Metamodern Christianity | 2. Metamodernism, Miracles, and the Historical Jesus

[@KalebPeters99]

Your recent firehose of metamodern Christianity content is the most compelling thing happening right now on KZbin for me, thanks for all your time and careful attention to this topic🙏✨

[@peterrosqvist2480]

Hi Kaleb! Good to see you again!

[@joel230182]

I was thirsty for this kind of conversations. I'm so happy I found your channel. Thank you!

[@BrendanGrahamDempsey]

Thanks!

[@joel230182]

@@James-ll3jb what's wrong with my grammar? I'm genuinely curious. I want to improve my English.

[@autismfromtheInside]

Thanks for expanding on this. I now understand that when you say 'that didn't happen', you don't mean 'nothing anomalous happened', you mean, 'the details of the specific instance recorded likely didn't happen exactly as documented' (or in some cases may have been completely fabricated to fill a gap in the story) Makes sense. That's a big distinction. If we take that as a given, due to the nature of record keeping and story telling at the time, perhaps the next important question is: What can we say DID happen? For example: 1. Jesus was born (somewhere) 2. Jesus was killed/executed (somehow) 3. Jesus healed/exorcised (or something that led witnesses to believe this) 4. Jesus taught (something similar to what was recorded) 5. Jesus rose from the dead (or something similar that led witnesses to believe this) Regarding 5, I refer specifically to 1 Cor 15, where Paul seems to claim that he appeared to many people who are still alive to corroborate the witness. When people say 'there's enough evidence to believe in the resurrection', I think this is the type of thing they mean. Also, I'm wondering if it's within the scope of the modern view to speculate the bounds of what may have historically occurred? (Like I've done above?) Or is that too nuanced, and it's limited to saying what likely didn't happen (as documented)? (Leaving more integrated perspectives for later stages?)

[@rrg0731]

Thanks Brendan for all of these conversations and presentations.

[@GreenManorite]

That was clarifying. I think you can push things a bit further and say that the Gospels and Epistles directly reflect the early Church wrestling with "who was Jesus". The primary dialogue was theological not historical narrative. What you laid out is pretty standard scholarly perspective. I think the accounts are honest accounts by a community that revered Jesus and were trying to resolve "what just happened". Theologically, the understanding of the Messiah and the relationship of God and man took several steps forward. Some of this was probably in Jesus' teaching, and some of it was the resolution of "what just happened" within the early Church. "Maran atha", our Lord has come-- so what does that mean now? If you read the Gospels in the light of the early Epistles (Corinthians) and not the other way around, you get the need for communication of the life of Christ through the lens of theological struggle/epiphany of the early Church. I'm not a theologian, but my recollection of Augustine was that his synthesis of the Gospel was closer to informed naivete than problematic literalism. The interesting commonality between metamodern Christianity and the Catholicism I received and maintain is that they maintain the tension of mystery/ambiguity instead of seeking to resolve it. I would posit these tensions are the paths to entering deeper. The tension held between the chronological events and the theological accounts is essential for reading the texts: there is much lost in reductionism in either direction. The tension is an invitation to enter the text theologically while grounding that thinking in embodiment of particular people and events.

[@KalebPeters99]

Brilliantly put, thank you for sharing your perspective 🙏❤️ I gotta go read some Augustine...

[@MorrolanTV]

Kudos to you for occupying a really difficult space here. Coming from a similar background, my Christian friends are reluctant to engage with many of these problems, and my non-Christian friends are reluctant to engage with the Bible at all. Both sides seem to think that if they just ignore the other for long enough, they will go away. I don't think that's going to happen for either. A synthesis is needed.

[@BrendanGrahamDempsey]

💯

[@KalebPeters99]

Well said!

[@newtonfinn164]

When Brandon talks about the undermining impact of Biblical scholarship on the accuracy and authority of scripture, he is only relating what everyone knows who has studied the Bible in a mainline, as opposed to a fundamentalist or evangelical, seminary. Yet for many decades, this daunting information was kept from congregations by the clergy even in liberal churches.Then came the internet broadcasting this incendiary material to the world, and what has happened? The internet is now flooded with young people from conservative Xian backgrounds who are sharing their painful, protracted deconstructions and deconversions. A metamodern Xianity MUST do better than this, which is why Brendan refuses to gloss over this clash of modernist scholarship with traditional faith and continues to seek a guest who will directly engage with him on this crucial issue.

[@BrendanGrahamDempsey]

Well said. And yes, even though often done for well-intentioned reasons, the fact that clergy have long deliberately kept this sort of information from their congregations to "protect" them has been a great disservice to the church. As I argue in my video on "A Catechism for a Metamodern Christian," we need to fold these teachings into the healthy development of believers so that, when they do come up against them, it doesn't threaten to break their world. Deconstructions are a natural and healthy part of development, but they don't have to be utterly disruptive. Spiritual growth should bend us, not break us. A metamodern Christianity should aim to bring up informed Chritians whose faith is anti-fragile and built of more profound stuff than mere historical analysis can shake. Thanks for your comment.

[@StevenPetermann]

Many years ago I went to a liberal Lutheran seminary for two years. Coming from a relatively conservative theological background I went through a deconstruction of sorts over those two years. As I was approaching an internship I decided to leave the seminary because I realized I wouldn't be able to be forthcoming about my new beliefs to the parishioners. At that time I was angry with the church for not disseminating these new approaches down to the grassroots level. Upon further reflection, I realized that my anger was partially wrong. Grassroots adherents are mostly not sophisticated in philosophy or theology. The problem is that offering historical-critical ideas and the subsequent seismic shift they entail would do a lot of damage to many adherents with no clear practical and compelling alternative being offered. While it might seem disingenuous to hide this scholarship from parishioners, I think in a large part it was done out of love for them. After all, when we see the struggles of those going through a deconstruction today, even when they get past the initial stage of shock and perhaps anger, many still struggle mightily trying to construct something meaningful for their spirituality. Where is the compelling reconstruction for them? Imagine the tragic consequences of promoting the new scholarship to a wide audience in the pews with their own particular capabilities. If the label "Christian" is to be salvaged for some demographics, the question is what is the new narrative? Would that new narrative deserve to be called Christian? It's not enough to just gesture toward some new way of thinking about Christianity. Existentially, specifics matter.

[@GogiRazmadze]

Hi Brendan, Accounts of Mathew and Luke re date of birth of Jesus apparently differ (in more then just date), but did I understood you correctly that you say like the census didn't happen at the (approx.) time of birth of Jesus? I thought that reference to Census of Quirinius was accepted as a possible reference point.

[@BrendanGrahamDempsey]

Hi. The reference to Quirinius is in the right historical ballpark, but the census itself is not historical, i.e. almost certainly didn’t happen.

[@GogiRazmadze]

@@BrendanGrahamDempsey I have no problem with idea (or rather a fact) that scripture contains parts which are inserted with a sole purpose to "fulfill" the prophecy, but is not it strange to add event like census if nothing like it happened around time in question? Strange choice IMHO. Again, is seems quite obvious that Romans would bot request people to go the "please of their origin" (too practical folks for that), but total fiction? Why census? Do you have any ideas?

[@BrendanGrahamDempsey]

@@GogiRazmadze There was "something like it," it's just a matter of the lack of accuracy of Luke's depiction. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

[@GogiRazmadze]

@@BrendanGrahamDempsey OK thanks. in fact I was not meaning exact precision - just something what could "inspire" this detail

[@tgrogan6049]

“A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.” -David Hume (Of Miracles) Hume, David. David Hume Of Miracles: Skeptical Empiricism vs. Supernaturalism and Religious Faith (Philosophy and Christianity): Hume's Critique of Supernaturalism as a Basis for Human Knowledge (p. 1). D. S. D. Publishing. Kindle Edition.

[@willgiorno1740]

Thanks Brendan. Have u talked this precise territory with J. Pageau? I could imagine it being an enjoyable challenge to both.. Also is there somewhere u describe your current personal faith/belief/philosophy/dance? Thankyou again.

[@BrendanGrahamDempsey]

I’d love to explore this with Pageau. We’ll see if that ever comes to fruition. As for where I’m at, you should get a sense for that if you watch a few videos on my channel. Appreciate your response. 🙂

[@willgiorno1740]

@@BrendanGrahamDempsey thanks Brendan

[@trebraswell5043]

11:00 you forget presups

[@jake9674]

One small comment (not finished the video yet). I recommend you research the James Randi million dollar challenge. My understanding is it's basically a fraud given the dishonest way its run and the parameters forced on the applicants. Winning the prize is an impossible situation for those submitting, even were they to have supernatural powers. Rupert Sheldrake speaks convincingly on this topic if you want to learn more. I make this comment not to criticize but because it's a relevant piece of information. Thank you for your videos, I've really been enjoying your content.

[@CrowMagnum]

Ra, smiting Brendan with miraculous sunlight, was unable to deter the multifaceted blasphemy 😂

[@BrendanGrahamDempsey]

Or was it my transfiguration by the Light of the world…? 🧐

[@sambarlow2856]

Great vid! Super interesting listen :)

[@williambranch4283]

I find the historical-critical approach to the historical Jesus, to beside the point.

[@TrojansFirst]

The point is Jesus is an allegorical myth.

[@jamesbusald7097]

5 minutes of what you don't mean. do you mean?

[@jamesbusald7097]

Done.

[@amurdo4539]

Would we crucify Jesus again if we were to meet the "real" Jesus?

[@KalebPeters99]

Likely...

[@hillbillyhistorian1863]

I’m fairly convinced that there has to be a literal core to the gospel’s miracle claims (especially the resurrection) if anything resembling “Christianity” can be considered valuable and engaging in its own terms. Portions of the gospels probably are historically false, but it’s all too easy to end up at the pointless “Jesus was just a nice guy who said some cool stuff” position.

[@hillbillyhistorian1863]

I made this comment on a transfigured video a while ago: “Without ties to a strong metaphysics, symbols/allegories are arbitrary constructs. I think that large parts of scripture can be accepted as allegorical IF AND ONLY IF the life, death and resurrection of Christ are held to be historical, as the ontology they entail lends priority to non-literal Christian symbols. If the key points of the gospel were reinterpreted as pure allegory, the entire Christian narrative would become arbitrary; possibly useful but no more authoritative as a metaphor that Harry Potter or Star Wars.” If “metamodern Christianity” ultimately denies the claim that the Christian metaphysic intersected with human history in a specific place at a specific time, then I think it will vitiate the rest of the tradition. I definitely think that historical criticism should be taken seriously, but there wouldn’t be much of a point to that engagement if the possibility of complete falsification didn’t exist.

[@chrishoward8473]

Im rolling with you up to Matthew and Luke being irreconcilable. Obviously not, since the compilers, editors, authors, put those two accounts in the compilation. Right out of the gate you're basically saying these guys and everyone after them for hundreds of years are idiots. They must have had some way of reconciling them because they actually took action to set them together. I personally don't have any problem reconciling them, but me being an idiot is an open question. I do get the message that the historicity is irrelevant in the construction you are trying to make. I think you are wrong, but that point is coming through. I think reality is actually important, even if is a sometimes nebulous concept. Shin hits chair, sometimes.

[@chrishoward8473]

I have a little bit of trouble with your characterization of first century setting. The Christian account is that peak-religion happened at that point in the person and life of Jesus. Judaism was at its height and a very historical and sophisticated religion with sects and philosophical considerations not less sophisticated than we have today. That all exploded with the arrival of Jesus and since then it has been mostly looking back. People at that time noticed naturalistic regularity although they didn't have the math/symbolism to represent it, they had to account for it, which they did (and do).

[@chrishoward8473]

And we have the history of the aftermath, with lots of echos and ripples for the last 2000 years. That makes it a bit hard to say nothing happened.

[@BrendanGrahamDempsey]

Matthew and Luke circulated independently for some time. They both say many things that diverge from one another. This is true of all the gospels. For instance, Jesus' driving out of the moneychangers in the Temple occurs at the beginning of Jesus' ministry in John's gospel, whereas it's placed at the end of his ministry in Matthew and Luke. Many, many such cases could be cited. In short, the gospels do not all tell the same story in the same way. This was not an issue for the authors of those gospels because they were written for different reading communities and weren't intended to all be put together into one volume like the NT (why else would Luke or Matthew go to such trouble to "correct" Mark, etc.?). As for the compilers, I suppose you mean the canonizers? The church committees? By then, these documents had become authoritative in many circles. The divergences between John and the other gospels is evident and obvious even, and the canon committees would have been aware of them. The divergences between Matthew and Luke are also clear, but critical study has certainly made them clearer. Point is, canonizers were familiar, but it was not an issue. Same for the Jewish canon. Maybe contradictions in the Hebrew Bible, but the point of a canon isn't to remove contradictions. All that said, no one's calling anyone an idiot. The writers of the gospels were elite intellectuals in ancient society. The canon committees were likewise made up of many of the most brilliant thinkers of the time. One issue is simply a difference in worldview. Contradictions matter more in modern history than they do in ancient hagiography. Even if we do admit of some development of thought, we don't say Newton was an "idiot" just because he didn't get gravity as right as Einstein did. Thought unfolds. We can appreciate the important contributions of the past without saying they were the peak insights. Hope that helps.

[@chrishoward8473]

@@BrendanGrahamDempsey That is nothing close to convincing or helpful. I would say modernistic thought makes it more likely for someone to be able to hold A and NotA in their minds at the same time, and the ancient thinkers to be _less_ likely to find this acceptable. I'm thinking this video is a mistake. You've already stated plainly that you don't believe in any historical accuracy of the NT gospel accounts. We don't need to go hammer and tongs about that. If you think it's not important than maybe you should move forward as if it is not important. Obviously people like me are not your audience. (Yes, it was me who started these contrary comments. I think I should go away.)

[@Lothlorian142]

​@@chrishoward8473His view is very Catholic, which digs into the most historically contextualized interpretation and reads the Bible as theological rather than historical. For example, Genesis has conflicting accounts of creation because they didn't write literal history back then.

[@TrojansFirst]

Jesus was an allegorical myth.