in a realistic world. If your woyld be Messiah gets killed, that means he's not the Messiah. Therefore, why did they precisely that he was the Messiah? Answer: BODILY RESURRECTION. The problem is that people don't know how to distinguish between mythic literature and Biblical literature, and therefore assume ridiculous things. You've clearly been duped by the atheist Bill Maher's unintelligent movie entitled RELIGILOUS and the movie ZEITGEIST.

[@aikido7]

Many people died in the Middle East rather than denounce the spurious reason that the weapons of mass destruction meme was based on a description that proved to be totally false. If people actually rose bodily from their graves, turned water into wine and walked on water would certainly help convince me. Buddha was said to emerge from his mother’s womb walking, talking and preaching. Muhammed supposedly ascended to heaven on the back of qigaqntic white horse-like creature. Jewish metaphors of the Passsover and Egypt mean something metaphoric. Go back to the roots of the story and bring it to life with renewed energy to make it a transformative event rather than a historical retelling of a story that often is used only as a reason for eating matzah ball soup, and the only challenge it conjures up is who can eat the most horseradish on their gefilte fish. Passover holds much more potential for change in our lives and in the life of the world. And, at the end of the Passover meal, when Jews say “Next Year in Jerusalem,” let’s remember that “Jerusalem” is more than a place too. It is a vision of a world at peace, made so by the work of Jewish voices and their hands, and guided by the sacred stories they use to remind them of their work.

[@chriswinchell1570]

God did t even know that I would have preferred not to exist. He already failed the test of his omniscience.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 So every book written about the Civil War has to be penned by someone who was actually at Gettysburg or Antietam. Every book written about the JFK assassination has to be by someone who was on the Grassy Knoll! Man, you're setting the bar for the Gospels ridiculously high. The Gospels were written within a few decades of the events they're describing and they are based on eye-witness accounts, like almost every book of history you've ever read.

[@aikido7]

People who take the holy and sacred metaphors literally forfeit their text”s great claim and hope.

[@msrhuby]

Shared on Facebook. I only ran across John Dominic today! Your video saves my energy in investigating him.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Again, you're imposing impossibly high standards on ancient texts. I mean, we don't have anything approaching modern levels of evidence for any event or person in the ancient world. Does this mean that we deny the existence of Julius Caesar, Homer, Alexander the Great, and Hammurrabi?! And Josephus does indeed refer to Jesus as a miracle worker. Friend, seriously, take a look at John Meier's first volume on the historical Jesus and then we can talk some more.

[@elliegasser1575]

thank you Bishop Barron for your eloquent enlightning explanations! it means a lot to me!

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Well that's just a load of nonsense. Show me where I've backed away from hard questions. Sometimes, "I don't know" is the right answer to a hard question.

[@livelaughlove311]

One of your best videos! Thanks for compiling all that truth and preaching Christ!

[@schillerblvd]

I don't agree that Crossan reduces Jesus to a "social reformer." He makes clear in his writings that Jesus is firmly rooted in the prophetic tradition of Israel. So that begs the question whether or not social justice & Earthly empire are compatible in God's world? Calling that into question - in my mind - is not just a matter of social reform, but the foundation of living the Good News.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 By "simplicity" here I mean the lack of a distinction between essence and existence in God. This in no way stands in opposition to God's inscrutability, at least from our perspective. And I'm not asking you to take a leap of faith. I can show you that the unconditioned ground of contingency is immaterial, absolute, all-knowing, and the Creator of all things. I can show you logically how it corresponds to the God of the Bible. But I can't do it in 500 characters!

[@cupcake5180]

Thank you Bishop Barron! The Lord, God among us, rose from the dead!

[@aikido7]

No one, anywhere, any time causes dead people to arise bodily from death. The bones of Jesus are still buried someplace in Palestine.

[@gingeralex4009]

Hear hear!

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Why the hesitating "might?" Show me precisely where you think the argument from contingency doesn't deliver the logically compelling conclusion that there actually exists a non-contingent ground. Once you admit this, I can begin, step by step, to show you how this reality does indeed correspond to the God of the Bible.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Well, you're not paying very close attention to my videos! I've never denigrated science. What I question is a scientism that reduces all knowledge to the scientific form. And I've never argued that there is a "better" way of knowing than the scientific. I've claimed that certain dimensions of reality are inaccessible to science. For proof, I would suggest you read anything by Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, or Thomas Aquinas.

[@BishopBarron]

Not so! Friend, New Testament scholarship has moved way beyond Bultmann. Hardly any major figure takes his approach seriously today. Read N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, J.D.G. Dunn, John Meier, etc., for more compelling accounts of the formation of the Gospels.

[@DBCisco]

Why should I believe any Christian ? None of you say the same thing. I want to believe but all you do is call each other liars, idiots and heretics.

[@markstevenpandan890]

Any Catholic scholar you might suggest, Bishop Barron?

[@jessicablack6473]

@@DBCisco That's right Christians are divided, can't you see who is doing the dividing? Creating confusion, so it is hard to find the truth... Jesus said that whoever asks shall receive. Then ask God, pray before you read something, question people and if you are not satisfied with their answer dig deeper. The truth that we all christians agree upon: Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins and resurrected.

[@tomgreene6579]

@@markstevenpandan890 Raymond Brown pretty good at least for a start.

[@myopenmind527]

Bart Erhman would disagree with you that Jesus ever claimed to be a god. You’re principle Cristian of JD Crossan falls flat on its face. Yeshua’s body was most likely thrown in mass grave. This would have been the norm. Being raised from the dead was commonplace in those days. The story or metaphor of Jesus’s resurrection is not unique. Even Julius Caesar ascended to heaven to be with his gods. I don’t find Robert’s objections to Crossan that persuasive. Crossan is, let’s not forget a Christian.

[@josephososkie3029]

Nicodemus asks for the body of Jesus. He's wealthy. Speculate from there, but it fits!

[@bishopsheen1985]

God bless you, Father Barron!

[@tomgreene8480]

Raymond Brown is worth a read in this regard.

[@BishopBarron]

@adstanra Wrong! Paul says, "though he was in the form of God, he did not deem equality with God a thing to be grasped..." And the Synoptics are filled with affirmations of Jesus' divinity: "My son, your sins are forgiven." "Unless you love me more than your very life, you are not worthy of me." "You have a greater than the Temple here," in reference to himself. "Who do people say that I am?" "Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

[@aikido7]

Some people saw God in Jesus and said “He is divine. I’ll follow him." Some people saw "Jesus is boring--I’m outta here.” Others saw Jesus as a threat: “Let’s get rid of him.” Christianity is the act of seeing the divine in Jesus of Nazareth. To the faithful, he is seen as the definitive revelation of God. I don’t believe Jesus was not a mystic philosopher as John’s gospel charcterizes him. He was not a theologian. His “Great Commandment” tells us the answer to a Jesus follower’s question:

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Why do you rule the Gospels out of court as historically reliable? I mean, that's just a prejudice. And I don't see how the comparison to the Civil War was laughable. We have lots and lots of histories of that period, written long after the events themselves but relying on written and spoken testimonies of eye-witnesses. That's just what we have with the Gospels. And by the way, Josephus, Pliny, and Tacitus all mention Jesus.

[@BishopBarron]

@goldenram27 "If Christ has not been raised, you are still in your sins and we are the most pitiable of men." That's how St. Paul saw it. Good enough for me.

[@billydebianchi2046]

i am a huge fan of Crossan, but I think you represented him pretty fairly and didn't knock him like I thought you would. Just a difference if opinion. However, I am interested on your thoughts Bishop Barron, on John Shelby Spong. He is a former Episcopalian bishop of Newark, very similar to Crossan but believes in Christ' divinity.

[@vaska1999]

I've seen a couple of talks of his -- different from his books -- from which I got the impression that Shelby's an atheist.

[@allanlindsay8369]

Billy de bianchi, greetings. I'd perhaps advise being a huge fan of Christ Himself instead? Crossan is just a mere mortal another in a long, long line of "free thinkers" or "fringe thinkers" who often consider themselves rather unique, a condition off which their ego and much else feeds. Christ is Truth and enlightenment, all the rest of it is merely all the rest of it. Get to the core! Peace.

[@hemmarket]

@@allanlindsay8369 Says you. No proof. No educated argument, just the re-espousing of the words of people from the Bible you don't know, who had no education and were trying to rally others to their cause. You and the Bishop think, just because you believe differently, that makes you right. But it doesn't. And by the way, YOU and the Bishop are nothing more than real mortals, and in over 2,000 years, have we heard from anyone who isn't ? What you believe isn't truth, truth has facts. What facts are their that Jesus was anymore than one of thousands of faith-healers at the time ? Herod himself was also a faith-healer, or a magician. Maybe he was the son of God.

[@allanlindsay8369]

@@hemmarket greetings . . . .and so says You, in a rather tetchy response that reveals a nerve has been struck and what struck that nerve was mention of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as is always the way, for he is the way, the truth and the life, celebrate it instead of denigrating it!. There is more evidence for Christ than any other figure in ancient texts. Do your own research my friend. Peace.

[@elke4646]

@@hemmarket Hmmm. Well, I can see how you might hold these views. However, how about the testimony from those who REALLY put Jesus Christ to the test? Jesus said "Ask and you shall receive." Have you done so wholeheartedly? I decided one night in 1981 to test this. I was hitting a bottom, emotionally and psychologically. I had run out of my bag of tricks of distraction, projection and blame for my negative state of mind and heart. I had been fooling around with new age ideas, reincarnation, astrology and none of that satisfied one iota. So, one night I recognized, after my first therapy session that I had SUCH a long road ahead of me. I recognized also that "I' was the problem, not anybody out there. My own judgements and behaviors were the problem. So I called out to Jesus in the midst of despair and tears "If you REALLY exist, then you better SHOW ME, because I am dying down here." Then I went to bed. At 4 a.m. I awoke, was bummed to see that all of my negative emotion, negative mindset, despair was still there. BUT the very next second, a HUGE presence entered my room and my reality. It was overwhelming love, which was like the ocean wherein even the best human love was only a drop of water. I was healed INSTANTLY of all negative depression, despair, resentment. Christ's words and teachings flooded my mind. He was communicating with me telepathically and filled my heart with His love. I cannot adequately describe the depth, breadth, profundity and intensity of His presence and His love. There is no word in the dictionary for it. Let me just say that if ever I had doubted the full Divinity of Jesus Christ, it was forever relieved in that night. For months afterwards I would awaken at 4 a.m. realizing that I had been in a realm where angels were singing. Or I would have dreams of Jesus and He would be giving me a teaching. I was filled with joy and peace and I have never been that resentful person ever again. You could say, that I was "born again" or "born from above" or "born of the Spirit" as Jesus described to Nicodemus. No mere faith healer among thousands is Christ. Those who believe that, have never had the encounter with Christ that HE PROMISES. "If anyone invites us in, My Father and I will come and live with him." PUT HIM TO THE TEST, Brother before you state that he is just 'one among many" . Oh and btw, it wasn't Buddha who showed up when I called on God, it wasn't Krishna or Allah. It was Christ.

[@rickbangkok]

your own church took 400 years to decide if Jesus was divine.

[@riddlezastra1496]

😂😂😂😂

[@xtrashed]

@adstanra Luke is seen as a very accurate historian by modern scholars. In Acts 1:1 3 Luke uses the word ''them'' of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is recounting the events from the disciples. John was an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life, he speaks from a perspective of having been there during the events.

[@yankeesuperstar]

this fellow Crossan was affiliated with DePaul University while I was there- I ran into him in a campus parking lot, although I didnt agree with his work"The HIstorical Jesus", I didnt have the intellectual firepower to counter him. And this frustration continued throughout my early undergrad studies. I thank you father Barron for your commentary and pray for the Holy Spirit to help you during this upcoming Lent season.-s.rodriguez

[@powderdd]

It would be AMAZING to hear a commentary on Thomas Merton's New Seeds of Contemplation. The book has been more helpful to me than anything I have ever read or any sermon I have ever heard. Anyone who can find a spare minute to read I implire you to pick it up from your library!

[@jeremysmith7176]

I am sad to see that KZbin broke the comment section and we cannot the discussions anymore.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 It's a bad analogy. For one thing, we have four texts, not one, that present the life of Jesus. We also have the numerous letters of Paul that date from the 50's of the first century, all of which bear witness to Jesus. Further, as Richard Bauckham and others have argued, the Gospels are based upon carefully remembered eye-witness accounts and the preaching of the apostles who knew Jesus personally. And if God exists, why are miracles automatically ruled out of court?

[@aikido7]

Here on earth, God’s work must truly be our own. We are called to help Jesus realize the Kingdom of God ON EARTH. Without God, we cannot. Without us, God cannot.

[@ksink74]

I love the wild dogs theory. At least 11 men who claimed to have met this risen dog food held to their conviction in the face of death-- separated from each other, over the course of decades, and halfway around the world. The resurrection is a convenient cornerstone in that it is a miracle that simply cannot be argued against in the face of an empty tomb and 2000 years of credible witness.

[@jayd4ever]

I see John Dominic Crossan as today Raymond E Brown in that he is promoted to attack Christianity or Catholicism

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Well, now you're backtracking! You were arguing earlier that there is no compelling evidence for Jesus' historicity. And you're wrong about Caesar and Jesus: we have more evidence concerning Jesus than Caesar. What I would ask you to question is your a priori prejudice against the supernatural. That's what is informing every comment you've made. Once you accept God's existence (which can be proven rationally), the supernatural is a real possibility.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 "The universe" is just a collective term to name the sum total of contingent things. Therefore invoking it is no solution to the problem of contingency. And I wouldn't point to one text, but I would indicate a whole congeries of themes, patterns, and trajectories within the Bible that cohere with the claim that a non-contingent ground of contingency must exist. Finally, I've responded dozens and dozens of times to objections to the contingency argument.

[@Jugglable]

My friend said, "Not much is known about Jesus' younger years. I think he went east to India and learned from the mystics. In Gethsemane he was not praying, he was meditating." It's amazing to me what people will believe about Jesus so long as it's not the Jesus proclaimed by his friends who knew him best!!!

[@jflaugher]

In Mark when Jesus tells the man, "Your sins are forgiven," and others protest saying, "Only God can forgive sins." Jesus says in response, "On Earth even the son of man can forgive sins." The term "Son of Man" literally means a human being. Jesus is saying on Earth even an ordinary human being can forgive sins.

[@billybagbom]

Father Barron: St. Mark was saying, "Yes! Only God can forgive sins! You've got it right! Jesus of Nazareth is God!" So, was he also saying, " Why do you think Jesus is God? Jesus Himself said, 'Only ONE is Good.'" Was Jesus inviting the rich young man (and me) to acknowledge His divinity? I repeat: Please tune in to the recent writings of Thom Stark and address them!

[@theGentlemanCaller73]

I, too, appreciate Crossan's work, despite minimizing, or even erasing, the notion of Jesus' eternal deity.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 And you honestly expect pictures of Jesus?! Do you see why I am critiquing your ridiculously high expectations for the Gospels? I didn't say that those figures were contemporaries; someone (perhaps it was you) had asked for extra-biblical testimony to Jesus.

[@xtrashed]

@adstanra Mark was not an eyewitness, he was a disciple of Peter and it was undoubtedly Peter who informed Mark in his writing of the Gospel. ''Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter." [Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who's Who in Christian History, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.]

[@riddlezastra1496]

How many want to see Dr. Ehrnan v Fr. Barron 👇

[@timrichardson4018]

I spent a lot of time reading secular Jesus scholars. Many of them would argue that in the Synoptic Gospels, there is a historical core that later had deifications of Jesus added to it. Some argue that Jesus' death wasn't an impediment to the gospel because Jesus announced that the Kingdom of God was already among them, the people of his day. He showed them a new way of life, subversive to Rome. He planted the seed of the Kingdom and it took root in his disciples. Therefore, his death was no stumbling block because he had already completed his messianic mission in their minds. I find those arguments plausible. But one thing that gets me is that (even secular scholars agree) the belief in the resurrection began very early in the Christian movement. Bart Ehrman, as openly agnostic/atheist as he is, concludes that the belief in the resurrection goes all the way back to the original disciples. He says that, through the eyes of the discipline of history, we cannot say what caused their belief. But he concludes that something happened to convince them that Jesus had risen from the dead.

[@BishopBarron]

@MobiusCoin And this is precisely why the church rejected the Gnostic Gospels. They were correctly seen as inauthentic witnesses to the truth about Jesus.

[@cheryldcruz3540]

Excellent insight and exposition. Richard D'Cruz.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 It's impossible to explain a radically contingent universe without appealing, finally, to a non-contingent ground. Not to hold this is to be in a state of denial.

[@FaithandReason101]

an annulment process only seeks to determine if a valid marriage has occurred. it does not cause any 'disconnection.' if the marriage wasnt valid, the annulment process can help explain why. if the marriage was valid, hundreds of annulment processes and civil divorce filings cant tear apart the bond; only death can do that.

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video .

[@BishopBarron]

@bayreuth79 But that's not what he means! The hermeneutics of faith is appropriate to the biblical texts, precisely because they are texts written from the perspective of faith and designed to awaken faith. One of the many problems with historical criticism is that it takes the Biblical books out of their proper context and analyzes them simply as ancient writings. But this is to miss the point completely.

[@BishopBarron]

@dumpmist How in the world is it showing a "lack of faith?" If Jesus died and stayed in his grave, he was, as Albert Schweizer said, "ground under by the wheel of history." All of the poetry and drama of Christianity is contained in the claim that Caesar killed him but God raised him up. That's precisely why they called their accounts of Jesus "Gospels," good news.

[@aikido7]

I believe in the resurrection, and I also believe it has nothing to do with Jesus’s body. It is just one of the metaphors available to the gospel writers [and Paul] at that time. Being “taken up,” “sitting at the right hand of God” or “Exalted.” All of these terms--including “resurrection”-- tell us that after his death, Jesus was still available to them in their own lives, their radical hospitality, their sharing of meals and their healing of others. He was still a pressence in the world. His grave truly could not hold him.

[@xtrashed]

@goldenram27 Another theory is that Luke did not imply that Quirinius had the title of governor, but only a role of authority over Syria, for the purpose of the census. Luke also called Pilate a governor, but Pilate's title was procurator. So Luke was referring to any role of governing, not necessarily to 'the' governor. Quirinius was Roman Consul years prior to the second census (the one usually dated to 6 AD). So the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem may have occurred then.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 I'm continually amazed at how people think I can lay out all of theology in 500 characters! God actually is not complex; he is supremely simple. The logical hinge of the argument from contingency is that a non-self-exlanatory world must be grounded, ultimately, in something that does indeed explain itself. "Complexity" is not the issue, but rather contingency and non-contingency. The best characterization of the non-contingent ground is Creator or source of being.

[@jordandraper2284]

The religious art throughout this video are great depictions of the resurrection. Many I’ve never seen before. Does anyone know the artists / have citations for these paintings or know where they can be seen online?

[@BishopBarron]

@goldenram27 Well friend, now you're raising a different question, that of facticity. I'm simply arguing that Christianity becomes something radically different if Jesus has not been raised from the dead. It devolves into a philosophical or mythic system. I quoted Paul to show you that the earliest Christians took the literal resurrection of Jesus with enormous seriousness.

[@billanderson9908]

Bishop Barron sets a few things straight, but the thing is that Crossan is so involved and taken with the Jesus Seminar that he deems all the quotes that the Church tells us are attributed to Jesus as inauthentic. The authentic sayings of Jesus are very few, according to the Jesus seminar.

[@xtrashed]

@goldenram27 Mark was not an eyewitness he was a disciple of Peter and it was undoubtedly Peter who informed Mark in his writing of the Gospel. ''Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter." [Douglas, J. D., Comfort, Philip W. & Mitchell, Donald, Editors, Who's Who in Christian History, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1992.]

[@BishopBarron]

@cristianfcao Please list for me the Biblical texts that show that Jesus is not divine. And I don't mean those that maintain that he is human--for the orthodox teaching of the church is that he is both. I was highlighting the texts that describe his divinity, precisely because Crossan was leaving them out.

[@BishopBarron]

Nonsense! "I and the Father are one." "He who sees me sees the Father." "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." "Though he was in the form of God, Jesus did not deem equality with God a thing to be grasped." Those and many many more like them can be found in the pages of the New Testament.

[@glossypots]

Crossan is brilliant and makes the Bible palatable.

[@theguyver4934]

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

[@BishopBarron]

Oh come on! The fee--which can be easily waived if the parties in question are really strapped--is simply to pay for office expenses.

[@BishopBarron]

@goldenram27 ?But I don't "rule them out!" The great religions of the world are filled with deep and important truths and in that sense they are of the Holy Spirit. My claim is that Christianity represents the fullness of revelation. It's not a question of true vs. false, but of fullness of truth vs. partial truth.

[@alocohc]

Thank you for this explaination.

[@sgt7]

Bishop Barron, as far as I understand the work of Crossan, he does not see the gospels as straightforward historical records. For example, the Gospel of John is not considered historical (generally) by Crossan (and many historians to put it charitably). Crossan bases his ideas on those parts of the bible that pass the test of being reasonably historical by modern standards of historical scholarship. So some of the verses you quote from John (to defend the traditional view) are verses that Crossan does not accept as accounts of Jesus' life and words. Rather they are viewed as records of what the community came to believe about Jesus. I presume this about Crossan because he was an active member of the Jesus Seminar which largely rejected the Gospel of John as being historical (along with parts of the other gospels). However, I do agree that Crossan seems to reduce Jesus to a political leader rather than a spiritual leader (never mind divine).

[@chriswinchell1570]

I agree with your analysis. It’s not that crossan does not know of these things; it’s more the case that he does not believe they ever occurred. I think crossan is correct. It is unlikely that Jesus ever said the things he did. I have no idea what kind of spiritual leader Jesus may have been because I believe Paul hijacked the movement. It is pretty clear though that Jesus was making political protests against both the Romans and the Jewish authorities who were complicit with Roman authority.

[@sgt7]

@@chriswinchell1570 Yes I agree with your points too (especially in relation to Paul). I think the nature of the evidence we have about Jesus permits multiple understandings of what Jesus may have said and did. However, I am quite sympathetic to Dr Marcus Borg's view. Dr Borg believed that the historical evidence we have on Jesus points to a man who emphasized the importance of entering into a transformational personal relationship with God and loving others over conformity to religious dogma. And of course, this view would penetrate into the political dimensions of society. I'm not a biblical scholar but this is what makes sense to me at this stage.

[@katiuszaYT]

Here's another way of looking at it... how much did the couple 'invest' monetarily in the courtship? The wedding? The marriage itself? A marriage is both a legal and a spiritual connection. The legal part is what requires the lucre... the spiritual payment is much higher.

[@BishopBarron]

@bayreuth79 The hermeneutic of faith can include the historical critical method, but it doesn't work the other way. People of faith know that the Gospels aren't journalistic reportage (that's where historical criticism has been helpful) but they also know that the ultimate purpose of the Gospels is to awaken faith in Jesus as the Son of God.

[@techbilly2342]

Eleven years have passed. I'm wondering if you have kept up with Dr. Crossan and if this still essentially represents your view.

[@gregmannheimer286]

This is actually a poor or incomplete understanding of Crossan’s scholarship (and his peers) at best, or a willful distortion of it at worst. Considering Bishop Barron loves to stick to his “(Roman) Catholic guns”, I suspect that it’s actually the second option, unfortunately. JDC does *not* reduce Jesus to a social reformer. Time and again, JDC, Marcus Borg, and their scholarly peers point out that Jesus’s “political” message (I only use that word for a modern person to help them understand; the quotation marks are there in order to hint that ***there is no division between the sacred and the secular for pre-modern people***, so Jesus “political message” is simultaneously his “religious message” be the inverse: more on that below) is born out of his Mystical Spiritual Discipline (and I mean that in the most “conservative” sense of that term…). Jesus’s direct encounters with God provided him with a clearaightedness of God’s “character” or “nature”: God is infinite, so he is never “parsimonious” in any way, including in mercy and compassion. God is Creator of all things and has made human beings in His image (though this is just a standard Jewish belief at the time, Jesus builds on this theme in a way never done before), therefore, God is the Father of all Mankind, and wants his children to share his blessings equally with one another. God is perfect, so He must be perfectly just/fair, so he must be committed to justice and equity, and the most desirable outcome of holding that value: *reconciliation* JDC has gone over these themes in multiple books; these assertions could hardly be described as “transforming Jesus into a social reformer”. Not to mention, he has also written extensively about Paul, and the scholarship on both is *extremely sound*. We now know more about Jesus and Paul than ever before. I’ll leave whoever reads this comment with one last thought: JDC has worked ecumenically with any type of Christian after having left the security of the monastery (he was a monk, not a priest, as Barron claims); Barron is a high-ranking priest in the RCC… consider the source, and consider the fallacy of sunk costs… Barron has every reason to talk this way about JDC for the sake of upholding his “beloved church” and towing the line.

[@xtrashed]

@goldenram27 One reference by Josephus is questioned, but the other reference Josephus made about Jesus is not so controversial: "So [Ananus] assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned." Antiquities XX 9:1

[@BishopBarron]

@bayreuth79 But friend, that's my point: it's wrong of you simply to take the high ground and maintain that "a majority" or "a consensus" of scholars hold to your point of view. It's simply not the case. And who died and made "the historical-critical method" King? I mean, it's illuminating as far as it goes, but like any method, it's limited by the philosophical assumptions that undergird it--one of which is that God doesn't act and that supernatural things don't happen.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 We have more reliable historical evidence about Jesus than we do about practically any other ancient figure, more certainly than Alexander the Great, Homer, or Pericles. And friend, I think it's a tad unrealistic to expect photographs of Jesus! Why do you think I necessarily reject claims to the miraculous in other historical texts?

[@JesusIsLove2512]

Praise the Lord Jesus Christ 🙏 Mother Mary Pray For Us 🙏Abba Father Bless us and we Adore You 🙏

[@theguyver4934]

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

[@BishopBarron]

Take a look at the eighth chapter of Proverbs in order to see what John was referring to in his prologue. And come on, friend: Bart Ehrman is a popularizer with an enormous ax to grind against traditional Christianity. For a much clearer picture, read N.T. Wright's magisterial study of Jesus.

[@BishopBarron]

@goldenram27 But why be so cynical about it? They chose those texts that most accurately reflected their faith and their experience. Think of someone like St. Irenaeus, who lived in the second century and who had a lot to do with the formation of the canon. Over and again, he says, "I received my teaching from Polycarp who in turn received it from John."

[@richardho8283]

Problem in most discussions is making personal statements versus organisational and office statements. Personal statements are more credible.

[@xtrashed]

@goldenram27 There are no inconsistencies, there are no factual errors. There are extra biblical references to Jesus but you are not taking them seriously either.

[@havock89]

@adstanra That is what you present Jesus as, thats not what the apostles presented him as being. The apostles also passed on their teachings in full to their disciples, who became church fathers. They also agreed with them in full. History does not bear you out.

[@ryandardard]

Father, will you please do a video on what protestants call the "apocrypha"? i think this is much needed

[@xtrashed]

@adstanra The strongest evidence for Matthew's authorship is that Papias of Asia Minor, Irenaeus of Gaul, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea, all significant leaders in the early Church or early Christian community attribute the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew.

[@Monkofmagnesia]

Man! You've hit the nail on the head when it comes to what is wrong with Crossan.

[@BishopBarron]

@goldenram27 But why do you rule the miraculous out of court so uncritically? I wouldn't say that the Gospels were "biased;" I would say that they were written by people of faith in the interest of awakening faith in others. Does this necessarily make them historically unreliable? It's like saying that Ted Sorensen's history of the JFK presidency is thoroughly unreliable, just because Sorensen was in the inner circle of the president.

[@xtrashed]

@goldenram27 So, one or two of them might leave out details or mention of persons that the others left out. It doesn’t mean the WH function never took place or that they colluded together to lie, but rather that they each reported what they believed would be of interest to their particular readership. It’s the same with the Gospel writers. They weren’t being modern historians, but rather they were being story-tellers. Story-tellers relating a true story as they saw it and understood it.

[@levismadore556]

I share with Crossan his idea of Jesus as a living image of an « open table fellowship ». Where he fails is in dislocating The image from the being it represents. An image is not of itself, it springs from the thing of which it is an image (Eckart). Jesus as an image of open table fellowship takes its being immediately from the very thing of which it is an image

[@xtrashed]

@goldenram27 Eliezer, a servant for Abraham was not only master of his household (Genesis 24:2), but was also his heir (Genesis 15:3). This is not the position of a chattel slave.

[@nednetterville]

Luke is the only Gospel that has Pilate sending Jesus to be questioned by Herod, and Luke provides quite a few details of what occurred before Herod sent him back to Pilate. None of the other Gospels even mention Herod. He is not in the picture of Jesus' trial. How is this huge discrepancy possible? I attribute it to the fact that all four of the accounts in the Gospels are based on hearsay--what the authors heard from others--because--and this seems obvious from the circumstances--that none of Jesus' disciples was present during his trial.

[@xtrashed]

@goldenram27 (Luke 1:26,2:4) (Matthew 2:1, 2:16) It's easily reconciled. They lived in Nazareth when the Angel visited Mary, traveled to Bethlehem for the birth, lived there for a while, went to Egypt and returned to Nazareth. Each Gospel writer included/excluded those things that he felt necessary for his readers.

[@christisking1576]

“The divine origins of Jesus are, to be sure, just as fictional or mythological as those of Octavius. But to claim them for Octavius surprised nobody in that first century. What was incredible was that anyone at all claimed them for Jesus.” Crossan He's an atheist but won't directly say it in any documentaries.

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 The "I don't know" is the answer to the question of precisely how God's permission of certain evils conduces to the good.

[@alamamia1]

Thank you, Bishop. The naysayers, those weak of faith? By their fruits we shall know them. And I forsaking Our Lord, forsaking his faith, Crossan absolutely chooses the kingdom of this world versus the Kingdom of God. Instead of the Savior, Crossan chooses a Guru. Lord, have mercy. The truth is with the Saints, always has been, and all ways will be. Amen.

[@BishopBarron]

@goldenram27 Friend, if you want to continue this conversation, you at least have to pay attention to what I write. I explicitly said that the other religions didn't just "get it wrong." I said that all the great religions have elements of truth.

[@BishopBarron]

No, Ehrman is a bad scholar tout court. But he is also deeply prejudiced against classical Christianity. And I'm not sure what Wright's "conservatism" has to do with his being right or wrong. And you think that Borg and Crossan are unbiased?!! I suppose only believers have biases and non-believers just exercise sweet reason.

[@xtrashed]

@goldenram27 The date of Herod's death is disputed among scholars. Some believe that he died later than 4 BC, as late as 1 BC or so; others believe that he died earlier than 4 BC.

[@12aug96]

Why do naturalistic interpretations of the Gospels always sound way more complicated and improbable than the supernatural one? Hey! I got an idea - let's vote on it...or we could just use Mr O`s razor. My red bead goes to Fr. B

[@xtrashed]

@goldenram27 Are you referring to the census of Quirinius? There are a number of theories among Biblical chronologists on this question. Some scholars believe that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, and there is an ancient inscription (on the Lapis Tiburtinus) referring to a man who was governor of Syria twice. The text of Luke 2:2 supports this theory, since it specifics 'the first census' implying that a second occurred. Then Acts 5:37 seems to refer to this second census.

[@BishopBarron]

Friend, I'm afraid that this kind of theorizing was de-bunked by the mid twentieth century. The Logos speculation of John is far more Hebraic than Hellenistic, and the synoptics have just as many indications of Jesus' divinity as John, though they employ a different symbol system. To maintain your position is to claim that the New Testament authors and all of the Church fathers got Jesus massively wrong.

[@FaithandReason101]

that's absurd. the early church, starting right with peter as the first pope, declared Jesus to be the "son of God." just because a later council 're-affirms' an already held view, does not mean that council was the 'origin' of the belief.

[@BishopBarron]

The Wisdom referred to in Proverbs was with God before the world was brought forth and was Yahweh's partner in the creation of the universe. This is precisely the Logos that John referred to, using the Greek word for the benefit of his Greek-speaking audience. And no, whatever "the eternal Quantum field" is supposed to mean, it's some feature of the finite universe and therefore not what John or Proverbs mean by divine Wisdom or Logos.

[@wilkiebunkers1352]

You may find his version of first century events strange.. yet he's reaching people who wouldn't give you the time of day. I wish you guys could see who your allies are. Christianity today eats itself away from the inside. This video is a perfect example of that.

[@BishopBarron]

@bayreuth79 Okay friend, but now you're back-pedalling! I have no quarrel whatsoever with the claim that the left-wing reading is an "alternative" reading. What you originally proposed was that it was the "consensus of the mainstream." With all that out of the way, why don't we get back to the question itself: what is the fairest, most complete, and most accurate reading of the data of the New Testament?

[@BishopBarron]

@mthouser123 Friend, I hope I don't sound patronizing here, but I can only laugh when you keep coming back at me on this point! I mean, if you really think the Gospels are just tissues of lies, fine. Move on. The fact that you keep coming back to argue tells me that you're not entirely convinced of your own argument. And please, if you have a chance, look up John Meier's multi-volume study of the historical Jesus. I can't lay out the whole argument in these little 500 character responses.

[@upinsmoke2897]

wordonfirevideo. Here's a real question for you. If marriage is a sacrament and divorce (in the eyes of the church, not state) is a sin, then why does someone have to pay for an annulment? The church can investigate whether or not the sacrament of marriage actually took place...but cannon lawyer fees are $500. One has to pay to alleviate the guilt of moving on from a bad spouse. Paying for indulgences doesn't seem much different.

[@BishopBarron]

@goldenram27 Well okay: there were disagreements about what was authentic Christianity, and some texts were determined to be inadequate. Why should that be so surprising or objectionable? And to see it as some sort of power game is just retrojecting 21st century ideology back to the first century. What, precisely, was the "power" of the church in the first couple of centuries? I mean, it was a massively persecuted collection of tiny communities, barely clinging to life.