LIGHT
PREV VIDEO NEXT VIDEO MORE VIDEOS

Robert Barron | – The Historical Reality of Jesus — Bishop Barron’s Sunday Sermon

Added
57 Views
48 Comments
Robert Barron
By Bishop Robert Barron
48 Comments

Friends, a couple years ago, there was a poll conducted in Great Britain that revealed that the majority of people there feel that Jesus was not a real, historical figure, but rather more of a mythic character. There are all kinds of spiritual systems that trade in mythic language bearing spiritual truths—but that’s not what Christianity is.

Watch the Spanish version here: [support us]

SUBSCRIBE to my YouTube channel to watch every Sunday Sermon: [support us]

———VIDEO LINKS———

Bishop Barron on Scientism and God’s Existence: [support us]
Bishop Barron on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist: [support us]
Is Religion Opposed to Science?: [support us]

———WATCH———

Subscribe to this Channel: [support us]
Word on Fire Institute Channel: [support us]
Word on Fire en Español Channel: [support us]

———WORD ON FIRE———

Word on Fire: [support us]
FREE Daily Gospel Reflections (English or Español): [support us]

———SOCIAL MEDIA———

Bishop Barron Instagram: [support us]
Bishop Barron Facebook: [support us]
Bishop Barron Twitter: [support us]

Word on Fire Instagram: [support us]
Word on Fire Facebook: [support us]
Word on Fire Twitter: [support us]

Word on Fire en Español Instagram: [support us]
Word on Fire en Español Facebook: [support us]
Word on Fire en Español Twitter: [support us]

———SUPPORT WORD ON FIRE———

Donate: [support us]
Word on Fire Store: [support us]
Pray: [support us]

2nd sunday of advent2nd sunday of advent homilyBiblebible studies for womenBible Studybible study booksbible study guidebible study lessonsbible versesbiblicalBilly Graham sermonsBishop Barronbishop robert barron sunday sermonCatholicCatholic Homilycatholic preachingCatholic SermonChristchristianchristian biblechristian historyChristianitychurchfaithfaith in godGodGospelhistorical figurehistorical jesushistoryholy bibleholy godholy spiritHomilyis jesus a mythJesusJesus Christjesus historyjesus was realjoel osteenjohn macarthur sermonsjohn piper sermonsjoyce meyer sermonsministryonline bible studyonline homilyPastorpastoralprayerPreacherpreachingReligionrick warren sermonsSalvationscriptureSermonsermon audiosermon centralsermon illustrationssermon notebooksermonssermons for kidssunday sermontd jakesthe bible seriestheologywas jesus a real personwas jesus realwho was jesusword on fireworship

About The Author

Bishop Robert Barron These are brief and insightful commentaries on faith and culture by Catholic theologian and author Bishop Robert Barron. The videos complement his weekly sermons posted and podcasted at WordOnFire.org.

Comment (48)

  2. It simply doesn't seem possible or plausible that Jesus was purely a mythic figure. How could that happen? Myths don't include details of location and timing, and name the names of others, like the disciples, who were obviously historical characters who it is claimed actually interacted with Jesus. Who and how would they have made up this mythical figure out of nothing? How would they have created extensive narratives about their interactions with Jesus if there weren't some historical kernel of truth behind their stories? Even if you don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah or the Son of God, even if you believe the church made up the whole thing about his being the Messiah or the Savior, they still would have made it up around the historical figure of Jesus. No one can convince you that Jesus is the Savior of the world simply through historical arguments, but to deny that Jesus even existed just seems to be a really implausible historical judgment and you suspect that the person making it has some other agenda going on.

  4. PAPA FRANCISC =IUDA =ERETIC. CATHOLICA =ERETICI. FILIOQVE, INFAIBILITATEA PAPEI, IMACULATA CONCEPTIE, PURGATORIUL =EREZIE, FALS.LITURGHIA CATHOLICA =LUCIFER, SATANAS. IISUS HRISTOS =ORTODOXIA!ORTODOXIA=ADEVARUL!ECUMENISMUL,EREZIA EREZIILOR.

  5. This historical Jesus is real. I never question that. I am his follower… But in its 2000 year old history, I also believe that people had added something into, or removed parts of, the current Bible. To an intellectual mind, that's for sure… Whatever had happened, I still Jesus' follower (but not always the earthly church follower, as the church–as Pope Francis always says–can make mistakes or errors).

  12. As a Christian teenager l wanted to find out if theJesus l was falling in love with was a real person. If so, he’d be mentioned by reputable historical figures of or around His time. He was. Not by His fans but by people who were extremely irritated by Him, like Tacitus.

  14. As a Scot I am heartbroken that the majority of people in Britain do not believe in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
    People have no interest in Augustine's mission to England or in the missionary work of Saint Ninian, Saint Columba, Saint Patrick.
    Dostoevsky said no writer of genius could have invented Jesus. The enemies of Christianity in the first centuries never once suggested that Jesus never lived

  16. Not a Christian even, I'd consider myself agnostic leaning towards Christianity

    But I've been catching your videos every week recently, and for this one I wanted to comment because I recently in my anthropology class will learn about the history of Jesus

    To quote my teacher, it's not that we don't know a lot about Jesus in comparison to people from his time

    We know more about the history of Jesus and the most individual figures of that time, we have more writings and witness testimony, physical relics and corroborating reports, even as a non-Christian at this point I 100% Jesus walked this Earth and was a truly great man, enough so that in the context of his time it is vastly out of place and that alone has drawn me into Christianity

    The pacifist, the carpenter, the healer. This wasn't Gilgamesh the great warrior king, this was a peacemaker and an age of early empires

    That makes me believe that these people must have had an experience that convince them a peacemaker was their savior

    Anyways, I just don't call myself a Christian yet because my skepticism makes it hard to arrive at true faith

    But ya, this was not mithras, this is not Apollo, this Aries or saturn

    This was something that upended many of those conventions, sadly the history of the church can't claim this. But Christian doctrine itself is to me a massive cultural moral revolution

  17. If you are directly connected to the truth, then you need not be dependent upon beliefs nor any dis-beliefs. However, If you are located at a distance from the truth due to being located in the zone of less than truth, then you may end up practising beliefs and dis-beliefs. Sadly, seeing is believing. Due to it being a mere believing, magicians can make a good living. No one can be deceived any greater than believers and disbelievers can be deceived. And it gets even worse. If you stick to your beliefs and dis-beliefs, then you have chosen to stick to being located within the zone of less than truth, the land of deceit.

  19. Well i started this video thinking i was going to disagree but honestly i agree with everything. I liked the video. It is an honest video.
    Thumb up!
    History is a science inexact by definition, YES and a christian can't doubt about the historicity of the figure of Jesus, YES.
    I very agree.
    But an atheist historian, or an historian that decide to switch off his "being christian" for a moment can raise some questions that can't be avoided about the figure of Jesus, and the impossibility to have clear answers about those questions DO NOT make him a mythological figure like King Arthur or Achilles.
    Simply make him "not proven" historical figure.

    That is different.

  21. Why are there two mutually contradictory origin stories for Jesus that have Jesus born about 12 years apart?

    Matthew:
    Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem
    Jesus born in their home in 6 BCE (2 years before the death of Herod the Great).
    Visited by some guys following a talking star.
    Escape to Egypt and the massacre of the Infants by Herod the Great.
    Herod the Great dies in 4 BCE.
    Don’t return to Bethlehem because now Herod Archelaus was ruling over Judea
    but instead went to Nazareth in Galilee where Herod Antipas ruled.

    Luke:
    Living in Nazareth
    Travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem because of Census in 6 CE (an actual event but that did not require anyone to go anywhere, that is just silly)
    Born in a Manger
    Visited by angels and shepherds
    Jesus has his penis mutilated.
    Forty days later they go to the temple in Jerusalem and BBQ a couple of birds (Leviticus 12)
    Return home to Nazareth.

  22. There are no contemporary reports of jesus's existence. None. You'd think that if an itinerant Jewish Rabbi was wondering around 1st century Jerusalem healing the sick, curing the blind, raising the dead, etc. that someone would have mentioned him.… The only thing we have are fantastical tales written decades after is supposed death. That puts him in a similar category as Robin Hood.

  24. It seems bishop baron is trying to blame US for the fact that he cant provide EVEN the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of his alledgedly omnipresent omnibenevolent god who wants a relationship with me!

  25. Thank you, Your Grace!
    If I had heard preaching/teaching like this 20 years ago, I would still be Roman Catholic. However, most of what I heard from the pulpit was things like, "Of course, we know that Jesus never said that", 'that' being what had just been read in the Gospel lesson.

  27. Wow. I cant quite believe how PITIFUL baron the charlatan truly is.

    Thanks for the total non sequitur!

    Tell us baron, who wrote luke?

    You mean a superstitious anonymous bloke in the desert made up a story so the universe was made by an unembodied MIND with power to speak universe's into existence from nothing and simultaneously read the thoughts of everybody in that universe and it just popped into existence from nothing!

    Is that really the hillarious fairytale you're trying to support baron?

  29. The biographies of almost all ancient figures contain "miraculous" events. We discount them for all of those figures, Jesus included, unless and until it can be demonstrated that such miracles can actually occur. There may have been a man named Yeshua be Yosef; that fact alone does not mean that any of the miraculous events attributed to him actually occurred. Research any modern cult – all of them will claim there were miracles that believers are convinced happened while outsiders discount out of hand.

  36. This one is a non-starter. A member of a religion is not qualified to testify as to the historicity of the characters in that religion. This is clear conflict-of-interest, lacks neutral and independent transparency, and is like a parent testifying in court for the benefit and defense of his or her child. Never got off the runway but the brakes were good and nobody was hurt…

  38. Kind of a weak argument, seems to mostly be 'If it sounds like history it must be history'. If you read ancient histories you would know that you need to take their stories with a good helping of salt, not just take them at face value.

  42. So not Allah, not Yahweh, Odin, Isis or any of the other superstitions and juju worship in our tightened passed and the uninformed darkness these simpletons would inflict on all humanity. The one true God of the one true religion and it's one true unsubstantiated, blind faith, shameful nonsense. Join the 21at century.

  46. I'm not here to argue that Jesus didn't exist. I think he likely did, based on all the sources who mention him which had no religious point to make that would have required it. I think that sort of evidence is much better than the putative evidence of "Luke" saying he consulted eyewitnesses. Contending that such a statement somewhat is inherently reliable, or constitutes a marker of historical fact, is ridiculous. And Bishop Barron is plenty smart enough to know that. Even worse, that such would be taken for asserting that this is what makes Christianity radically different from all other religions is bizarre intellectually every time Bishop Barron makes it, which seems to be often in the smattering of videos I have watched of him over the years. That Jesus likely did exist is quite different from whether he was or did all the things the Catholic Church contends. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has a history, which in no way is in scholarly dispute, of supporting outright fabrication and textual frauds, like the Pseudo-Dionysian Corpus, which as the Catholic scholar Fr. Weisheipl , O.P., wrote, was so authoritative that it was taken as second only Sacred Scripture. And all because of the allegedly "historical" notion that it was taken to be contemporaneous with St. Paul. A claim that was completely outlandish given the nature of the text, but accepted as true by most for a thousand years of Catholic history, and still forms the basis (even more than Aristotle) of the work of Thomas Aquinas, even though Aquinas surely was smart enough to have known that it was not real. In other words, the potentially problematic nature of textual attestations, be it in the Gospel of Luke or later in the Pseudo-Dionysian Corpus, in terms of historical veracity. Of course, assertions of faith are another matter, and few reasonable people have problems with that– I certainly don't. But to claim historicity on the basis of such things, as the Bishop does here, is, no offense, laughable.

LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

© 2021 Preacher. All rights reserved.
CLOSE