To all who truly inquire....to all who are open....to all who want to search for predictive explanation, I'd urge you to view the RUclips videos of Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies, Dr. Bart Ehrman, and noted first century historian, Dr. Richard Carrier. Don't swallow speculation without verifiable evidence
AJ Jingco,What if you're loving someone who didn't exist ,,or was an amalgamation of several other figures, both which some bible scholars believe. At any rate its only words on a page,and anybody can write ANYTHING. And a god would Know that, it doesn't have to be all true,or even partly true,and certainly, at least in theory, none of it has to be true, (paper never refused ink.)and we do know humans embroider, exaggerate, magnify,ect ect,humans have even been known to be not completely honest.And knowing those things it would seem the worst way for anybody,much less a god, to leave a message ,and even more esp as people, (in growing numbers ),are finding ancient religious writings impossible to believe.
1) srsly dude? We're talkin' anime here. 2) Your argument was incorrect on most counts. You seem to be arguing mainly that Jesus is either an amalgamation, an embellishment, or a legendary, nonexistent person. Your questioning the credibility of literature for information about the past seems mostly directed towards supporting that argument. Mainly, that the best available documentation about the historical Jesus can't be relied upon because... it's old? Reasons? First let's tackle the fact that Jesus definitely did exist and there is not nearly enough time between His death and the first documentation about Him to allow for amalgamations, embellishments, or legendary material. The earliest extant Christian document is a creed recorded by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-7, which he states he first heard when he converted to Christianity, which was within 3-5 years after the death of Jesus. That creed outlines that Jesus lived, died a sacrificial death in accordance with the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures, rose from death and appeared to Peter and the Disciples, 500 believers, and then James and a further undisclosed number of believers. 3-5 years is not remotely long enough for legendary material to accrue. We see a similar phenomenon in other books of Paul’s. In Colossians, Paul recites what may be a hymn or another early creed in chapter 1, verses 12 or 15 to 20. How early that particular hymn or creed may be is unknown, but it at least has to be contemporary with Paul and probably earlier. The next earliest extant documents are the writings of Paul, which began around 45-50 CE up to his death in 67 CE at the hands of Nero's persecutions. That is, 15-20 years after Jesus death. Paul's writings carry little direct quotation from Jesus (though Paul's teachings are entirely coherent with those of Jesus) and are obsessed with the issue of Jesus' resurrection from the dead, and its meaning for Jesus' identity and for human salvation. After the Pauline Epistles comes the Gospel of Mark, written around 60 CE (30 years after the death of Jesus). Over half of Mark's Gospel is devoted to the last week of Jesus' life. The reality is that the death and resurrection of Jesus is the VERY EARLIEST account to arise from His life. It was not a later accumulation of legendary material. Around 70-80 CE is when we get the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Both utilized Mark's Gospel, as well as a hypothetical document nicknamed "Q" by scholars (which has all the material common to Matthew and Luke not found in Mark) that would be contemporaneous to or earlier than Mark, and at least 1 or 2 other documents with the material unique to Matthew and Luke. Luke even says as much in the preamble to his Gospel, stating that his Gospel is a synthesis from several sources. His Gospel was also the first of a definite two-part history of the very earliest Church. The second part was Acts of the Apostles. The last books of the New Testament to be written were the Gospel of John, as well as John's Epistles and Revelation, written around 90 CE (60 years after Jesus' death). Right around this time is when we start to see two other phenomena popping up: secular histories that include Jesus and the development of legendary material about Jesus. The first secular history to include Jesus were in the writings of Josephus, around 93-94 CE. He tells the history of first century Israel that mirrors the accounts and people described in the Gospels. He mentions Jesus twice: once as an itinerant healer and rabbi whose followers believe was the Messiah who rose from death, and again as the brother of James, who was a leader of the Church in Jerusalem. After Josephus, Jesus is mentioned again, in a rather offhand manner, as an historical person in Tacitus' Annals (116 CE), Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars (121 CE), and Pliny the Younger's letters (112 CE). For legendary material, you start to get things like the Gnostic Gospels, beginning with the Gospel of Thomas in 100-110 CE, the Infancy Gospel and Gospel of Mary Magdalene, both in the mid-late 100s CE. This is the same period in which you start to see the very first denials that Jesus ever existed, as in Celsus' anti-Christian tract The True Word from 177 CE. So contrary to your argument, the idea that Jesus was an amalgamation, embellishment, or never even existed at all is actually the later, legendary tradition. The tradition that Jesus was a very real person and the Messiah who rose from the dead is the VERY FIRST tradition to rise, occurring within 3-5 years of His death. It is also the only coherent tradition. One of the problems dogging skeptics is that there is NO coherent alternative theory about who Jesus was. Every skeptic seems to have a different idea - Jesus was a New Age guru, or a Greek sophist, or a Jewish revolutionary, or a crypto-Buddhist, or didn't exist at all - because all skepticism over Jesus is based in the DENIAL of the evidence rather than the STUDY of it. You alone gave us three different and incompatible alternatives for Jesus' identity, all of which are based in denying the validity of the texts in the New Testament, which are all the oldest, earliest texts about Him. This is why ancient texts matter. When trying to study history, you HAVE TO study the earliest, best available literature on the subject. That is the only way to arrive at any kind of meaningful understanding of the past. Otherwise, you're charting a course for an absolute historical nihilism. I know you're really just trying to chop down the root of Christianity, but in reality you're chopping at the roots of ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. God, in His wisdom, did a very subtle and tricky thing there too... You can complain that documenting the life of Jesus in writing within the generation of people who would have known Him is unreliable, but to declare it unreliable you end up making ALL of history unknowable. To get at God, you have to destroy our entire culture and history first.
Powerful! God acting through Bishop Barron's heart and soul to act within our heart and soul... and so on. The power of God increasing more and more as the devil tries to take society with all the lies that are invading our lives.
Bishop Barron, your works are impressive in scope and quality of thought. I thank you for your great efforts and list you happily alongside our great Catholic teachers.
M. C.S.: Considering the fact that nearly a third of the world believes that Jesus is God, it won't forget it in a hurry. But then, Jesus said that those walking in the truth will be few in number. Matthew 7:13 “Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it. The truth is that Jesus isn't God but God's son. Jesus categorically denied being God. Luke 18:19 Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except one, God.
@@tongakhan230 LOL be careful papi Why do you call me human? It's a question I am asking you. Does that mean I am not a human? He was crucified for blasphemy, he claimed to be God many times haha
@@EricSmyth4Christ : Could one kindly show me where Jesus ever claimed to be God. Taking FALSE charges of the Jews as a truth for convenience is not accepted. Even the Jews were not that crazy to think that Jesus was God. They charged him for making himself EQUAL to God. If the distinction isn't clear, maybe an example would help. The Secretary of State is taking decisions that ONLY the President can take. Thus, the SoS is making himself EQUAL to the President. They are still two different individuals. Jesus was put to death on FALSE CHARGES.
Dear Bishop Barron, I really like to listen to your videos, they help me growing in faith. You speak about so many important questions and you say so many things that I haven't heard or thought of before although I am a practising catholic. God bless you! Timi
The being of Jesus is a Gift from the Father to those who are His children that every one has to receive into a.personal accept ion and belief as Saviour and Lord.
Morne Terblanche sadly we have been impoverished spiritually and intellectually, to grasp this better I would suggest looking past our translation and exploring the older Greek translation of " logos " and the full meaning of that word and how it completely changes the meaning of " the word "
Morne Terblanche: That verse one quotes is from 1 John 5:7. These were words added to help the trinity doctrine. Modern translations have excluded them. BTW it is BEAR not BARE. (Bare is empty, naked) When unsure, Google. It will help. We all are learning. So there is nothing to be ashamed of.
Oh, Johannes: It's a lousy exposition! It addresses none of the counter views. It makes no sense from the standpoint of verifiable evidence. And it makes no original contribution of its own. This is good? Really?
Oh, Johannes! And demanding verifiable evidence is a bad thing? Really? You'd rather "believe" something absurd because it's metaphysical? Really? Really!!?????
You'll soon be reading my protégé's work John Evans. 20 some books by age of 22, valedictorian, commits everything to memory (which was a defining characteristics of intelligence in Aquinas and Augustine and many saints and sages) and he is blind but he gives hope to young Catholic thought. God bless, all, thank you Bishop Barron for these videos and being instrumental in my conversion.
Thanks Bishop Baron for helping us better know who Jesus is. Why do we offer honorifics like “Most Reverend” and “Your Grace” to the ranking clergy when Jesus never set himself apart from his apostles and us? God bless
Your Excellency, you make such deep mysteries feel a more tangible. Thank you for holding our hands for the dive into this and thank you for the recommendation! Been lazily meaning to look for a good book on Christology.
The difference between Christianity and all other religions is this, only Christianity's leader is still alive. Surely by now Jesus' body would've been found if he wasn't alive.
The most important thing about Jesus is not some manufactured man-made theology but how he taught us to walk in the Spirit of God. We are to follow in his footsteps and walk as he walked and he showed us how to do that. He tells us that he was able to do nothing from himself but the Father abiding in him did the works. And he teaches us that our walk will operate just like his walk. Those who are led by the Spirit of God, THESE are the sons of God.
@@humphreyobanor866 Yes but not in so many words. All I need is God's saving Grace through Christ - nothing else. Anything else is the leavening of the pharises and it is cursed by God
Thanks for answering my question. It may not have been directly related to my email but it answered some questions I had about the Church's view on the psychological view of Christ.
"On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him." (John 6:60-64) .
He is the son of papa Abba when the time of reincarnation to blessing Mary christ and Joseph christ he became a person and men. He become a teacher to all human who eventually people back then they don't believe in holy God. Jesus make them to believe and the father is really do exist because we leave and step on it the earth. Papa Abba did the earth
When I was a kid We lived 7 miles from our local Catholic Church. St Louis DeMontfort. Orcutt CA. We always talked about mass on the way home from mass. One day when I was about 10 I got my nerve up to ask my dad a question. I said “dad why do we talk about Jesus so much ?” He said, “because he’s God.” I thought oh.
"The Last Temptation of Christ", for example, certainly takes a psychological approach in that Jesus "discovers" step by step "How to" become a messiah. The trouble with focusing more on God's divinity over his humanity is that it becomes an abstract formula: Jesus died for your sins. In that way, Jesus is ready-made. That is difficult to identify with.
According to Schleiermacher the essence of the Christian religion is a feeling of absolute dependence. 'If, however, word and idea are always originally one, and the term ‘God’ therefore presupposes an idea, then we shall simply say that this idea, which is nothing more than the expression of the feeling of absolute dependence, is the most direct reflection upon it and the most original idea with which we are here concerned, and is quite independent of that original knowledge… and conditioned only by our feeling of absolute dependence. Now this is just what is principally meant by the formula which says that to feel oneself absolutely dependent and to be conscious of being in relation with God are one and the same thing; and the reason is that absolute dependence is the fundamental relation which must include all others in itself. This last expression includes the God-consciousness in the self-consciousness in such a way that, quite in accordance with the above analysis, the two cannot be separated from each other' - Friedrich Schleiermacher, 'The Christian Faith', 1822. To which Hegel retorted: If we base religion on feeling, then 'a dog would be the best Christian for it possesses this [feeling of dependency] in the highest degree and lives mainly in this feeling'. - Hegel, foreword to Hermann Friedrich Wilhelm Hinrichs' s 'Religion in Its Inner Relationship to Science', 1822. Schleiermacher was not happy 🙂🐶
You can only truly know Jesus in the Spirit. Solution: Go to the Lord and ask the Spirit to reveal Him in your heart. This will be your true confession. Just as Peter said, 'You are the Christ the Son of the living God. '
If Christians were more concerned about living according to Christ's teachings then the Church wouldn't be in the sad place it is today. The problem is the clergy don't know "how" to live as Christians, but they can tell you all day how you are supposed to act.
Hmm. On the one hand I agree with you Bishop Barron that we need to hold the ontological view of Jesus's teachings as articulated in the creed. But I think N.T Wright(who also affirms this) has an interesting critique in "How God became King" where he speaks of how for many Christians, its simply enough to say "Jesus was born of a virgin, died on the cross, and did nothing in between". It seems to be his teachings are just as important as his being because he teachings are part and parcel of the Good News of the Kingdom of God breaking into the world.
Janhoi - Perhaps it is, that actions are always more important than words. To know Jesus' teaching, is to understand truth; and the word is truth. To know Jesus being is to understand the word became life. What did God ask, not for offerings and salutations, but for what? For us to live obediently - to live the teaching. What did James say about faith without works? The Great Gregory in his tome, Pastoral Care, demands that his priest tech what they have done, not what they have learned. The teaching are the expressed word. The being is the word come to life. Which is more important?
@Jim McIntyre in a sense yes. This is where we need to balance Orthodoxy with Orthopraxy. The Praxis of the faith is just as important as the belief itself, which is why the early Christian community was called practitioners of "the way". In a sense I see his teachings as being deeply interconnected with the mystery of the Incarnation and Atonement. You can't have one without the other.
+Nicholas - that Star Wars force "thing" is actually one's ability to work with the forces of Natural Law. It's not "new age" the way you suggest with your comment.
dualism is overrated: the intangible ghost that exists within the body made of some unknown element; a form of matter similar to a gas; same thing with the brain: it's a another form of matter; a solid. Since we know all matter is intrinsically mindless how can it possibly produce a thought or interact with reality
I had a personal revelation that it's okay to exalt Jesus OVER the Father and the Spirit lol... Imagine a Unitarian triune God where Jesus is greatest.
Ontological arguments are increasingly interesting to me from an environmental perspective, as I explore Catholic monasticism and the land for my dissertation. How we dwell in a place, is not just a social construction or psychological layer we project onto the land. It is an ontology. That is to say we don't have something like a worldview but live in something like a world. Christianity has been so beaten back as just one among many worldviews that its ontological aspects have been neglected. Christianity is a robust ontology, with a cosmology in relation to God, that includes the places we live. I am glad to see this argument made in relation to Christ; even though it feels uncomfortable to me in light of the interfaith work that I do. Cheers.
What makes you think I have no evidence? I was simply making a comment on a RUclips video hahaha. I am writing a dissertation on the topic, so, I have some evidence. But it sounds like your fundamentalism wouldn't accept it. Cheers.
Yeah, here is a better book to get first to gain an understanding of the theological and philosophical issues that Barron is discussing: Martin Heidegger's "Being and Time." $8.00 on Amazon.
This book is probably classified as academic and marketed to the college or seminary as a "textbook" and justifies, in the publisher's mind, the ungodly price tag. Sucks.
Sorry I seem to be binging these videos and leaving some comments and questions, but I guess one personal challenge for me is that the promises of Christ seem so distant and ancient, I know we have his church and saints and believers as a legacy but they seem a bit derivative (no offense at all!) But sometimes it just seems like to me like we inherited this obligation of faith almost like a tradition except it’s like generations removed... if that makes sense? I’m sure plenty of people can claim personal relationships with God, but personally I feel like I have to do more research to address my faith and doubts Thank you for providing these videos and Wish you all the best!
Thanks very much, this is very, very helpful. It expands on what I've learned about the history of positive thinking which started with Mesmer in France in the 1700's and has recently culminated in the disastrous Law of Attraction. Mitch Horowitz writes about this history in his recent book One Simple Idea.
Jesús Christ call to all to be like Prophets, Kings, and Priests like Samuel, David, and Melquisedec. And You ? Let's go with pureless and hapiness.😇😇😇
I bought Fr white's book The Incarnate Lord for the sole purpose of recapturing who Christ is in light of recent protestant groups and catholics whose take on Jesus is spinning out of recognition from the original Gospel message to dangerous levels. However, as a layman i found Fr White's book unreadable ( i started the 1st 50 pages twice). It's excessively academic. I suggest Fr White rewrite it for lay adherents.
Saying Jesus had a uniquely/finely tuned "God-consciousness", (better than anyone else ever had!), is significantly different from believing that Jesus is both divine and human. And, trying to define exactly what it means to be both fully divine and fully human seems to be missing the forrest -because there are too many trees in the way! I choose to believe that Jesus IS God and man. Regarding the ontological approach to Jesus, I find it difficult relating to someone else's explanations of what a divine being must be like. This seems to have a scent of mis-ordered priorities. I believe the priority should be having a relationship with Jesus as Lord and lover of souls. I defer to relating to Jesus in His humanity since after all, prayer involves MY relationship with Him, AND I feel I have a reasonable grasp of what it means to relate on a human level. That anyone can go racing down the " Schleiermacher autobahn" and come up with fragmented theologies is a given --especially because of the objective AND subjective variables involved! I'll include myself therein! Praise Jesus! I think we should just keep it simple, even child-like!
devan trace Thank you for this lovely response! That makes great sense! Sometimes I wonder if Christ will start to make himself know to mystics of other traditions!
Christ alone is the Savior of the human race that sets us free from sin, death, satan. He died for our sins and rose from the dead. Christ alone can reconcile us to God and bring us to God. A mystic however high on the spiritual realm cant bring us to the infinite and holy God, only Christ can.
Interesting, according to the philosopher Leo Strauss, Schleiermacher was the one who ruined Plato's idea about education too, by insisting that the difference between philosophers and non-philosophers is just a matter of degree, like filling a vase with water. Despite Plato's adamant insistence that a philosophic education, as opposed to a mere political one, is just the opposite, rather a convertion in the soul from Becoming to Being.
Thank you for being a modern day Irenaeus in your approach to the issues of the day. I'm currently discerning, and I have a Facebook friend in common a vocation to the priesthood? Have you got any advice, or pointers. Thanks, please pray for me, and I'll pray for you, and your fellow bishops.
This reminds me of two things. The first is G.K. Chesterton's observation that the most original thing about Christianity is not that it teaches some new moral code or philosophy, but that it preaches Christianity... Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, who died to reconcile humanity to God. The second is the obsession of the very earliest New Testament documents with the identity of Jesus. Here's what I mean... The oldest text in the New Testament is the creed recorded by Paul in 1 Cor. 15: 3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. There is nothing about Jesus' teachings in that creed, or even his birth or events of His life. It's ALL about His death and resurrection. Then you have the writings of Paul between 45 and 67 AD, which are also obsessed with the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection for humanity, and have virtually nothing of Jesus' teachings. Then you have the Gospel of Mark at about 60-70 CE, of which over half the book focuses on the last week of Jesus' life. It's not until Luke and Matthew, around 70-80 CE, that you start to see a greater concern with recording Jesus' actual teachings (no doubt because, by then, the Apostles were starting to die off). The very earliest Church was OVERWHELMINGLY obsessed with the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection. That wasn't some later, legendary accretion as claimed by modernist thinkers. That was the VERY FIRST tradition. In fact, that's my personal litmus test when I hear about some supposed new ancient text about Jesus... How obsessed is it with Jesus' identity? If it is more about teachings and miracles, then it's probably a later text. If it is more about Jesus' death and resurrection, then it's probably earlier. As for Chesterton, I can let him speak for himself: "It is commonly the loose and latitudinarian Christians who pay quite indefensible compliments to Christianity. They talk as if there had never been any piety or pity until Christianity came, a point on which any mediaeval would have been eager to correct them. They represent that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach simplicity or self-restraint, or inwardness and sincerity. They will think me very narrow (whatever that means) if I say that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach Christianity. Its peculiarity was that it was peculiar, and simplicity and sincerity are not peculiar, but obvious ideals for all mankind. Christianity was the answer to a riddle, not the last truism uttered after a long talk. Only the other day I saw in an excellent weekly paper of Puritan tone this remark, that Christianity when stripped of its armour of dogma (as who should speak of a man stripped of his armour of bones), turned out to be nothing but the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light. Now, if I were to say that Christianity came into the world specially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light, that would be an exaggeration. But it would be very much nearer to the truth. The last Stoics, like Marcus Aurelius, were exactly the people who did believe in the Inner Light. Their dignity, their weariness, their sad external care for others, their incurable internal care for themselves, were all due to the Inner Light, and existed only by that dismal illumination. Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists, as such introspective moralists always do, upon small things done or undone; it is because he has not hate or love enough to make a moral revolution. He gets up early in the morning, just as our own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning; because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land. Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types. He is an unselfish egoist. An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without the excuse of passion. Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; any one who knows any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners."
Oh, Cory: It's not worthy of "refutation." Assertions without verifiable evidence simply aren't worth my time. It's up to you to convince, not up to me to refute. You can't even make your own case.
Addendum, Cory: Please be certain to follow the advice of your Jesus dude the next time you consume a meal after using the toilet. Do NOT wash your hands. It's unnecessary.
Apparently what I say is worth your time, because here you are replying. It doesn't appear to be worth your time to actually say anything in your reply though. I made my case, the ball is now in your court. And "nuh uh" isn't a refutation. It's an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. Feel free to get back to me when you actually have a refutation.
Because an ontological understanding of Christ allows you to recognize who He really is and what He came to do for the human condition in His death and resurrection.
@@EricSmyth4Christ ha, funny.... this was three years ago... I was a monist back then.. everything was "one" with no distinction. I no longer subscribe to that form of pantheism, so I'm not the Jesus character. I believe all living beings are discrete, separate. Not a Christian though. But nothing against Christianity. I don't hate. Just don't think it is the supreme truth and it doesn't interest me.
@@EricSmyth4Christ Doesn't interest me either. I have a completely different view to what true religion actually is now. Mormonism has all the hallmarks of a recent religious "development" that is completely artificial. But, then again, maybe it has some trace of real spirituality. I agree with the Bishop that there is at least a ray of distorted light in every sincere faith.
I'm incredibly disappointed in you, Robert, that you would block comments advocating open inquiry, and more specifically the viewing of videos by prestigious scholars such as Drs. Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier, both of whom have much to say about the "Jesus question" that you raise. Why would you block such commentary? Fear? Competition? Regret at your own inadequacy? My observation: those most confident in their arguments NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES and in any way avoid the comments of opposing opinions. Those most uncertain of their arguments do so constantly.
What do you expect when Churches hierarchy does not give a flying hoot about catehesis. Ask your average Bishop how many catehists he met in the last year and talked about catehesis for like 3 minutes or more? Children learn only what they parents told them like Jesus , he is nice...and cares about homeless
Ontological arguments do not save neither does your idea of God or Christ. Christ said @there are many that will say Lord, Lord but I will say I did not know you for you did not do the will of the Father." It's more of a question of what we are in relation to Christ. We must change. We must turn the other cheek
Brian Bailey Yes, but it matters immensely that we know who Jesus is. If he is one teacher among many, why should I surrender to him? And why should he be described as Savior?
I think i know you from somewhere bishop barron. Have you ever been to St. Louis? Say like 10ish years ago? 15 maybe? You have such a familiar face to me
So, his heritage, bara, given, in-law, between, ancestry, living in the man, as the son of many ancestors passed on...in life. Is this the concept, of in-carnate. Like carnal+ate, or within. I like simplicity. Devil = lived. Now, we have a problem on the all caps name, the civilly dead, and then this prior. What the deal, considering we are life?
*In Roman times, if you were crucified, you are a criminal.* They would put the crucified in public display for days to embarrass and humiliate them. That’s still happening today. The demonic powers are still displaying their victory over the guy that they had framed- Jesus on the cross. That’s why Jesus’s body is still placed on the cross- it’s to embarrass and humiliate, and showcase their victory. It’s a *Trophy*
I wonder if Jesus laughed at funny things or joked with people. I've only ever known him as this serious figure. If he was fully God and fully man-the fully man part probably laughed at something.
I think he laughed. I mean when he appeared in the storm walking on water and then Peter walked out and then fell.... I imagine he might have laughed a little when Peter fell. Like maybes thought: “all you needed to do was keep your faith and don’t look down. I’ll have to remember not to do that again...Peter almost drowned.Mental note... try this with other people.” That’s just my opinion. Anyway friends God bless.
So wait bishop how would you answer this question, "Why Jesus why not buddah or krishnah? They had God consciousness too, why is Jesus any different than them? Why shouldn't I just believe in them?" If you can, please answer in the context of this video. Thank you so much for you work
+simon I have not, but Idk I feel like one should root themselves in one tradition or another, or it leads to a lack of defining what morality is, and can lead to evil, at least in my eyes. But the main point of the question isn't exactly that, but is mainly "Why Jesus? Why should i believe in him?" its not so much the various religions I am talking about, ya feel me?
Jesus is different because he doesn't simply have a higher form of God consciousness but He is God himself. That's why we should care about him. The incarnation makes a historical case for that.
I would be surprised if the book being reviewed here really defined "God Consciousness" as "awareness of God", rather than "seeing as God sees", which is a quality that changes a person's nature. This difference in definition doesn't undermine the main point of the video - if "God Consciousness" is something that is attained, then why is Jesus any different from the Buddha or a Sufi Mystic Saint? He's not, and that's a problem for Christianity. But it seems like Barron is refuting the worst possible interpretation rather than the best, which bugs me. But, I also don't totally blame him because the definition he is refuting is simpler and easier to describe. Still bugs me.
People are quick to compare Jesus to their Western ideas of other religious sages. I lived for a time as a novice Buddhist monk (and I have put this all behind me), and during that time I also happened to befriend a kind community of Sufis in Jordan, during my travels. What Westerners don't understand is that Sufis (including Rumi) are NOT God-consciousness sharing dancers. They are actually very conservative Sunni Muslims. That is the basis for all Sufi practices, is orthodox Islamic understanding. Everything else from there is additional spiritual practice. ---------------- On the other hand the Buddha's insight was more different than Westerners think. Westerners like a version of Buddhism that ignores the worldview he taught. He explicitly teaches that without belief in reincarnation the rest of his teachings are ineffectual. So the comparisons made between various wise sages as sharing "God-consciousness" are superficial. Yes, many can attain wisdom. That doesn't mean they're all of the same mind.
God consciousness in Jesus, arguably, is the Word, Logos, himself. While then there is a danger of Schleiemacher being misinterpreted, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with his assertion. No other saint, mystics, holy man/woman or philosopher ever made such a claim as being the Word or Logos itself. This said I think here Bishop Barron is wrong to blame or focus on Schleiemacher for promoting Socianian teaching. For THAT there are many and far more credible culprits, take for instance, as just SOME examples, Unitarians and Universalists.
Jesus is more than God-consciousness so it limiting to reduce Jesus to that level. Without talk about the miracles or teaching of Jesus, the Apostles Creed provides a rich ontological declaration: I believe...in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
6:45 what makes Jesus different from the others that you mentioned if we are talking about God consciousness? Well it means that Jesus, the Lord, was the only one that had the fullness of the Godhead bodily IN him. The others did not. The Bible clearly says that the Lord is the Son of God and the Lord says on multiple occasions that not only was he the Son of God but also in Rev 3:12 he says he HAS a God. Believe me I watch multitudes of videos on the trinitarian view and to me the Lord's words are the final say and Peter called him the Christ, the SON of THE Living God. Jesus seemed to concur with that assessment. If you read the red letters in the Bible its clear that Jesus, the Lord made it clear that his Father was the only true LIVING God. That's my understanding at least. Thank you. Pray for me please because I deal with this on a daily basis and it is truly what I believe, not what I WANT to believe. Thank you. God Bless
MOHAMMODS OR WHAT EVER HIS NAME= ALLAH IS THE MOON god = HE IS NOT THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH = HE IS OF SATAN AND OF THE RCC.= DO YOUR HOME WORK - ITS OUT THERE EVEN SATAN IS NOT STOPPING FOR YOU TO SEE FOR HE KNOWS YOU ARE ALL BLIND AND DEAF = WAKE UP TO GOD JESUS AND NO OTHER THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD AND HIS NAME IS JESUS AMEN.
@@naturalismforever3469 No he did not! That's utter nonsense!!!! I say that as a Catholic Christian evangelist, apologist and academic. Heaven is NOT a "geographical place" up in the sky, and "winged horses" do not exist!!! More to it, Muhammad had no witnesses who witnessed that. More to it, Muhammad denied the historical fact of the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (an undeniable historical fact that is attested to not only by the 4 gospels and the letters of Paul, but by independent sources outside the bible, such as the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus who would have no reason to "make up" the story, as neither of them were Christians).
SORRY BUT YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR SAVIOR = HE IS JESUS CHRIST WHO DIED ON THE CROSS FOR ALL OUR SINS AND BY HIS BLOOD ARE WE SAVED AND THE RESURRECTION AND WHO EVER SHALL BELIEVE IN HIM SHALL HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE = JESUS KING IS ALIVE AMEN.
Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.
Canada2016 your not a sinner!
There is no such thing as a god so the obvious answer is no.
tim spangler I might be
To all who truly inquire....to all who are open....to all who want to
search for predictive explanation, I'd urge you to view the RUclips
videos of Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies, Dr. Bart Ehrman,
and noted first century historian, Dr. Richard Carrier. Don't swallow
speculation without verifiable evidence
Excellent comment!
I LOVE the Lord Jesus Christ!
Papa bless another anime Catholic, have you seen serial experiments lain? Its really a weird ( in a good way) show (:
LoL, anime Catholics... As a fellow (small-c) catholic who loves anime, I can get behind that :)
hell yea brutha I love anime
AJ Jingco,What if you're loving someone who didn't exist ,,or was an amalgamation of several other figures, both which some bible scholars believe. At any rate its only words on a page,and anybody can write ANYTHING. And a god would Know that, it doesn't have to be all true,or even partly true,and certainly, at least in theory, none of it has to be true, (paper never refused ink.)and we do know humans embroider, exaggerate, magnify,ect ect,humans have even been known to be not completely honest.And knowing those things it would seem the worst way for anybody,much less a god, to leave a message ,and even more esp as people, (in growing numbers ),are finding ancient religious writings impossible to believe.
1) srsly dude? We're talkin' anime here.
2) Your argument was incorrect on most counts. You seem to be arguing mainly that Jesus is either an amalgamation, an embellishment, or a legendary, nonexistent person. Your questioning the credibility of literature for information about the past seems mostly directed towards supporting that argument. Mainly, that the best available documentation about the historical Jesus can't be relied upon because... it's old? Reasons?
First let's tackle the fact that Jesus definitely did exist and there is not nearly enough time between His death and the first documentation about Him to allow for amalgamations, embellishments, or legendary material.
The earliest extant Christian document is a creed recorded by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-7, which he states he first heard when he converted to Christianity, which was within 3-5 years after the death of Jesus. That creed outlines that Jesus lived, died a sacrificial death in accordance with the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures, rose from death and appeared to Peter and the Disciples, 500 believers, and then James and a further undisclosed number of believers. 3-5 years is not remotely long enough for legendary material to accrue. We see a similar phenomenon in other books of Paul’s. In Colossians, Paul recites what may be a hymn or another early creed in chapter 1, verses 12 or 15 to 20. How early that particular hymn or creed may be is unknown, but it at least has to be contemporary with Paul and probably earlier.
The next earliest extant documents are the writings of Paul, which began around 45-50 CE up to his death in 67 CE at the hands of Nero's persecutions. That is, 15-20 years after Jesus death. Paul's writings carry little direct quotation from Jesus (though Paul's teachings are entirely coherent with those of Jesus) and are obsessed with the issue of Jesus' resurrection from the dead, and its meaning for Jesus' identity and for human salvation.
After the Pauline Epistles comes the Gospel of Mark, written around 60 CE (30 years after the death of Jesus). Over half of Mark's Gospel is devoted to the last week of Jesus' life. The reality is that the death and resurrection of Jesus is the VERY EARLIEST account to arise from His life. It was not a later accumulation of legendary material.
Around 70-80 CE is when we get the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Both utilized Mark's Gospel, as well as a hypothetical document nicknamed "Q" by scholars (which has all the material common to Matthew and Luke not found in Mark) that would be contemporaneous to or earlier than Mark, and at least 1 or 2 other documents with the material unique to Matthew and Luke. Luke even says as much in the preamble to his Gospel, stating that his Gospel is a synthesis from several sources. His Gospel was also the first of a definite two-part history of the very earliest Church. The second part was Acts of the Apostles.
The last books of the New Testament to be written were the Gospel of John, as well as John's Epistles and Revelation, written around 90 CE (60 years after Jesus' death). Right around this time is when we start to see two other phenomena popping up: secular histories that include Jesus and the development of legendary material about Jesus.
The first secular history to include Jesus were in the writings of Josephus, around 93-94 CE. He tells the history of first century Israel that mirrors the accounts and people described in the Gospels. He mentions Jesus twice: once as an itinerant healer and rabbi whose followers believe was the Messiah who rose from death, and again as the brother of James, who was a leader of the Church in Jerusalem. After Josephus, Jesus is mentioned again, in a rather offhand manner, as an historical person in Tacitus' Annals (116 CE), Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars (121 CE), and Pliny the Younger's letters (112 CE).
For legendary material, you start to get things like the Gnostic Gospels, beginning with the Gospel of Thomas in 100-110 CE, the Infancy Gospel and Gospel of Mary Magdalene, both in the mid-late 100s CE. This is the same period in which you start to see the very first denials that Jesus ever existed, as in Celsus' anti-Christian tract The True Word from 177 CE.
So contrary to your argument, the idea that Jesus was an amalgamation, embellishment, or never even existed at all is actually the later, legendary tradition. The tradition that Jesus was a very real person and the Messiah who rose from the dead is the VERY FIRST tradition to rise, occurring within 3-5 years of His death. It is also the only coherent tradition. One of the problems dogging skeptics is that there is NO coherent alternative theory about who Jesus was. Every skeptic seems to have a different idea - Jesus was a New Age guru, or a Greek sophist, or a Jewish revolutionary, or a crypto-Buddhist, or didn't exist at all - because all skepticism over Jesus is based in the DENIAL of the evidence rather than the STUDY of it. You alone gave us three different and incompatible alternatives for Jesus' identity, all of which are based in denying the validity of the texts in the New Testament, which are all the oldest, earliest texts about Him.
This is why ancient texts matter. When trying to study history, you HAVE TO study the earliest, best available literature on the subject. That is the only way to arrive at any kind of meaningful understanding of the past. Otherwise, you're charting a course for an absolute historical nihilism. I know you're really just trying to chop down the root of Christianity, but in reality you're chopping at the roots of ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. God, in His wisdom, did a very subtle and tricky thing there too... You can complain that documenting the life of Jesus in writing within the generation of people who would have known Him is unreliable, but to declare it unreliable you end up making ALL of history unknowable. To get at God, you have to destroy our entire culture and history first.
Powerful! God acting through Bishop Barron's heart and soul to act within our heart and soul... and so on. The power of God increasing more and more as the devil tries to take society with all the lies that are invading our lives.
Praise the Lord Jesus Christ all the days of your life
Susan Entwisle why?
666RitualCorpse666 lol, I guess I'm going to hell.
Bishop Barron, your works are impressive in scope and quality of thought. I thank you for your great efforts and list you happily alongside our great Catholic teachers.
God bless Bishop Barron
Jesus Christ
My lord and saviour
Creator of Heaven and Earth
The one true God ❤
We appreciate Bishop Barron; I pray God continues to work through him
Jesus is God, and that is precisely what the world wants you to forget....
What do you believe the motive is?
That man who prayed is not God
M. C.S.: Considering the fact that nearly a third of the world believes that Jesus is God, it won't forget it in a hurry.
But then, Jesus said that those walking in the truth will be few in number.
Matthew 7:13 “Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it.
The truth is that Jesus isn't God but God's son. Jesus categorically denied being God.
Luke 18:19 Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except one, God.
@@tongakhan230 LOL be careful papi
Why do you call me human? It's a question I am asking you. Does that mean I am not a human?
He was crucified for blasphemy, he claimed to be God many times haha
@@EricSmyth4Christ : Could one kindly show me where Jesus ever claimed to be God.
Taking FALSE charges of the Jews as a truth for convenience is not accepted.
Even the Jews were not that crazy to think that Jesus was God. They charged him for making himself EQUAL to God. If the distinction isn't clear, maybe an example would help.
The Secretary of State is taking decisions that ONLY the President can take. Thus, the SoS is making himself EQUAL to the President. They are still two different individuals.
Jesus was put to death on FALSE CHARGES.
Dear Bishop Barron,
I really like to listen to your videos, they help me growing in faith. You speak about so many important questions and you say so many things that I haven't heard or thought of before although I am a practising catholic.
God bless you!
Timi
Well beyond my understanding.But by the Grace of God! There I go.I can't do this on my own.Jesus please save me.
In slightly less than 10:00 minutes, Bishop Barron has perfectly clarified for me my future approach to evangelization!!!
Thank you, Bishop Barron!
Our quest for God where the stress is not upon the break through of grace -- what God did that no person can do.
The being of Jesus is a Gift from the Father to those who are His children that every one has to receive into a.personal accept ion and belief as Saviour and Lord.
Jesus is God. 2nd person of the blessed trinity. He is the Word who became flesh & dwelt among us. He will judge us all. He is the Great I AM.
Morne Terblanche It says in the Bible that word became flesh. Jesus, the father, and the Holy Spirit are ONE.
Morne Terblanche sadly we have been impoverished spiritually and intellectually, to grasp this better I would suggest looking past our translation and exploring the older Greek translation of " logos " and the full meaning of that word and how it completely changes the meaning of " the word "
Morne Terblanche: That verse one quotes is from 1 John 5:7. These were words added to help the trinity doctrine. Modern translations have excluded them.
BTW it is BEAR not BARE. (Bare is empty, naked)
When unsure, Google. It will help.
We all are learning. So there is nothing to be ashamed of.
Go to mass daily to get in touch with who Christ is truly is. And pray the Rosary everyday while you're at it.
Thx Bishop, bless you We love you .
Thank you for this excellent lecture Bishop Barron.
God bless all beloveds! 😇😇😇👼🔥☄️
This is quite difficult to understand but the bishop somehow makes it lighter. Awesome work!
What an intelligent analysis! Very nice philosophy dissection. Ontological vs psychological view. Great!
Oh, Johannes: It's a lousy exposition! It addresses none of the counter views. It makes no sense from the standpoint of verifiable evidence. And it makes no original contribution of its own. This is good? Really?
Naturalism Forever demanding empirical evidence in a metaphysical discussion is scientism.
Oh, Johannes! And demanding verifiable evidence is a bad thing? Really? You'd rather "believe" something absurd because it's metaphysical? Really? Really!!?????
You'll soon be reading my protégé's work John Evans. 20 some books by age of 22, valedictorian, commits everything to memory (which was a defining characteristics of intelligence in Aquinas and Augustine and many saints and sages) and he is blind but he gives hope to young Catholic thought.
God bless, all, thank you Bishop Barron for these videos and being instrumental in my conversion.
Thanks Bishop Baron for helping us better know who Jesus is. Why do we offer honorifics like “Most Reverend” and “Your Grace” to the ranking clergy when Jesus never set himself apart from his apostles and us? God bless
fully God and fully Man
Your Excellency, you make such deep mysteries feel a more tangible. Thank you for holding our hands for the dive into this and thank you for the recommendation! Been lazily meaning to look for a good book on Christology.
Hey, amyable: Maybe you should look for a good book on basic science instead? You'd be much further ahead.
God! Jesus is GOD!
Long live to Jesús Christ!
Father can say more in 10 minutes than some preachers do in an hour
JESUS SAID WHOM CALLED YOU GOOD only GOD IS GOOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The difference between Christianity and all other religions is this, only Christianity's leader is still alive. Surely by now Jesus' body would've been found if he wasn't alive.
The most important thing about Jesus is not some manufactured man-made theology but how he taught us to walk in the Spirit of God. We are to follow in his footsteps and walk as he walked and he showed us how to do that. He tells us that he was able to do nothing from himself but the Father abiding in him did the works. And he teaches us that our walk will operate just like his walk. Those who are led by the Spirit of God, THESE are the sons of God.
‘...racing down the Schliemacher autobahn’ - I live Bp Barron’s turn of phrase!
I'm no longer Catholic but I LOVE your videos!
Brother why are you no longer Catholic?
@@humphreyobanor866 The long and short of it - I read the Bible.
And the Bible says stop being Catholic?
@@humphreyobanor866 Yes but not in so many words. All I need is God's saving Grace through Christ - nothing else. Anything else is the leavening of the pharises and it is cursed by God
Thanks for answering my question. It may not have been directly related to my email but it answered some questions I had about the Church's view on the psychological view of Christ.
Pretty deep stuff, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.
"On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him." (John 6:60-64)
.
He is the son of papa Abba when the time of reincarnation to blessing Mary christ and Joseph christ he became a person and men. He become a teacher to all human who eventually people back then they don't believe in holy God. Jesus make them to believe and the father is really do exist because we leave and step on it the earth. Papa Abba did the earth
Wonderful video
Fantastic video and brief lecture. Oh...how I wish I lived in your Diocese.
When I was a kid
We lived 7 miles from our local Catholic Church.
St Louis DeMontfort. Orcutt CA.
We always talked about mass on the way home from mass. One day when I was about 10 I got my nerve up to ask my dad a question.
I said “dad why do we talk about Jesus so much ?”
He said, “because he’s God.”
I thought oh.
"The Last Temptation of Christ", for example, certainly takes a psychological approach in that Jesus "discovers" step by step "How to" become a messiah.
The trouble with focusing more on God's divinity over his humanity is that it becomes an abstract formula: Jesus died for your sins. In that way, Jesus is ready-made. That is difficult to identify with.
That's why we have to balance both his humanity and divinity. To place a stress on either one or the other is a mistake.
According to Schleiermacher the essence of the Christian religion is a feeling of absolute dependence.
'If, however, word and idea are always originally one, and the term ‘God’ therefore presupposes an idea, then we shall simply say that this idea, which is nothing more than the expression of the feeling of absolute dependence, is the most direct reflection upon it and the most original idea with which we are here concerned, and is quite independent of that original knowledge… and conditioned only by our feeling of absolute dependence. Now this is just what is principally meant by the formula which says that to feel oneself absolutely dependent and to be conscious of being in relation with God are one and the same thing; and the reason is that absolute dependence is the fundamental relation which must include all others in itself. This last expression includes the God-consciousness in the self-consciousness in such a way that, quite in accordance with the above analysis, the two cannot be separated from each other'
- Friedrich Schleiermacher, 'The Christian Faith', 1822.
To which Hegel retorted:
If we base religion on feeling, then 'a dog would be the best Christian for it possesses this [feeling of dependency] in the
highest degree and lives mainly in this feeling'.
- Hegel, foreword to Hermann Friedrich Wilhelm Hinrichs' s 'Religion in Its Inner Relationship to Science', 1822.
Schleiermacher was not happy 🙂🐶
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
good stuff keep going jesus real
You can only truly know Jesus in the Spirit. Solution: Go to the Lord and ask the Spirit to reveal Him in your heart. This will be your true confession. Just as Peter said, 'You are the Christ the Son of the living God. '
If Christians were more concerned about living according to Christ's teachings then the Church wouldn't be in the sad place it is today.
The problem is the clergy don't know "how" to live as Christians, but they can tell you all day how you are supposed to act.
Hmm. On the one hand I agree with you Bishop Barron that we need to hold the ontological view of Jesus's teachings as articulated in the creed. But I think N.T Wright(who also affirms this) has an interesting critique in "How God became King" where he speaks of how for many Christians, its simply enough to say "Jesus was born of a virgin, died on the cross, and did nothing in between". It seems to be his teachings are just as important as his being because he teachings are part and parcel of the Good News of the Kingdom of God breaking into the world.
JANHOI MCCALLUM Not to diminish His teachings, but are they not there to lead us to acceptance of His redemptive suffering and death on the cross?
And then through His resurrection lead back to the full understanding of all that came before...
Janhoi - Perhaps it is, that actions are always more important than words. To know Jesus' teaching, is to understand truth; and the word is truth. To know Jesus being is to understand the word became life. What did God ask, not for offerings and salutations, but for what? For us to live obediently - to live the teaching. What did James say about faith without works? The Great Gregory in his tome, Pastoral Care, demands that his priest tech what they have done, not what they have learned. The teaching are the expressed word. The being is the word come to life. Which is more important?
@Jim McIntyre in a sense yes. This is where we need to balance Orthodoxy with Orthopraxy. The Praxis of the faith is just as important as the belief itself, which is why the early Christian community was called practitioners of "the way". In a sense I see his teachings as being deeply interconnected with the mystery of the Incarnation and Atonement. You can't have one without the other.
Well said Janhoi. Very thoughtful and concise explanation - thank you for your guidance.
i love you
I really enjoy your Netflix reviews if you get a chance please do iron fist or daredevil.
+Nicholas - that Star Wars force "thing" is actually one's ability to work with the forces of Natural Law. It's not "new age" the way you suggest with your comment.
dualism is overrated: the intangible ghost that exists within the body made of some unknown element; a form of matter similar to a gas; same thing with the brain: it's a another form of matter; a solid. Since we know all matter is intrinsically mindless how can it possibly produce a thought or interact with reality
more like an egotistical allure, whatever curates to the ego
I had a personal revelation that it's okay to exalt Jesus OVER the Father and the Spirit lol... Imagine a Unitarian triune God where Jesus is greatest.
Ontological arguments are increasingly interesting to me from an environmental perspective, as I explore Catholic monasticism and the land for my dissertation. How we dwell in a place, is not just a social construction or psychological layer we project onto the land. It is an ontology. That is to say we don't have something like a worldview but live in something like a world. Christianity has been so beaten back as just one among many worldviews that its ontological aspects have been neglected. Christianity is a robust ontology, with a cosmology in relation to God, that includes the places we live. I am glad to see this argument made in relation to Christ; even though it feels uncomfortable to me in light of the interfaith work that I do. Cheers.
Such pure, unadulterated b.s. Jason. How can you live with yourself spouting such evidence-free notions pulled directly from your a-hole?
hahahaha Nice. Anonymity run amuk! I am glad its unadulterated though.
Yes, Jason. It's unadulterated. And----get this---completely verifiable evidence-free. Perfect.
What makes you think I have no evidence? I was simply making a comment on a RUclips video hahaha. I am writing a dissertation on the topic, so, I have some evidence. But it sounds like your fundamentalism wouldn't accept it. Cheers.
Nope, Jason, I don't accept bad "evidence." You shouldn't either.
Whoa there, Your Excellency. Amazon wants $65 for this book. Wow!
Yeah, here is a better book to get first to gain an understanding of the theological and philosophical issues that Barron is discussing: Martin Heidegger's "Being and Time." $8.00 on Amazon.
This book is probably classified as academic and marketed to the college or seminary as a "textbook" and justifies, in the publisher's mind, the ungodly price tag. Sucks.
But if it's that good, Brad, wouldn't it be worth the price? If it's crap, maybe not.
Well, you have a point. It just might be worth it. And I guess there will be a library somewhere that might carry it.
I know... :\ i will have to wait
Bishop! This was amazing! Could you do a video where you go into the details of the consequences of adopting schliermacher's christology? Thank you!
Oh Caleb: Not amazing. Just one assertion, evidence-free, after another.
@@naturalismforever3469 What do you mean?
Jesus does not have a 'God consciousness' but rather 'The consciousness of God'.
Sorry I seem to be binging these videos and leaving some comments and questions, but I guess one personal challenge for me is that the promises of Christ seem so distant and ancient, I know we have his church and saints and believers as a legacy but they seem a bit derivative (no offense at all!) But sometimes it just seems like to me like we inherited this obligation of faith almost like a tradition except it’s like generations removed... if that makes sense? I’m sure plenty of people can claim personal relationships with God, but personally I feel like I have to do more research to address my faith and doubts
Thank you for providing these videos and Wish you all the best!
Thanks very much, this is very, very helpful. It expands on what I've learned about the history of positive thinking which started with Mesmer in France in the 1700's and has recently culminated in the disastrous Law of Attraction. Mitch Horowitz writes about this history in his recent book One Simple Idea.
Let Him into your heart.... Love Him there. Philosophy degree not required... and it's not Common Core.
Jesús Christ call to all to be like Prophets, Kings, and Priests like Samuel, David, and Melquisedec. And You ? Let's go with pureless and hapiness.😇😇😇
I bought Fr white's book The Incarnate Lord for the sole purpose of recapturing who Christ is in light of recent protestant groups and catholics whose take on Jesus is spinning out of recognition from the original Gospel message to dangerous levels. However, as a layman i found Fr White's book unreadable ( i started the 1st 50 pages twice). It's excessively academic. I suggest Fr White rewrite it for lay adherents.
That was deeply interesting Your Excellency. Would be cool delve more deeply into.
Why, Odexian? Why??
Saying Jesus had a uniquely/finely tuned "God-consciousness", (better than anyone else ever had!), is significantly different from believing that Jesus is both divine and human.
And, trying to define exactly what it means to be both fully divine and fully human seems to be missing the forrest -because there are too many trees in the way!
I choose to believe that Jesus IS God and man.
Regarding the ontological approach to Jesus, I find it difficult relating to someone else's explanations of what a divine being must be like. This seems to have a scent of mis-ordered priorities.
I believe the priority should be having a relationship with Jesus as Lord and lover of souls. I defer to relating to Jesus in His humanity since after all, prayer involves MY relationship with Him, AND I feel I have a reasonable grasp of what it means to relate on a human level.
That anyone can go racing down the " Schleiermacher autobahn" and come up with fragmented theologies is a given --especially because of the objective AND subjective variables involved! I'll include myself therein!
Praise Jesus!
I think we should just keep it simple, even child-like!
I love this video. Any thoughts on Bernard Lonergan?
Also what would you say to a Buddhist, Hindu that is widely regarded as enlightened, as to why they need Jesus?
devan trace Thank you for this lovely response! That makes great sense! Sometimes I wonder if Christ will start to make himself know to mystics of other traditions!
Christ alone is the Savior of the human race that sets us free from sin, death, satan. He died for our sins and rose from the dead. Christ alone can reconcile us to God and bring us to God. A mystic however high on the spiritual realm cant bring us to the infinite and holy God, only Christ can.
Interesting, according to the philosopher Leo Strauss, Schleiermacher was the one who ruined Plato's idea about education too, by insisting that the difference between philosophers and non-philosophers is just a matter of degree, like filling a vase with water. Despite Plato's adamant insistence that a philosophic education, as opposed to a mere political one, is just the opposite, rather a convertion in the soul from Becoming to Being.
Agree, Your Grace!! Seems a Lord Jesus with only a great God consciousness would appeal to Nestorius/Nestorianism!
Thank you for being a modern day Irenaeus in your approach to the issues of the day. I'm currently discerning, and I have a Facebook friend in common a vocation to the priesthood? Have you got any advice, or pointers. Thanks, please pray for me, and I'll pray for you, and your fellow bishops.
This reminds me of two things. The first is G.K. Chesterton's observation that the most original thing about Christianity is not that it teaches some new moral code or philosophy, but that it preaches Christianity... Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, who died to reconcile humanity to God. The second is the obsession of the very earliest New Testament documents with the identity of Jesus. Here's what I mean...
The oldest text in the New Testament is the creed recorded by Paul in 1 Cor. 15: 3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
There is nothing about Jesus' teachings in that creed, or even his birth or events of His life. It's ALL about His death and resurrection. Then you have the writings of Paul between 45 and 67 AD, which are also obsessed with the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection for humanity, and have virtually nothing of Jesus' teachings. Then you have the Gospel of Mark at about 60-70 CE, of which over half the book focuses on the last week of Jesus' life. It's not until Luke and Matthew, around 70-80 CE, that you start to see a greater concern with recording Jesus' actual teachings (no doubt because, by then, the Apostles were starting to die off).
The very earliest Church was OVERWHELMINGLY obsessed with the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection. That wasn't some later, legendary accretion as claimed by modernist thinkers. That was the VERY FIRST tradition. In fact, that's my personal litmus test when I hear about some supposed new ancient text about Jesus... How obsessed is it with Jesus' identity? If it is more about teachings and miracles, then it's probably a later text. If it is more about Jesus' death and resurrection, then it's probably earlier.
As for Chesterton, I can let him speak for himself: "It is commonly the loose and latitudinarian Christians who pay quite indefensible compliments to Christianity. They talk as if there had never been any piety or pity until Christianity came, a point on which any mediaeval would have been eager to correct them. They represent that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach simplicity or self-restraint, or inwardness and sincerity. They will think me very narrow (whatever that means) if I say that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach Christianity. Its peculiarity was that it was peculiar, and simplicity and sincerity are not peculiar, but obvious ideals for all mankind. Christianity was the answer to a riddle, not the last truism uttered after a long talk. Only the other day I saw in an excellent weekly paper of Puritan tone this remark, that Christianity when stripped of its armour of dogma (as who should speak of a man stripped of his armour of bones), turned out to be nothing but the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light. Now, if I were to say that Christianity came into the world specially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light, that would be an exaggeration. But it would be very much nearer to the truth. The last Stoics, like Marcus Aurelius, were exactly the people who did believe in the Inner Light. Their dignity, their weariness, their sad external care for others, their incurable internal care for themselves, were all due to the Inner Light, and existed only by that dismal illumination. Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists, as such introspective moralists always do, upon small things done or undone; it is because he has not hate or love enough to make a moral revolution. He gets up early in the morning, just as our own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning; because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land. Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types. He is an unselfish egoist. An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without the excuse of passion. Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; any one who knows any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners."
Oh, Cory, Cory. Rambling on and on with silly ideology and evidence-free opinion. Have you no better purpose in life?
Naturalism Forever feel free to refute anything I said there. If not, you're just blowing smoke.
Oh, Cory: It's not worthy of "refutation." Assertions without verifiable evidence simply aren't worth my time. It's up to you to convince, not up to me to refute. You can't even make your own case.
Addendum, Cory: Please be certain to follow the advice of your Jesus dude the next time you consume a meal after using the toilet. Do NOT wash your hands. It's unnecessary.
Apparently what I say is worth your time, because here you are replying. It doesn't appear to be worth your time to actually say anything in your reply though. I made my case, the ball is now in your court. And "nuh uh" isn't a refutation. It's an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. Feel free to get back to me when you actually have a refutation.
I wish I could hear more on this? How is the ontological understanding of Jesus better the just a God consciousness understanding of Jesus?
Because an ontological understanding of Christ allows you to recognize who He really is and what He came to do for the human condition in His death and resurrection.
Does Jesus not have more than just a God consciousness? He (Jesus) is also completely God! Fully God and fully man.
Yes you're right
Hey Bishop Barron, I usually see 2 busts on your shelf in the background. If you don't mind me asking, who are the figures?
One is Shakespeare.
I am the same as Jesus Christ in essence.
In what way?
@@EricSmyth4Christ ha, funny.... this was three years ago... I was a monist back then.. everything was "one" with no distinction.
I no longer subscribe to that form of pantheism, so I'm not the Jesus character. I believe all living beings are discrete, separate.
Not a Christian though. But nothing against Christianity. I don't hate. Just don't think it is the supreme truth and it doesn't interest me.
@@exnihilo8933 What about Mormonism?
@@EricSmyth4Christ Doesn't interest me either. I have a completely different view to what true religion actually is now. Mormonism has all the hallmarks of a recent religious "development" that is completely artificial. But, then again, maybe it has some trace of real spirituality. I agree with the Bishop that there is at least a ray of distorted light in every sincere faith.
I'm incredibly disappointed in you, Robert, that you would block comments advocating open inquiry, and more specifically the viewing of videos by prestigious scholars such as Drs. Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier, both of whom have much to say about the "Jesus question" that you raise. Why would you block such commentary? Fear? Competition? Regret at your own inadequacy? My observation: those most confident in their arguments NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES and in any way avoid the comments of opposing opinions. Those most uncertain of their arguments do so constantly.
What do you expect when Churches hierarchy does not give a flying hoot about catehesis. Ask your average Bishop how many catehists he met in the last year and talked about catehesis for like 3 minutes or more? Children learn only what they parents told them like Jesus , he is nice...and cares about homeless
Ontological arguments do not save neither does your idea of God or Christ.
Christ said @there are many that will say Lord, Lord but I will say I did not know you for you did not do the will of the Father."
It's more of a question of what we are in relation to Christ. We must change. We must turn the other cheek
Brian Bailey Yes, but it matters immensely that we know who Jesus is. If he is one teacher among many, why should I surrender to him? And why should he be described as Savior?
I think i know you from somewhere bishop barron. Have you ever been to St. Louis? Say like 10ish years ago? 15 maybe? You have such a familiar face to me
So, his heritage, bara, given, in-law, between, ancestry, living in the man, as the son of many ancestors passed on...in life. Is this the concept, of in-carnate. Like carnal+ate, or within. I like simplicity. Devil = lived. Now, we have a problem on the all caps name, the civilly dead, and then this prior. What the deal, considering we are life?
*In Roman times, if you were crucified, you are a criminal.* They would put the crucified in public display for days to embarrass and humiliate them.
That’s still happening today. The demonic powers are still displaying their victory over the guy that they had framed- Jesus on the cross.
That’s why Jesus’s body is still placed on the cross- it’s to embarrass and humiliate, and showcase their victory.
It’s a *Trophy*
I wonder if Jesus laughed at funny things or joked with people. I've only ever known him as this serious figure. If he was fully God and fully man-the fully man part probably laughed at something.
I think he laughed. I mean when he appeared in the storm walking on water and then Peter walked out and then fell.... I imagine he might have laughed a little when Peter fell. Like maybes thought: “all you needed to do was keep your faith and don’t look down. I’ll have to remember not to do that again...Peter almost drowned.Mental note... try this with other people.” That’s just my opinion. Anyway friends God bless.
Jesus served wine to a bunch of drunk people at a wedding... he was probably a pretty cool guy.
So wait bishop how would you answer this question,
"Why Jesus why not buddah or krishnah? They had God consciousness too, why is Jesus any different than them? Why shouldn't I just believe in them?"
If you can, please answer in the context of this video.
Thank you so much for you work
+John Evans I don't see that as convicting enough.
+simon I have not, but Idk I feel like one should root themselves in one tradition or another, or it leads to a lack of defining what morality is, and can lead to evil, at least in my eyes.
But the main point of the question isn't exactly that, but is mainly "Why Jesus? Why should i believe in him?" its not so much the various religions I am talking about, ya feel me?
Marco K The evil one will confuse people to question Our Lord Jesus Christ
Unlike the others, he has God consciousness because he is God.
Jesus is different because he doesn't simply have a higher form of God consciousness but He is God himself. That's why we should care about him. The incarnation makes a historical case for that.
Thomas Aquinas believed in torture. So why do you revere him? I can’t understand this.
Who cares lol... All the past smart peoples were big time sinners. Martin Luther same thing
I would be surprised if the book being reviewed here really defined "God Consciousness" as "awareness of God", rather than "seeing as God sees", which is a quality that changes a person's nature. This difference in definition doesn't undermine the main point of the video - if "God Consciousness" is something that is attained, then why is Jesus any different from the Buddha or a Sufi Mystic Saint? He's not, and that's a problem for Christianity. But it seems like Barron is refuting the worst possible interpretation rather than the best, which bugs me. But, I also don't totally blame him because the definition he is refuting is simpler and easier to describe. Still bugs me.
People are quick to compare Jesus to their Western ideas of other religious sages. I lived for a time as a novice Buddhist monk (and I have put this all behind me), and during that time I also happened to befriend a kind community of Sufis in Jordan, during my travels. What Westerners don't understand is that Sufis (including Rumi) are NOT God-consciousness sharing dancers. They are actually very conservative Sunni Muslims. That is the basis for all Sufi practices, is orthodox Islamic understanding. Everything else from there is additional spiritual practice. ---------------- On the other hand the Buddha's insight was more different than Westerners think. Westerners like a version of Buddhism that ignores the worldview he taught. He explicitly teaches that without belief in reincarnation the rest of his teachings are ineffectual. So the comparisons made between various wise sages as sharing "God-consciousness" are superficial. Yes, many can attain wisdom. That doesn't mean they're all of the same mind.
God consciousness in Jesus, arguably, is the Word, Logos, himself. While then there is a danger of Schleiemacher being misinterpreted, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with his assertion. No other saint, mystics, holy man/woman or philosopher ever made such a claim as being the Word or Logos itself. This said I think here Bishop Barron is wrong to blame or focus on Schleiemacher for promoting Socianian teaching. For THAT there are many and far more credible culprits, take for instance, as just SOME examples, Unitarians and Universalists.
Jesus is more than God-consciousness so it limiting to reduce Jesus to that level. Without talk about the miracles or teaching of Jesus, the Apostles Creed provides a rich ontological declaration:
I believe...in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
Oh, come on, skfKOG: Kindly provide the VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for your rantings! Thanks!
6:45 what makes Jesus different from the others that you mentioned if we are talking about God consciousness? Well it means that Jesus, the Lord, was the only one that had the fullness of the Godhead bodily IN him. The others did not. The Bible clearly says that the Lord is the Son of God and the Lord says on multiple occasions that not only was he the Son of God but also in Rev 3:12 he says he HAS a God. Believe me I watch multitudes of videos on the trinitarian view and to me the Lord's words are the final say and Peter called him the Christ, the SON of THE Living God. Jesus seemed to concur with that assessment. If you read the red letters in the Bible its clear that Jesus, the Lord made it clear that his Father was the only true LIVING God. That's my understanding at least. Thank you. Pray for me please because I deal with this on a daily basis and it is truly what I believe, not what I WANT to believe. Thank you. God Bless
Is Jesus adopted?
Jesus is God. He told moses he couldn't see his face or he would die. Exoduc 33:20 John 1:1, John 1:14
That man who prayed is not God
JESUS IS GOD AND ALIVE AND HE IS THE CREATOR = NOT ALLAH OR ANY OTHER god
Elizabeth Ashby thank you
MOHAMMODS OR WHAT EVER HIS NAME= ALLAH IS THE MOON god = HE IS NOT THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH = HE IS OF SATAN AND OF THE RCC.= DO YOUR HOME WORK - ITS OUT THERE EVEN SATAN IS NOT STOPPING FOR YOU TO SEE FOR HE KNOWS YOU ARE ALL BLIND AND DEAF = WAKE UP TO GOD JESUS AND NO OTHER THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD AND HIS NAME IS JESUS AMEN.
HEBREW GOD IS JESUS OUR CREATOR AND SAVIOR AND A JEW = Arabic god is a moon god of satan and is not a creator or a savior = you can keep the moon god
Hey Tim! Mohammad went to heaven on a winged horse! Top that!
@@naturalismforever3469 No he did not! That's utter nonsense!!!! I say that as a Catholic Christian evangelist, apologist and academic. Heaven is NOT a "geographical place" up in the sky, and "winged horses" do not exist!!! More to it, Muhammad had no witnesses who witnessed that. More to it, Muhammad denied the historical fact of the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (an undeniable historical fact that is attested to not only by the 4 gospels and the letters of Paul, but by independent sources outside the bible, such as the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus who would have no reason to "make up" the story, as neither of them were Christians).
SORRY BUT YOU DO NOT KNOW YOUR SAVIOR = HE IS JESUS CHRIST WHO DIED ON THE CROSS FOR ALL OUR SINS AND BY HIS BLOOD ARE WE SAVED AND THE RESURRECTION AND WHO EVER SHALL BELIEVE IN HIM SHALL HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE = JESUS KING IS ALIVE AMEN.
Elizabeth Ashby who are you speaking to
BARRON AND TO ALL THAT HEAR = BUDDARALLHAKRISTNAT AN ALL OTHER CULTS THAT THINK THEY ARE GOD ARE DEAD- GOD JESUS LIVES AMEN.
Elizabeth Ashby May God bless you
and the same to you Susan x
I'm not sure why you think Bishop Barron disagrees with your statement
You, like many others, are making claims you can't back up!
I know of no God? And certainly not one who has shown me love!
Out of curiosity, can you elaborate what you mean by people making claims they can't back up?
@@josephpalaiologos Sure....A loving God!!
@@SnopDogIsACelt
First, define love.
Second, define what you mean by God.