I tend to believe that there was a preacher named Jesus. At this point in time, there were all sorts of "messiahs" to believe in to unshackle the Hebrews from the Romans. But what came from it was a plethora of tall tales.
@Hereticbooks Yeah, and that is a possibility. He ends up, if historical, being a rather weak character. And the idea of multiple messiahs points to something else going on besides "a guy." The Messiah cults are an older phenomenon than "Jesus." So, I don't know what to say. There doesn't seem to be anything that "requires" a Historical Jesus, nor does there seem to be much that would "exclude" HJ.
The weirdest part for me (until the comments section when he said "No Hitler, no real free will.") was Barron's rejecting Marcionism and replacing it with...reinterpreting the Hebrew Bible around Christ? Really? (But this was a pet peeve even before I gave up on Christianity; if I'm having trouble with a passage in Isaiah, I want to know how his audience understood him; not how this foreshadowed Christ)
@felixthehuman Right, and Marcionism tried to fix that issue and say that the "OT" was inferior to the "NT." What Barron talks about is the so-called literalist interpretation of the OT, and claims literalism is Marcionite. Which is fair I suppose, though the Catholics only made the problem worse by trying to make it all fit. If he wants to "makes sense of it all," he probably should just become an atheist and get it over with. ;-D
Aren't metaphors supposed to have some kind of explanatory power? For istance, if I say "he's a rock", or "she's a tiger" you already know what I mean, I don't need to explain further the meaning of those metaphors. It strikes me that this may be why it is often so hard to tell what in the Bible is supposed to be metaphorical, and what isn't. ie: the Bible uses a lot of really bad metaphors. Or is that a bit too simplistic? I am curious what you think.
@InvincibleIronyMan Yeah, this goes all the way back to Philo of Alexandria. Philo believed literal aspects were for common people. Even back then, there was an argument as to how much was "factual." The problem, as bible literalists conclude, is that if you open up the text to metaphors and interpretation, then everything in the text is open to interpretation. They defend Genesis creationism, because if it is figurative, Jesus might be too. Literalists, are in a tough position.
I've seen some of Fr. Barron's stuff. He's a condescending ass, IMO. I'm working on a question for you myself. I just wanna make sure I don't ask you something someone else has already :) .
@Jaybird196 hehe, yeah, I think he was a bit on the condescending side, but I think that's probably very typical for Catholic priests. Their only way to reasonably explain their own religion, is to say that no normal person could possibly understand it. Doesn't seem like something they should push too much, but hey, it's not my religion. ;-D
@Xoroaster On the Fr., pretty much. He's also fairly disrespectful of some who've left the faith, too (Spong, as an example). I'd rather have Spong as my "spiritual" teacher any day.
Ooookay... will you mention anything having to do with Noachian/Gilgamesh flood myth(s)? What religions of the Mid-east influenced OT era Jews in their stories about their god. And, how might we distinguish between Elohist, Yahwist, and other types of Jewish god belief ? Thanks.
I just tuned into your channel. Profoundly interesting content.
With that voice you would never be out of a job as a "voice over".
LunaSeaSane 1 month ago
I tend to believe that there was a preacher named Jesus. At this point in time, there were all sorts of "messiahs" to believe in to unshackle the Hebrews from the Romans. But what came from it was a plethora of tall tales.
Hereticbooks 1 month ago
@Hereticbooks Yeah, and that is a possibility. He ends up, if historical, being a rather weak character. And the idea of multiple messiahs points to something else going on besides "a guy." The Messiah cults are an older phenomenon than "Jesus." So, I don't know what to say. There doesn't seem to be anything that "requires" a Historical Jesus, nor does there seem to be much that would "exclude" HJ.
Xoroaster 1 month ago
The weirdest part for me (until the comments section when he said "No Hitler, no real free will.") was Barron's rejecting Marcionism and replacing it with...reinterpreting the Hebrew Bible around Christ? Really? (But this was a pet peeve even before I gave up on Christianity; if I'm having trouble with a passage in Isaiah, I want to know how his audience understood him; not how this foreshadowed Christ)
felixthehuman 1 month ago
@felixthehuman Right, and Marcionism tried to fix that issue and say that the "OT" was inferior to the "NT." What Barron talks about is the so-called literalist interpretation of the OT, and claims literalism is Marcionite. Which is fair I suppose, though the Catholics only made the problem worse by trying to make it all fit. If he wants to "makes sense of it all," he probably should just become an atheist and get it over with. ;-D
Xoroaster 1 month ago
Aren't metaphors supposed to have some kind of explanatory power? For istance, if I say "he's a rock", or "she's a tiger" you already know what I mean, I don't need to explain further the meaning of those metaphors. It strikes me that this may be why it is often so hard to tell what in the Bible is supposed to be metaphorical, and what isn't. ie: the Bible uses a lot of really bad metaphors. Or is that a bit too simplistic? I am curious what you think.
InvincibleIronyMan 1 month ago
@InvincibleIronyMan Yeah, this goes all the way back to Philo of Alexandria. Philo believed literal aspects were for common people. Even back then, there was an argument as to how much was "factual." The problem, as bible literalists conclude, is that if you open up the text to metaphors and interpretation, then everything in the text is open to interpretation. They defend Genesis creationism, because if it is figurative, Jesus might be too. Literalists, are in a tough position.
Xoroaster 1 month ago
I've seen some of Fr. Barron's stuff. He's a condescending ass, IMO. I'm working on a question for you myself. I just wanna make sure I don't ask you something someone else has already :) .
Jaybird196 1 month ago
@Jaybird196 hehe, yeah, I think he was a bit on the condescending side, but I think that's probably very typical for Catholic priests. Their only way to reasonably explain their own religion, is to say that no normal person could possibly understand it. Doesn't seem like something they should push too much, but hey, it's not my religion. ;-D
Oh, ask away. I repeat stuff all the time. ;-D
Xoroaster 1 month ago
@Xoroaster On the Fr., pretty much. He's also fairly disrespectful of some who've left the faith, too (Spong, as an example). I'd rather have Spong as my "spiritual" teacher any day.
Ooookay... will you mention anything having to do with Noachian/Gilgamesh flood myth(s)? What religions of the Mid-east influenced OT era Jews in their stories about their god. And, how might we distinguish between Elohist, Yahwist, and other types of Jewish god belief ? Thanks.
Jaybird196 1 month ago
Very good Video, as always.
gettingolder2 1 month ago
@gettingolder2 Thank you! ;-D
Xoroaster 1 month ago