Did Jesus Have to Die on the Cross?

[@patrickdtx3638]

The more I dig into Catholic theology, the more I feel like it fills in a lot of the gaps and corrects a lot of the seeming contradictions I learned during my protestant upbringing.

[@gerardos256]

Come home, come to the Catholic Church.

[@classicalteacher]

Yeah. The same thing happened to me. I earned an undergrad degree in Bible and it took years to remove the Calvinist theological lies that skewed my Biblical interpretation. I feel very betrayed and scammed. At one time I felt it was good to have this contrasting education, but not anymore. Bankers never study false notes/bills to detect forgeries. They only memorize the real thing. They are so acquainted with legitimate bills that they know a fake bill immediately and where it is wrong. That is how it should be with Christianity.

[@patrickdtx3638]

@@gerardos256 That's the plan. Easter Vigil 2025.

[@jonesthefone]

That’s been my journey over the last couple of years. Out of evangelical Anglicanism and received into the Church in June ‘24. Please pray for my family and friends who are feeling dazed/confused/abandoned/betrayed (pick one!)

[@batmaninc2793]

This is why when I decided to give Christianity a fair shake after being an antitheist for just over a decade, I went to the Catholic Church and haven’t looked back since.

[@emilyzlockard]

If anyone wants a MUCH deeper dive on the cross, and one of Joe’s BEST episodes ever, go back and watch his video called “Does the Cross Actually Do Anything?” It’s 90 minutes of fire.

[@HighKingTurgon]

Purging fire

[@john-paulgies4313]

Pin this comment pls!

[@OPiaOClemens]

Thank youuu!!

[@wazzuptrey]

I have been trying really hard over the last week to reflect on Gods divine plan of salvation and redemption. It is probably the hardest of all, for me, to reflect on next to the Eucharist. I recently started reading 'What Is Redemption?' by Philippe de La Trinité and felt like I was making great progress in my grasp, yet still was finding myself mentally fatigued while reading and was beginning to feel discouraged from continued reflection on the topic. Last night I prayed about it before I went to bed, and now I wake up to a vid by Joe on this exact topic!! God bless you, Joe! Your effort in making these topics more digestible does not go unnoticed. PLEASE keep doing what you do!

[@ScottJackson-b6s-y4j]

Jesus was not crucified Psalm 41:2 KJV

[@wazzuptrey]

@Scott-b6s-y4j "The Lord protects and preserves them they are counted among the blessed in the land he does not give them over to the desire of their foes." I'm not understanding your point?

[@Scott01782]

​@@wazzuptreythe verse is about Jesus

[@ScottJackson-b6s-y4j]

​@@wazzuptreyPsalm 41:9 KJV John 13:18 KJV

[@wazzuptrey]

Sorry, that wasn't the KJV. Accidentally selected NIV. Here is the KJV but I also included verse 1 and verse 3 for context. Psalm 41:1-3 "1 Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble. 2 The Lord will preserve him, and keep him alive; and he shall be blessed upon the earth: and thou wilt not deliver him unto the will of his enemies. 3 The Lord will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing: thou wilt make all his bed in his sickness" Clealy, the Psalm is suggesting The Lord will heal those who show mercy to the poor and less fortunate. You need to explain how its talking about Jesus because clearly I am missing something. Its talking about someone who is sickly... I dont remember Jesus being sick.

[@laurenatkinson1892]

Always encouraging to listen to you Joe !

[@seangallagher9580]

Joe, as always thank you for your hard work! We need to be able to respond to the false claims of protestantism with the truth of the Gospel and you are helping Catholics do just that.

[@mikekayanderson408]

The Catholic claim as articulated above is the false claim!

[@n2185x]

​@@mikekayanderson408 "The Catholic claim as articulated above is the false claim!" Is it? To insist that Jesus *had to* die on the cross for us is to insist that God is not, in fact, all-powerful after all, thus contradicting Matthew 19:26. Either God is all-powerful, in which case there is absolutely nothing He *must* do, or Jesus *had to* die on the cross for us (to *have to* do something means there is no choice and no logically available alternative, but here the logically available alternative is to simply forgive), in which case God *cannot* be all-powerful. Well, which is it?

[@john-paulgies4313]

​@@mikekayanderson408 You have said too little. Like a huffy schoolboy who was shown to be wrong, you have nothing more to say than, "Whatever, you're still just a smelly Catholic.😒" I think you're going to find that this position accounts for all the scriptural data, Old and New.

[@john-paulgies4313]

​​@@mikekayanderson408 You have nothing to say? You're just gonna stand up and publicly deny it, but give no justification _at all_ for your stance? Read a Bible (with your eyes open this time).

[@mikekayanderson408]

@@n2185x You are speaking in circles! Yes God is all powerful. God sticks to His precepts - He is not fickle! The consequence of sin is death - singed stuck to His precepts and Christ died in our place so we could have eternal life rather than eternal death through faith I Him and what He did for us! Simple!

[@alvarovecchionacce9672]

Thanks!

[@emilycahow]

You are the go-to person for this topic. Awesome work!

[@andyfitzgerald2312]

My "favorite" point you make is how our sin / imperfections can have painful conséquences. Another thought is that the cruel Roman crucifiction left no doubt about the human bodily death : Hence it validates truly the miracle of the résurrection.

[@ewemadesunday317]

Bishop Fulton did mention that even the breathe of Christ was enough to redeem us because it had an infinite value. Our sins are finite.

[@john-paulgies4313]

Our sins are finite, but are an offense to infinite Being Himself - namely, a rejection of Him. They merit infinite retribution. Christ's Self-Sacrifice merits infinitely more, being a total and ineffable acceptance of His Father.

[@nathaniel5261]

@@john-paulgies4313no they dont. That works in the opposite. An infinite immutable being is invulnerable and thus unoffendable

[@Maranatha99]

@nathaniel5261 God is "unoffendable"???

[@ob2249]

so why is the punishment for them infinite ?

[@ob2249]

@@Maranatha99 can you hurt an omnipotent, omniscient omnipresent super being creator of the universe ?

[@JunJimmie-n5c]

Retiring this year, $82K biweekly, this video reminds me of my life in 2023, you have really inspired me in so many ways!!❤️

[@liamjoseph5900]

I’m feeling truly inspired. Can you provide additional insights about the bi-weekly subject you mentioned?

[@JunJimmie-n5c]

I raised 184k and Anna Kathleen Sanford is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car 🚗 just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Anna K. Sanford is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good wife, and a beautiful daughter. Note!:: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!!

[@markhenry8002]

Whoa 😲 I know her too! Miss Anna Kathleen Sanford is an incredible person who has brought immense inspiration and positivity into my life.

[@markhenry8002]

I meagerly kicked off with $2k, and the results have been Jaw-dropping TBH!!!

[@LisaSpratt]

I know that woman(Anna Kathleen Sanford) If you grew up in new York, you’d know her too. There’s no ßingle doubt she’s the one that helped you make it to where you are now!

[@horak77]

Joe, thank you so much for this video, as well as the one you did a couple of years ago on the same topic, Does The Crucifixion Do Anything? I’ve never understood how people could find relief or contentment in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. The idea of God as an immovable, stoic, and cold judge bound by His own law never made sense to me. I’m grateful that someone on the Catholic Answers staff has addressed this topic more than once. In your previous video, I appreciated how you explained that our debt to God isn’t like a penalty or judgment for a crime, but rather, as you pointed out, it’s more like monetary debt-something that God can choose to forgive if He wills, or, as you mentioned in this video, something we ourselves can choose to forgive for others who owe us. This perspective on the cross makes so much sense, especially since Scripture consistently speaks of our debt to God in monetary terms. Since watching your videos, every time I encounter this concept in the Bible, it resonates with me in a new way. If I wanted to dive deeper into St. Thomas Aquinas’s view of the cross, which you said aligns with what you’ve discussed, which of his works should I explore?

[@annakimborahpa]

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III, Treatise On The Incarnation, Question 48 - Of the Efficacy of Christ's Passion, Article 2 - Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of atonement? [Sacred Texts Com /chr/aquinas/summa/sum499.htm] "I answer that, he properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. BUT BY SUFFERING OUT OF LOVE AND OBEDIENCE, CHRIST GAVE MORE TO GOD THAN WAS REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE OFFENSE OF THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE. FIRST OF ALL, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; SECONDLY, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; THIRDLY, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Q[46], A[6]). - and - THEREFORE CHRIST'S PASSION WAS NOT ONLY A SUFFICIENT BUT A SUPERABUNDANT ATONEMENT FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE; according to 1 Jn. 2:2: 'He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.'" 2. In the anthropology of the human person regarding acts that are informed by reason and deliberated by the will, there are three components: Intention, circumstances and object. It is the intention that determines the nature of the act, as in the case of homicide, whether it is (A) manslaughter, (B) second degree murder or (C) first degree murder. Therefore, the intention is the greatest component of the human act. 3. In St. Thomas' answer above, he lists Christ's intention first, followed by His identity as God and man second, and the circumstances of His passion third. All three were components in the atonement which was the desired object, but it was Christ's love and obedience that determined how great was His atonement on our behalf, even preceding His identity as both God and man which gave the atonement its eternal dimension. 4. St. Thomas Aquinas' "superabundant atonement" of Jesus Christ involves the gifts of His sacraments to Christians: (A) Seven in number to the Catholic, Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East; and (B) two in number generally acknowledged by the Protestant Churches. 5. Employing the Protestant sacramental model but common to all as analogous to St. Thomas' "superabundant atonement" model: A. Baptism, through Christ's death on the cross, is a one time event that initially reconciles sinners to God. B. Eucharist, through the Last Supper as a permanent institution, is a continuous celebratory event in the life of Christians after baptism, until its perfect fulfillment in the heavenly banquet: Revelation 19:6-9 (KJV): And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, "Write, BLESSED ARE THEY WHICH ARE CALLED UNTO THE MARRIAGE SUPPER OF THE LAMB." 6. And if the King James Bible was good enough for St. John ...

[@tsitsifloramunikwa5468]

Looking dapper Mr Joe!

[@ConvincedofChristianity]

Great video! Thanks, Joe!

[@TeresaP-x4c]

I love your videos! They explain complicated things so well!

[@BensWorkshop]

Outstanding video! And great explanations!

[@mikekayanderson408]

Lying explanations!

[@BensWorkshop]

@@mikekayanderson408 Lol! Totally farcical reply. You have not addressed anything said in the video, instead you are here to just troll.

[@john-paulgies4313]

​@@mikekayanderson408 Sit down. The adults are trying to discuss the Atonement.

[@Back2Rome]

You can't get Trent Horn to put on his sweater so you're going to match him? 🤔

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

One is missing, to give us the ability to worship in the greatest way possible, with the offering of a perfect victim.

[@ji8044]

Do you realize how primitive the idea of a human sacrifice is?

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@ji8044 As if Christian theology is "primitive." Just show us again how unlearned you are on this topic

[@john-paulgies4313]

Nothing is wrong with being primitive. We were originally - _primitively_ - highly intelligent and wise creatures. What is actually disgraceful is our diminution from our primitive state, which has resulted in ignorance and stupidity and the ideas of idolatry. Human sacrifice is one such distortion... but it is a distortion of something eminently right. The idea of killing another person in offering to a god to get favors is diabolical. Nevertheless, the idea of freely and totally giving the best possible gift you have as an act of gratitude and honor to the One Who has blessed you with everything you have, even yourself, is exactly correct (even obligatory). And someone else's life is not the best gift you can make - it's not yours to give: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good and the acceptable and the perfect will of God." (Rom. 12:1-2)

[@mikekayanderson408]

Jesus was NOT a VICTIM! Jesus voluntarily came to this earth and offered Himself as a Sacrifice for our sins! You Catholics call him a victim in the sacrifice of the mass - but HE certain Bly is not a victims And the sacrifice of the mass - the Eucharist- is useless as it is all false teaching the way you teach it - but that is for another time!

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@ "victim" just means the thing that is sacrificed. It is used in the Latine Vulgate in Acts 7:42

[@thenewcinema.7403]

Great Stuff Joe!

[@bethanygrey]

God bless you, Joe Heschmeyer! Our Lord is so beautiful in all His ways and works, and you glorify Him well and do us great service by elucidating them so effectively. Thank you!!

[@ozoz2931]

I struggled with this for a long time, to say that God NEEDS something in order to forgive us is incompatible with Gods very nature! God love for us has never changed, we changed, we turned to OUR own way, sin. I love what the Catechism says in I believe 616. When Jesus died on the cross, as one of us! We all died. Now we go and spread the good news! The kingdom of God has come! Thanks be to God🙏🏼

[@marountayar2831]

Hello Joe, God bless you and thank you. I was also thinking of two things or two reasons,. Reason number one is also to show us how terrible sin is. Yes, God could have said forget about it, but we would never understand ( even now many people still do not grasp how terrible sin is ). Reason number two, while i was listening to you i was preparing myself to write something and then you reached number 5 and i thought, great. But i would humbly add something else if you don`t mind? Redemption and justification go infinitely more than just forgiveness and i will explain what i mean. If i steal something, i might be forgiven but i will always remain a forgiven thief. But our God did much much more than merely forgiving us, we were sinners, we were thieves we were whatever you want to put in there and he redeemed us and made us his adopted children. Hallelujah I will also add that our Lord wanted to defeat the devil in that same nature which the devil in his pride and jealousy defeated. He gave us the honor and the dignity aided by his grace to also defeat the Wolf ( the devil ) , for no one will ever defeat the Wolf, Lion, Dragon, the devil unless the one who has the Lamb of God which defeated the devil. What a great wonderful God we have.

[@ji8044]

If that was his reason, apparently he failed.

[@john-paulgies4313]

​@@ji8044 "So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: That he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. Therefore, now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God." (Gal. 4:3-7) If not formally, at leat you approach to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is unpardonable either in this life or the next (Matthew 12:30-32). Repent. Run! "A man making void the law of Moses dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb. 10:28-31)

[@champagne.future5248]

Fantastic presentation

[@zurfing3309]

Hey Joe, I’ve been watching all your videos recently and find them really informative, even to someone who already is catholic (though not a very good one). I was wondering if you would consider a video or series of videos regarding differences between the orthodox claims and catholic claims. Because a lot of the videos I see are mostly targeted towards Protestants and/ or non-Christians, and many of those objections don’t apply to the orthodox ( you know like the Eucharist, church structure, tradition vs bible alone, etc). So I was hoping that at some point in the future, maybe a video or two could be about some differences between us (filioque, immaculate conception, etc). Love the work, thanks for the amazing content.

[@john-paulgies4313]

Church structure absolutely applies to orthos.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

We're not bidden to be polemical towards our eastern brothers, this is the advice of saint John Paul II, we will defend ourselves if it comes to it but when it comes to the east, we won't look for fights

[@ChrisFlanigan777]

I believe it was Ambrosiaster (AD 366-384) (I could be wrong) expanded on this: "that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil", or in other words, the devil had claimed Jesus as being one of his subjects, but the devil could only claim sinners as his subjects. Therefore, the devil invalidated his own citizenship requirements, and nullified all travel restrictions for his subjects.

[@kmh20248]

I thought god was all powerful. Why doesn’t he just get rid of the devil?

[@ChrisFlanigan777]

@@kmh20248 "God is Love". God created the devil and gave him free will, and "Because God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living. For he fashioned all things that they might have being, and the creatures of the world are wholesome."

[@ChrisFlanigan777]

Yes it was Ambrosiaster. He called it a "sin against sin".

[@severianmonk7394]

Guerric of Igny was one of the last witnesses in the middle ages to comment on this vision of the redemptive work of Christ in precisely these terms. It's an ancient theme. The devil, as it were, biting off more than he could chew.

[@marksteo6178]

this might be an extremely complicated topic, but you approached it in a very simple way for us who continue to learn this great mystery. In the end of all explanations by humans, it will still remain a mystery. The mystery of love. m

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@jenkoop]

Joe, I have a request. Would you please put your bullet points in the show notes for this video and for others going forward? I could write them down (and lose them shortly after) and try to remember, but then when I share these videos with others or come back for a second look, it would be helpful for us all to review the main points again. Thanks for considering!

[@yRelWlowR]

First off Joe, thank you for all the work you do for us - I really appreciate your videos. I would like to add one more reason why Jesus had to die on the Cross. We are saved in the most basic sense not just by faith, and not just by baptism, but by doing what the Jews of the Passover did - eating the Lamb. So perhaps Jesus had to die on the cross so as to be the New Lamb of Sacrifice for this one reason - to enable to be divinized by eating our Lamb - the Blessed Eucharist (an idea I got from a Adoration devotional book). And perhaps this is why therefore that the first fruit of his Passion and Death was the communication to us of the Sacrament of Baptims (the water that came from his pierced side), and The Medicine of Immorality (the Blood). Either way, it's something that appeals to me - the simpleness of it all when I go to Adoration, gaze at the Eucharstic form of Our Lord, and think 'He went through all this that he could remain here (in our tabernacles) with us always, and in Holy Mass, communicate to us His Divine Life. Unlike Protestants, and bless their goodwill, we can say with confidence 'He stayed'. And as someone with serious mental illnesses, I for one, cannot thank Him enough for this.

[@angelacornell8660]

Hi new viewer, wow . Hi from Canberra and Catholic unscripted ❤

[@MelissaNelson-jb8rj]

Hi Joe, in another episode, would you speak about sacrifices? Where did that come from initially? I understand what it means but haven't found the root. Thank you for what you do!

[@jimmydavid1993]

Imagine having joe as your parish priest

[@tonyl3762]

Funny how many Protestants overzealously defend God's sovereignty but then claim Jesus _had_ to die for us to be saved/forgiven. God's omnipotence proves that the shedding of blood for forgiveness is a matter of divine will, not metaphysical necessity that binds God Himself. God is bound only by Himself, and He could have willed it otherwise. He is not bound by His justice if He chooses mercy instead. He is not bound by any particular form of justice or mercy.

[@mikekayanderson408]

Because of God’s mercy Jesus died for our sins so that we could live eternally with Him in heaven! If He had not died for us we all would go to hell! Instead of everyone saying God could have chosen to just forgive - why not praise Him that He chose to save anyone at all thro the death of Christ? God saves us from His own wrath ! By sending His own Son into the world to take on flesh and become one of us and to be our substitute- to take our punishment! So we can go free! Thank and praise Him for what He has done - rather than tell Almighty God that he could have or should have done it differently! As Paul says - who are you to question God! If you do not like penal substitution - then do not accept it or believe in it - then pay for our own sins for eternity!

[@tonyl3762]

@@mikekayanderson408 You must like scarecrows (and wasting time and energy); tons of straw men in what you wrote. No one is saying we shouldn't praise God's choice to save us, for what He has done. No one is denying that we could never have been saved without that choice and action. No one is saying that we should tell God that He could have done it differently. No one is questioning God's choice to save or the actual manner of salvation He chose but rather whether the manner of that salvation could have theoretically/hypothetically been different. It's called a thought experiment, and it makes use of what we know about God, including His omnipotence. No one is denying that Jesus paid for our redemption by His Passion and death.

[@PuzzlesC4M]

@@mikekayanderson408”If he had not died for us, we would all be in hell.” This right here is the answer. We may have been forgiven, but we’d still be dead. I do not hold to penal substitution, but we know for sure Jesus had to die. Why? Because if there was any other way, he would have done it! He says as much in the garden of Gesthemene. This video missed the mark. The closest he got was point #3. Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin do a better job at presenting the Catholic positions.

[@severianmonk7394]

It's even worse than that in Calvin's theories. He implicitly denied the changelessness of God by teaching that God, who cannot be affected by creatures, underwent a loss of honour when Adam sinned. Then He nursed a grudge for millennia until He figured out that He would feel better if He killed his son. All of this supposes he can change, from being angry before hand, and complacent afterward.

[@francismarion6400]

The penalty for sin is death. Eternal death not physical death. We are all cursed from Adam with physical death. God is just, so there must be justice. So yes, someone had to die for your personal sins.

[@nicbentulan]

Because of Jesus' Sacrifice I'm supposed to never have any doubt whatsoever that I'm loved and forgiven and therefore I should not sin in order to compensate for a lack of love or forgiveness that I think I have right?

[@nobody2144]

I guess I had assumed that if sin is rebellion against God, then if God chose to ignore our sins and not send Jesus to the cross, we would just remain separated from him. But Jesus became one of us and obeyed to the point of death so that we could be reconciled to God through him. I've always thought of salvation as dying to sin and receiving new life and grace to actually become like Jesus through union with him. Even though I used to be protestant, imputed righteousness always seemed kind of pointless to me; I just couldn't articulate why until fairly recently. I'm still not sure I understand correctly, but this helps, since it is hard to think of everything that goes into this topic.

[@Jrce11]

Inspiring philosophy’s video on this is very touching. Edit: the video is called “the absurdity of Christianity”

[@antascii]

And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Hebrews 9:22 | NASB Sinning against God is a lot more serious than sinning against another human being! No shedding of blood, no forgiveness !!

[@ora_et_labora1095]

Jesus is the Agnus Dei-the Lamb of God. Remove the concept of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and these profound connections lose their foundation. The whole Exodus story is pointing to Jesus and PSA. Leviticus 16: ”And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness.” This is pointing to Jesus. ”… and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Pointing to Jesus. Matthew 20:28 ”Even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Jesus being the ransom for us. Galatians 3:13 ”Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’” ”By his wounds you have been healed.” How have we’ve been healed? Physically? Impossible. His physical wounds healed us spiritually. 1 John 2:2 ”He is the *propitiation* for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” And you can’t just say ”God could do A B C”. It’s about what and how he is revealed in Scripture (since you yourself used so called biblical data). Ecclesiastes 12:14 ”For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.” God will judge every sin, not just say ”aight, you’re forgiven” even if he could. This, and many other passages both from the OT and the NT, is the ”biblical data”.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

So you're saying that God was incapable of defeating death without dying?

[@ezekielchapter18]

If God the Father needs someone to " pay the price" of sin ,does the Father ever truly forgive???? Throughout scripture God freely forgives .

[@FullnessOfTruth7]

EESHO MISHIHA Saviour Of The World have mercy on us Sinners Amĕn Maranatha ♥️♥️♥️🙏🙏🙏

[@donaldmccabe5836]

Since God is perfect He will always do the perfect thing. God is love. Perfect love is sacrificial. Therefore He would do the perfect act of love. In this regard, anything less is imperfect.

[@john-paulgies4313]

So why didn't He suffer on the Cross for, say, three days?

[@mikekayanderson408]

@@john-paulgies4313 it was not necessary! God made the entire universe in 6 days = He can deal with our sin in a few hours! you are just being difficult! The animals in the Old Testament were not left to suffer for days either! Also from a practical point of view of view the Romans did not leave the bodies there on the crosses overnight!

[@john-paulgies4313]

@@mikekayanderson408 That last point is blatantly false. The Romans would leave people crucified for days at a time. As for the other protests, they're irrelevant to the point, or at most only vaguely related. I'm being difficult? What's wrong with asking probing questions to prompt a person to elaborate on an extravagant philosophical claim "anything less is imperfect"?

[@theespjames4114]

God is bound by his own righteousness and cannot break his word or his own law. Therefore he cannot just forgive sin. “ It may be that God can forgive sin? But I don’t see how.” .. Socrates

[@Collins12246]

Mr Joe, pls could you do a stream on what Christ really accomplished for us through His salvific work, I mean: what is the atonement? How does it make sense that someone died for us for our sins? What does this mean? Dr John Joy wrote a book on this titled The Atoning Death of Christ, where he laid out St Thomas Aquinas view of the Atonement. But I need someone simplifying things which is the reason for KZbin videos. Thank you for all you do

[@john-paulgies4313]

Someone has pointed out that he did a 90 min. video previously called "Does the Cross actually do anything?" Hope this helps.

[@DeniseGreene-d3d]

Joe, please respond to Alex O'Connor on Fatima. Craig said Catholics are predisposed for that sort of thing, but many people converted.

[@smeatonlighthouse4384]

Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree. The Lord Jesus bore the curse for us which came from a broken Law. He bore the wrath for our sins in His body, He put away Sin, the root of the problem, by entering into death for us. We were aliens to God and He has reconciled us to God. We were enemies of God, and He has made peace through the blood of His cross. We were dead in trespasses and in sins, and He has given us the gift of Eternal Life. We were sinners by nature and sinners by practice, and He has made us the 'righteousness of God' in Christ. We were sons of Adam and a fallen race, now are we the sons or children of God. I could go on, but only Heaven will reveal the multitude of things God has done and will do for us in Christ Jesus. What a God! What a Saviour!!

[@bengoolie5197]

And once again, the Heschmeister fires up the protties and the heretic modernist catholics with this, his latest post.

[@jonnyhopkinns]

Do you have a video on Adam and Eve and original sin? And what would happen if they didn’t sin? (Exmormon here, and Mormon theology talks about how god needed Adam to sin?) or can you point me to any good long form discussions on this? Thank you!

[@john-paulgies4313]

For an imaginative meditation on that topic... well, how long have you been ex-mormon? How far out from under that spirit have you come? Wouldn't want to feed you meat where you need milk (1 Cor. 3:1-2 ; Heb. 5:11-14).

[@PuzzlesC4M]

If they didn’t sin, then you and I would have. Someone would eventually sin.

[@partydean17]

​@PuzzlesC4M yeah the question kinda answers itself when I just reflect on whether ive sinned or not we are back to an original. I do think there is more to be said about how our parents pass down this inadequacy to us as that is very in line with the human experience to inherit the obstacles from before.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

Adam and Eve didn't have to sin but they did and the natural consequence of it is being separated from God who is paradise

[@john-paulgies4313]

@@PuzzlesC4M Why would that be? No one was inclined towards sinning until after they chose to do it.

[@severianmonk7394]

God did more than punish sin, whatever that means, on the cross. How do you punish a void? He destroyed it. Not to be polemical, buy yhis is the teaching of thr Fathers, upheld by the Orthodox teachers, and apparently by the Catholic ones as well. Outside of which there appears to be no understanding of the reparative, as opposed to retaliative, justice. The east and west appear to be solidly agreed on these points.

[@Maranatha99]

" it is the blood that makes atonement by the life” (Lev 17:11)

[@ji8044]

You completely misrepresent that quote, as you often do with quotes "If anyone from the house of Israel or a foreigner living among them eats any blood, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from among his people. 11For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for your souls upon the altar; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. 12Therefore I say to the Israelites, ‘None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner living among you eat blood."

[@ezekielchapter18]

So where's the blood in the book of Jonah? Where's the blood in Ezekiel chapter 18?

[@Maranatha99]

@ezekielchapter18 it's always the same blood, the blood of Jesus. The blood of Jesus cleanses past sins, present sins & future sins. The Ninivites were saved by the blood of Jesus. I dont know what you mean about Ezekiel 18.

[@ezekielchapter18]

No , God saw their works ,that they turned from their evil ways and God had mercy .3,10.

[@kmh20248]

How do?

[@VTJVTTT110]

9 seconds? No views? Feel off 😂

[@VTJVTTT110]

I’m jk I love the channel

[@samuelnicacio4621]

​@@VTJVTTT110 I'm here 4 hours late my bad! 😭 😂

[@ChuckyLarms]

I had an interesting thought experiment during RCIA a few years ago, and it was about the devil tempting Jesus. Was there a chance that Jesus could have given in? I mean if there’s temptation, there’s a choice to be made. But if you already know your plan, did he even give it a second thought

[@ji8044]

The temptation of Jesus is a reminder that he was human and the Trinity is not found in the Bible. If Jesus was himself God how could he be "tempted" with an offer of all that he already owned, all the kingdoms of the world? It's like someone saying to you: "If you will kneel to me right now I will give you your house and you car that you already own in return"

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@ji8044Ignoring 2,000 years of Christian thought and commentary is very like you... If you were in any way a legitimate scholar, you'd realize how silly it is to ignore all the best scholarly evidence and arguments on matters like these. For instance, some commentators have noted that Satan may not have known that Jesus was God incarnate. This one piece of evidence must be weighed in the context of other evidence that Christ was indeed God.

[@ChuckyLarms]

@ Jehovah?

[@batmaninc2793]

⁠​⁠@@ji8044”A reminder that Jesus is a human and the Trinity isn’t found in the Bible”? Way off, bud.

[@brushylake4606]

@@ji8044 Satan made that offer because he didn't understand exactly what Jesus was here to do. He (Satan) probably didn't know Jesus was fully God and fully man. He was making an offer that a man couldn't refuse. Why would Satan kill God? I think Satan was just as surprised as everyone else when the veil was rent.

[@JohnHenry-w5m]

Question: To forgive God did not „have“ to die. But what about the sting 🐝 of death. Could we inherit eternal life without Christ conquering sin and death on the cross ? A Swiss friend 😅

[@nickk4851]

I don't understand how you'd say that Jesus didn't have to die for us, but by doing so, He paid the price for our sins? So, if He didn't die on the cross, He wouldn't have paid the price for our sins? What would that mean?

[@Barf_Gray]

I think he means God could've done it differently, like he could just snap his finger and all sins will have been paid for. But considering those five reasons given in the video and more, God chose becoming man as the best way to pay for our sins.

[@nickk4851]

@@Barf_Gray Thank you, yeah I understood that, but he said God could simply "say the word, and my soul shall be healed", which I get. I'm asking, if God did that, would that mean that He wouldn't have "paid the price for our sins"? And then I asked for the implications of that. Just a thought experiment.

[@miracles_metanoia]

​@nickk4851 Yes, to follow your thought... God, omniscient onnipotent omnipresent. He could've done whatever to not pay the price ... or to pay the price. To create a different version of salvation history, create multiple lambs that become one body, multiple dimensions, press reset, like the fall from eden never happened, reverse time so that all souls have a chance to pay price themselves in eternity, etc. we humans are so limited in our imagination and thinking, that even one angel pure intellect knows more than all humans combined. God the creator can create whatever He speaks into existence . I don't try to figure His power out. We Remain humble. God chose this plan and we don't know why, but He could do any number of infinite miracles on earth or heaven to create a different narrative. The moment we think we have God's power figured out, we don't know God

[@TheCatholicNerd]

You know I don't think that Jesus had to die, but I think it was inevitable because of who Jesus is. When God speaks, His word is efficacious. In a way, the Life of Christ on Earth is the actualization of the love God has for us. As surely as the fundamental forces of nature are the actualization of the let there be, the life and death of Jesus is the actualization of God Loving the world.

[@tonyl3762]

Scripture also says that Jesus died to break/dissolve the Old Covenant (and its laws) and establish a New Covenant, just as a new marriage can be had if one spouse dies. Christ the Bridegroom dies so that He can remarry the Jews and marry the Gentiles under new terms. One might argue legalistically someone had to die for the New Covenant to be established. "Do you not know, brethren--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only during his life? 2* Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. 4* Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God." Rom 7

[@ji8044]

Jesus never said any of that. It's one of the many ways Paul contradicts Jesus.

[@tonyl3762]

@@ji8044 First off, there's a difference between mere silence and contradiction. Silence cannot be proof of contradiction; that's just basic logic. Next, Jesus does indeed refer to Himself as a bridegroom repeatedly and talk about establishing a New Covenant in His body and blood at the Last Supper, as well as the Old passing away once He has fulfilled it. So there is complete harmony between Jesus and Paul here. Can't help but wonder if you've actually read the New Testament for yourself or are just repeating claims that are easily disproved.

[@ji8044]

@@tonyl3762 "Silence cannot be proof of contradiction; that's just basic logic." Upside down and backwards, otherwise you would be free to assert any silly proposition about Jesus based on the fact that the NT doesn't rule it out. "and talk about establishing a New Covenant in His body and blood at the Last Supper" That is entirely Gentile, made up later. Jesus was Jewish, which means he could not have made that statement. Can't help but wonder if you have ever read anything BUT the New Testament. You are just repeating claims that are easily disproved by any Jewish scholar.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@ji8044What evidence do you have that the "last Supper" narrative was a Gentile addition? Oh yeah, none. You just hate history

[@tonyl3762]

@@ji8044 Protestants are certainly "free to assert any silly proposition about Jesus," but Catholics are bound by Scripture and the authoritative traditional interpretations of it. Ah, now we are back to disputing about the gospels and their dating/reliability.... In our previous thread, you weren't able to deal with the actual manuscript evidence of unanimous author attribution (where extant) and merely provided Ehrman's weak arguments from silence (you sure do feel "free to assert any silly proposition" based on silence!). Can you please communicate precisely and thoroughly? Will save us time and energy. WHAT is "entirely Gentile"? Talk of a New Covenant with Yahweh can actually be found in the Old Testament itself (Jer 31:31-34). Were you aware of that? The Jews expected the Messiah to institute a new Passover and new Exodus (I can provide the rabbinic sources), and the Last Supper was a new kind of Passover meal. Plenty of Jewish scholars recognize this, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[@ScottJackson-b6s-y4j]

Jesus had the power to forgive sins he did not need to be crucified

[@markiangooley]

I’m in my parish choir. Our ostensibly Catholic hymnals have a few recycled Protestant hymns with lines like these: Till on that cross, when Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied Remember that naïve, powerful, but doofy character in some Looney Toons animated shorts? Sometimes he’s Hugo the Abominable Snowman. When someone thwarts him, he says, “I punish you good!” and administers a spanking or worse. The God of that hymn is an omnipotent version of Hugo.

[@Maranatha99]

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness" Romans 1, 18 "But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed" Romans 2, 5

[@bombastoid]

Will need to re-watch. Something doesn't seem right about these arguments.

[@bombastoid]

At 1.17 the video responds to the belief that Jesus had to die: “Now if you’ve heard that you might be reasonably wondering, wait, God can’t forgive? He wouldn’t be holy if he was forgiving? It doesn’t seem to match with the biblical presentation of God at all. […] This is applying a misunderstanding of the concept of justice to God in an inappropriate way.” And then at 1.38: “I’m gonna be relying heavily on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas [… who] is going to back up his arguments using both reason and a lot of biblical evidence.” What follows is 5 reasons for why Jesus had to die contrasted by why he didn’t. It feels like this video asks to believe one theologian over another. Sounds like a case of favoritism or a double standard, preferring Saint Thomas Aquinas to x, aka, any protestant theologian who claims God couldn’t do it any other way. I see no difference between the two. Both fall in the category of what 1 Corinthians 1 says, both are relying on human understanding. I have always believed that sacrifice and forgiveness went hand-in-hand with regard to God’s plan of salvation, that they weren’t mutually exclusive. To say God could have just forgiven us without sacrificing his son seems to go against what the Bible says. It confuses and disturbs me that Christians quibble over this. Maybe St. Thomas Aquinas and the rest forgot that Jesus had to die so that God could make human wisdom foolishness. Yes, reasons 1 through 5 sound fine and dandy, but what about reason 6: to give us something with which to undermine the power and wisdom of this world. The cross also gives us something to talk about, to preach to others about. Saint Thomas Aquinas may have been a great theologian, but perhaps he overrationalized and overphilosophized this question. I can honestly understand why this is even a question, but some of God’s actions are too big and mysterious and are better off left unquestioned and faithfully believed. I prefer to accept what the Apostle Paul says: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Co. 1.17-25). I have always loved this passage. It’s empowering to know that I possess a God-given truth-the Cross-that undermines all human wisdom and power, according to God. Good thing the video asserts that the topic was merely skinned and not scratched; the message of the cross of the Gospel is something I understand little by little as I get older. I can’t even pretend to fully grasp what it means. I feel like a child holding a treasure that very few will ever come to recognize as valuable. And I thank God for my faith. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion.

[@Maranatha99]

@@bombastoid how did God cover the sin of Adam & Eve? By killing animals & making them fur tunics. Everything points to the future sacrifice of Jesus. Already Genesis 3 shows that was gonna be the way. I don't see the point of this confusing speculation by Joe.

[@bombastoid]

@@Maranatha99 I see what you mean. It does seem kind of pointless. Apologetics is like a sport, which is one downside that I've recognized on here. It is too competitive. Always makes me wonder about the factuality behind many videos they put out.

[@marissabuyao2092]

reflective ever

[@GumbyJumpOff]

SMOOSH that like button, fam!

[@ChrisFlanigan777]

thoroughly smooshed

[@michaelogrady232]

Nothing is necessary for God. Out of the infinite different universes God could have created, He chose to create the universe wherein He becomes like us and dies for our sins. Perhaps this is the universe in which His love is most manifest.

[@S62r]

Jesus did need to die for us to realize our full potential. The whole judeochristian tradition leads up to him paying the ultimate sacrifice. It was a fundamental part of gods plan from the beginning of the world

[@TheLilragu]

Wow

[@nathaniel5261]

Jesus “having to die” as many comments here say, simply implies hes not omnipotent through and through. Same thing goes for really any and all suffering in general btw.

[@DanielAluni-v2t]

I think he CHOSE to. Big difference.

[@MaranglikPeterTo-Rot]

❤

[@benschteve5202]

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and 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; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

[@martinhodnicak2333]

Hey Joe! Whats that on your nose? :D

[@mikekayanderson408]

I would like an answer to this question from a Catholic perspective - if you do not believe in the teaching of Penal Substitution - and I have heard it denied it categorically by Catholics - yet you say you believe in Jesus and have faith in Jesus - what precisely do you have faith in? You believe He existed and that he save. But what exactly are you placing your trust in? We get told we do not understand or ask questions - this so I am asking this question as it is the topic of the video and the comments.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

Scripture doesn't say that you need to have faith in penal substitution, or even in the work of Christ more broadly. Rather, faith is places in Christ Himself, His person. This is perhaps why the incarnation was such an important theological issue for the first several hundred years of the Church. When we say we have faith in Jesus, we mean that deep, abiding trust and loyalty toward our King. It's much more about His position as Son of God and Son of Man than it is about the legal ramifications of His sacrifice being penally substitutionary or not. The Catechism explains that faith is the personal adherence of Man to God and the free assent to the truth He reveals. You'll notice that in this, faith's object is first and foremost toward God Himself, and secondarily is toward His revelation on the basis of that primary entrustment toward His own being

[@mikekayanderson408]

@@michaelbeauchamp22 well may I respectfully ask this - if Jesus had come into this World and then just returned to heaven by means of His ascension - without going to the Cross and shedding His blood and offering a himself as a sacrifice - would we be saved by faith in Him then? If He had bypassed the Cross - If He had done nothing but teach for instance …. Would that suffice and would our faith In His person save? Would our belief in who He is be enough?

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@mikekayanderson408 "would our belief in who he is be enough." Faith is never enough, even now. God is enough. That is the fundamental thing. That's why we can say "faith saves." Not because faith affects anything by itself, but because He is faithful.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@mikekayanderson408 Also, if you're proposing this hypothetical, it should be explored a little more: If Jesus came to save us, as was prophesied, but didn't die on the cross, then we would have to assume he taught something else relating to salvation, or that His incarnation in itself was enough to lift us out of death and back into full communion with God. In either case, faith's primary object is God Himself, not any particular work or doctrine

[@mikekayanderson408]

@@michaelbeauchamp22 could you explain this further - what is faith placed in? Just the fact of who Jesus is or what He has accomplished or done while on Earth as you say earlier that it is in Him and not what happened on the cross. Or am I misunderstanding you? I get the impression that it is in Him personally and not what happened on the Cross that faith is placed in and salvation is given .Sorry if I am misunderstanding you. Not what happened on the the Cross .

[@stadskapel9463]

I think God (Jesus ) actually did had to die, to end the Old Covenant and start the New Covenant. The only way you can end a covenant is when one of the parties dies. Like marriage. Not a contract. So either the People of God had to die or He Himself. If the people would die, there is no party for the New Covenant. So God the Son died on the cross and rose from the dead to fulfill and end the Old Covenant.

[@johornbuckle5272]

What about defeating death and satan? How can we be resurrected if Christ was not resurrected and how could Christ be resurrected if He did not die. Why did God allow so much evil if He could have simply forgiven us? The single most important point in history is the cross. Is this the teaching of catholicism?

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

Yes, this is the most fitting way to destroy death but it's not a metaphysical necessity for death to be defeated this way or do you think God cannot defeat death without dying Himself?

[@johornbuckle5272]

@johnisaacfelipe6357 not a totally unreasonable position. Consider that after satan's fall, he was allowed access to Adam and Eve. The genesis 5 angels were allowed access to man and were not cast into the lake of fire but encarcerated. The lake of fire exists for satan and his followers but he is not in it. God could destroy His ememies now but He has not and we do not know exactly why but we do know that these things are true and are decreed. The death of Christ on the cross is God's chosen plan and as such we know that God will always do what is right. Heschmeyers explanation does not deal with all considerations, though to be fair he admits it is a shortened explanation.

[@ReboneMora]

Allow me to play the devils advocate here… Argument 1: Instead of just waving of Sin Jesus had to die and this is an expression of Love. I think this ignores the fact that not only did Jesus Die, countless number of people also died, if Jesus died the self same moment Adam and Eve sinned and no one else died, maybe this argument would be fail proof. Also, the wait meant that meany more people sinned and many more denied God, so God out of His love, waited until other could also qualify themselves for hell fire and this is an expression of Love? Unless im missing something. Second argument sort of suffers from the faults of the first, in that, God could have just waved off the sin, got rid of it, not have Jesus die on the cross, teach us how to treat our neighbors and wives in Eden, without any deaths involved whatsoever. Third and fourth argument, still God sound like He really needed to see blood spill or otherwise we could not be forgiven and brought into glory, which calls into question His sense of Justice that sounds like it rests in sacrifice, “You did me wrong, someone has to die” i.e “an eye for an eye” if I may. Also another attribute of God is brought to question, Him being all powerful, yet He couldn’t bring us into glory without ending lives and accruing innumerable souls for hell and then losing His only Begotten son. I think the last Argument is the only one I cant see holes in, Christs association with man by taking on human form and calling us all to him, and now we are called His, the privileged to be called the Sons of God, truly an honor. And since you did say this was a quarter hour discussion of a longer topic, do you have videos discussing these in detail or can you make one please?

[@bullyboy131]

I think most of the time this question is ask it assumes the fact that Jesus is in the world. So given that, yes Jesus had to die. Mathew 16:21

[@Maranatha99]

"it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world" 1 Peter 1. 17-20 "the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world" Revelation 13, 8

[@mikekayanderson408]

Amen!

[@classicalteacher]

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.

[@Maranatha99]

@classicalteacher yes, he has mercy on us. That's why He died for us. And, yes, only He can give us real peace.

[@classicalteacher]

Thanks for agreeing with Catholic theology.

[@brushylake4606]

Jesus' sacrifice, the atonement of sin is written into the design of the world "He was chosen before the creation of the world." The design of this world required Jesus' death as atonement for the sins of the world.

[@slavicstriz8715]

So if I sin against my Neighbor, it's not against him? Only against God? There is no retribution necessary?

[@wazzuptrey]

Retribution for our neighbors is retribution for God. " for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ " " And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ "

[@Maranatha99]

"Propitiation means “averting the wrath of God by the offering of a gift.” It refers to the turning away of the wrath of God as the just judgment of our sin by God’s own provision of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. Although some object to propitiation as a pagan notion of appeasing an irascible deity with bribes and gifts, the idea in the Bible is very different. Because of our sin and rebellion against God, our original communion with God has been disrupted, and our persons and lives deserve judgment. The wrath of God in the Bible is the expression of his holiness in the face of our sin. Wrath is what our sin and rebellion justly deserve. Even though God is a God of infinite love, he does not show mercy at the expense of his justice, so propitiation is the way that the loving God shows us mercy justly. In the Bible, propitiation is not something that we provide to God to get right with him again; it is something that God provides to us that we may be justly and mercifully forgiven and accepted, and he does this at his own expense through the loving gift of his Son, Jesus Christ." Ligon Duncan

[@PuzzlesC4M]

Expiation is the better word. Propitiation is an English Protestant translation of the Greek word “hilasterion” in the New Testament. If you look at the Septuagint, that word is almost always used for “mercy seat.” Paul and his audience (a Greek speaking Jew, writing to Greek speaking exiles) would have been very familiar with the Septuagint. This means propitiation is probably not the right translation for the word in Romans. It’s also sometimes used by Protestants for the word “hilasmos” in 1 John. This is the only time it is used in the New Testament, so it is not clear what the meaning is from Strong’s alone. Again, if we look at the Septuagint, this is the word used for the sacrifice of the atonement. This is why it is sometimes translated atonement, or expiation, or atoning sacrifice. And if you look at the sacrifice of atonement in Leviticus, you’ll see that the animal on which the sins were cast is sent into the wilderness for Azazel (satan.) This is another blow to “propitiation” and the Penal Substitution model. The animal who had the sins cast on him is contrasted to the unblemished animal that was sacrificed to God. Jesus is the unblemished sacrifice. Jesus’ sacrifice brings reconciliation with God while our sins are cast away.

[@Maranatha99]

@@PuzzlesC4M Leviticus 16, the scapegoat, does not mention anything about Azazel. l

[@Maranatha99]

@@PuzzlesC4M The Greek word hilasterion (ἱλαστήριον) has multiple meanings, including "mercy seat, AND "propitiation. in fact, mercy seat in Spanish is called "propiciatorio".

[@PuzzlesC4M]

@ That’s because Spanish is a Romance language, and Jerome used it when he translated the Bible from Greek to Latin. You have to look at the Greek in its Greek context.

[@PuzzlesC4M]

@@Maranatha99Azazel is the Hebrew word your Bible is translating as scapegoat. It’s a confusing word for translators, so many translations just keep the Hebrew and say “for Azazel.”

[@mcfamininvst]

Here are some facts: Jesus said He prefers compassion over sacrifice. He also instituted the eucharist before His death and not after it... If the jews (thru free will) choose to align with Peter ... Jesus would not have been crucified, and the painting on the last supper would have been 5,000+ instead of just 13 persons... ... but this is the will of the Father who already saw the free will of the jews in 1AD when He created the universe in Genesis: 1.

[@ji8044]

"If the jews (thru free will) choose to align with Peter ... Jesus would not have been crucified" Jews didn't crucify Jesus. The Romans did. You are just one more in the 2,000 year old misunderstanding of history.

[@mcfamininvst]

@ji8044 ??.. the word is Initiative On the Option of one cross ... the Romans presented Barnabas... The jews presented Jesus ...

[@mcfamininvst]

Jesus also said to Pilate: The one who delivered me to you has the greater sin.

[@jacktracy8356]

1. We are all sinners (sin is transgression of GOD's commandments). 1 John 3:4 KJV and Romans 3:23 KJV and Romans 5:12 KJV and 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 KJV 2. The wages/penalty of sin is death. Romans 5:12 and 6:23 KJV and Genesis 2:16-17 KJV 3. GOD was manifest in the flesh as the SON, JESUS CHRIST, to die for us on the cross in our place for the penalty of sin which is death once for all to immediately give a believer eternal life. 1 Timothy 3:16 KJV and Romans 5:8 KJV and Ephesians 1:3-9 KJV and John 3:14-21 KJV and John 10:27-30 KJV and John 17:3 KJV 4. JESUS CHRIST was raised from the dead on the 3rd day to show HIS victory over sin and death and to be the first of many HE will raise from the dead on the last day. 1 Corinthians 15:4 KJV and Romans 4:24-25 KJV and Romans 6:9 KJV and Romans 8:11 KJV

[@alanhales6369]

Shameless popery podcast, Jesus died on the cross, to take the curse for us, because it was made from a tree, and the Bible says cursed are they who hang on a tree.

[@ji8044]

That doesn't refer to crucifixion. It refers to literal hanging. In the OT corpses would be sometimes hung from trees by the victor.

[@alanhales6369]

@ji8044 it's related to Jesus, Gal 3: 13.

[@ji8044]

@@alanhales6369 False it's a very specific reference to an Israelite practice. Joshua 8:29: Joshua hung the corpse of the king of Ai. Joshua 10:26: Joshua hung the corpses of five anti-Gibeonite kings. 2 Samuel 4:12: David hung the corpses of Rechab and Baanah. In the time of Mosaic Law crucifixion was completely unknown. It was a Persian practice not introduced into the Levant until Alexander's generals brought it back from his conquests.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@alanhales6369 Don't bother with him. He's an anti-Christian who doesn't believe that prophecy is possible

[@mikekayanderson408]

@@ji8044 the Bible says that Jesus became a curse for us for cursed is every man who hangs on a tree! In this case it does refer to the cross! Read your Bible and see it for yourself! Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law!

[@mikekayanderson408]

Yes Jesus Had to die on the cross! He died on the cross as our substitute- He took our place, Our sins were transferred to Him - and He bore the wrath of God against our sins- that we deserved- so that we could be pardoned by God! He became sin for us - He did not become a sinner - but carried our sins to the Cross and paid our penalty for us! Many Scriptures teach this very clearly - only the stubborn, spiritually blind and deaf cannot see it or understand it! It is spiritually discerned. Yes on our human level we see this as something unjust- why should an innocent man die in the place of the wicked? But we are dealing with the God of the universe in this situation and He is pure, Holy, just, full of Glory and Majesty! As Scripture says His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts! Jesus handed Himself over to the wicked who hated Him to be crushed for our iniquities as it says In Isiah 53………and this was the WILL OF GOD the FATHER! So stop coming up with reasons why God should not have done what He did! Stop calling God the most awful and dreadful names - you are sinning when you do this! Stop accusing God of all sorts of terrible things! This is all a mystery- it had to happen this way- or no one would ever enter into God’s presence! Humble yourselves before God and give thanks for such a wonderful work of salvation! Give thanks for such wonderful compassion and love - that Christ would die for sinners- bearing their judgement so that they can find forgiveness! This is what we are called to have faith in! Faith is believing not just in the Person of Christ - that He existed- apart from what He accomplished on the Cross! God’s perfect, holy, justice was displayed and satisfied on the Cross - by executing the punishment our sins deserve - or He would not have been true to Himself! Those who trust in Christ can know that their guilt has been pardoned once and for all - because He died in our place! Stop denying the truth - and denying what Jesus did for you! Stop insulting God! Throughout history from Genesis right through to the Cross Satan has tried to prevent Christ from fulfilling His mission! He failed! Prevent the truth of Christ and His substitutionary death, penal substitution, from being believed, he uses false teachers to do this! Perverts the truth of the Gospel and causes the pride of man to believe he can do enough himself to help God save Him - in some cases man thinks he can do it all - NO! No one can make themselves acceptable to God - we are only accept to God through faith in the penal substitutionary death of Christ! He paid your penalty - you cannot!

[@ezekielchapter18]

Deuteronomy 24, 16 . Everyone shall die for their own sin. Proverbs 17,15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, both are abominable before God. Proverbs 24,24. They that say to the wicked man:Thou art just: shall be cursed by the people, and the tribes shall abhor them. God's sense of justice is clear in scripture,and God does not change.

[@mikekayanderson408]

@ezekielchapter18 these verses you quote are addressed to man by God! They do not apply to God at all so are of no use to your argument! You are comparing apples and oranges! Read Isaiah 53:10. It was the Lord’s Will to crush him….. Romans 8:32. He did not spare His own son but gave Him up for us all…. 2 Corinthians 5:21. God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.. Contemplate on them. Think deeply about them. Ask God to help you understand them. 🙏🙏🙏

[@ezekielchapter18]

@mikekayanderson408 The verses I gave certainly do show God's sense of justice,but I suppose you have to ignore them to believe what you are saying . Isaiah 52_53 is the fourth of 4 servant songs , all about Israel,not a sacrificial Messiah.

[@mikekayanderson408]

@ezekielchapter18 but you have to ignore the verses I gave you for you to believe what you believe! The Isaiah verses are about Messiah not Israel. How can a country be heal our transgressions by being pierced? The Jews say it is about Israel because they do not believe Jesus I’d Messiah! Are you Jewish? The day of atonement was all about innocent animals being killed instead of the Israelites! An innocent taking the place of the guilty! Atoning for the sin of the guilty! So this was always God’s method of dealing with the sins of His People. Even in the Old Testament in Leviticus etc. it speaks of men making reparations to hose they had stolen from etc- they had to pay back the full amount plus 5% =0. BUT this did not pay for their sin or bring forgiveness from God - what you might or a catholic might call penance - they still had to offer an animal as a sacrifice for the atonement of their sin! So as we know that all he animal sacrifices were atonement’s for sin - the innocent dying for the guilty- and it was all a picture pointing to Christ’s atoning death- then God was showing that someone innocent had to die for the guilty! We could not pay our on sin debt- only Jesus could! It was always God’s solution and it shows just how serious our sin s that only the Son of God could pay the price if anyone was to be pardoned

[@mikekayanderson408]

@ezekielchapter18. Also cast your mind back to Genesis and the sin of Adam and Eve. What did God do? Did He kill them? No. He killed an innocent animal and covered them with its skins! That was the first sacrifice and it was for the atonement of their of their sin! They lived and the innocent animal died! In their place - = substitution. So from the beginning God dealt with sin in this way!

[@flyesouisi]

If as Jesus said, He came to reveal the Truth, (the truth of how man relates to God and how God relates to man) I think he would have had to die. Man kills God's word within his conscience as a general rule..

[@Asgaardiangatekeeper]

Jesus called Peter for even intimating this. Don't listen to this crap. He had to die, because He said so. Who are you to dare question his judgment, or his wisdom?

[@brushylake4606]

Your logic is faulty. God can not just "wave away" sin, even as the aggrieved party. If He did so, he would have to wave away ALL sin. He couldn't just forgive some people's sin (sorry Calvinists) and hold others to account, that parable implies that fact. He would not be able to hold anyone to account for sin. That would effectively invalidate any morality requirement on Earth. We are supposed to deny our flesh, resist temptation, and put off short term pleasure and satisfaction for long term gain. Forgiving all sin would eliminate any legitimate curbs on any behavior. We would all become Calvinists with a guarantee of universal salvation. If God were to just "wave away" sin, it would basically eliminate the concept of sin. So, in the strictest technical sense, you are right, but in any practical sense you are incorrect. For sin to have any meaning, there HAS to be a penalty. Without penalty, sin would have no meaning and God would have no ability, or even right, to require us to control our flesh.

[@PuzzlesC4M]

You’re actually arguing the Calvinist side here. Catholics don’t believe God punished Jesus on the cross, and we do believe he forgives all the sins of the world. It’s like an infinite debt forgiveness where everyone is forgiven for all time. Now we still have consequences of sin or “temporal punishment” to deal with, but that’s why we have purgatory. The only reason some people end up in hell is not because God didn’t forgive them. (He did.) It’s because they didn’t cooperate with God’s grace and chose to go back into sin and bring the debt of death back upon themselves. This is what you’ll find in the parable of the unmerciful servant.

[@PuzzlesC4M]

P.S. I actually disagree with Joe, but for another reason I mention in a separate comment.

[@brushylake4606]

​@ No, I'm arguing that to be just, God couldn't just ignore sin. Ignoring sin would have disastrous consequences for Earth. That's exactly opposite to the Calvinist position. Calvinists believe that God arbitrarily (my word) picked some for salvation and some for damnation and there is nothing we do or occurs on Earth that can change that predestination. That's obviously B.S. and anti-Biblical. Both those positions, that God could ignore sin, if He so chose and that God simply chooses who to save and who is damned are clearly wrong.

[@PuzzlesC4M]

@ So do you believe that Jesus’ sacrifice was only for the people who go to heaven or for everyone? Calvinists believe much more than that. That’s only the L of TULIP. The idea of Calvin’s Limited Atonement comes directly from Penal Substitution which is why I’m addressing that. They believe God punished Jesus instead of punishing us. But if that were true, and Jesus died for the whole world, then everyone would be forgiven and go to heaven. That is why they invented limited atonement where the forgiveness would only apply to people that end up in heaven. So if you believe in Penal Substitution you have to be a Calvinist. Or you could be a Universalist. Neither are Catholic positions. You keep saying “ignore” sin, but I think the more biblical term would be that God forgives sins and doesn’t hold them against us. He doesn’t ignore sin, but his heart breaks when we commit sins against each other and against him.

[@mikekayanderson408]

@@brushylake4606 get your facts right- Calvinists believe that sin deserves death- eternal death which is God’s wrath being carried out against sin. All men have sinned and deserve to be punished. At the time of the fall the earth was cursed by God - and suffers as a result. But God chose a people for Himself and for His glory to show His mercy and compassion- this is not anti biblical at all it is spoken of numerous times in the Bible. Words like the elect, chosen cannot be avoided. In order to forgive and save the elect - Jesus came into this world to take their sin upon Himself and pay the penalty for their sin - our sin was laid on Him, He was made a curse for us, He was made sin for us - all Biblical teachings and she took our punishment as our substitute so we might find forgiveness and eternal lie through faith in Him and His sacrificial death, He was was our propitiation- God’s wrath satisfied - us reconciled to God We actually believe Jesus died only for the elect - as it says in the Bible - He died for His own. His own are scattered all over the world - but He did not die for everyone! If it were for everyone then God would not have elected “ a people for ahi self in Christ before the creation of the world”. Every person among the elect WILL be saved in the end. The wicked will go to hell. The saved will go to heaven and the earth will be burned up according to Peter - and a new earth and a new heaven will be created - free from the curse of sin. It will be restored. This is in a nutshell - but you obviously hate what the Bible teaches about all this! It is not an invention of Calvin - it is just straight forward Biblical teaching - but you and many others refuse to see it. What do you do with the verse that says very clearly that when Paul was teaching that only those who were elected believed- the others walked away! Acts 13:48 - only those appointed for eternal life believed - God’s choice not ours! Paul thought election long before Calvin! In the Old Testament election is spoken of all the time!

[@kmh20248]

This is so sick. A god that requires blood sacrifice.

[@mikekayanderson408]

You obviously are not a Christian! If you were you would understand and be glad for the Cross!

[@ezekielchapter18]

God freely forgives throughout scripture. An all powerful God forgives sin without sacrifice. Ezekiel chapter 18. Jonah 3,9_10 . 1 Kings 8,47_50.

[@kmh20248]

Makes no sense. God made us in his image and knew that we were going to screw up and then decided he had to send his son to die a horrible death. For what???

[@mikekayanderson408]

To save us from our sin!

[@kmh20248]

Did you do anything that bad to send someone to a cross

[@HenryGibbs-y5e]

GOD ALL ALMIGHTY MADE THAT DECISION. So, we have no decision in the matter. Kind of a dumb question.

[@davethesid8960]

The best witness to God's justice is Purgatory. Also, I really like what Bl. Duns Scotus said (and I'm paraphrasing): "Christ would still have become a man even if we hadn't sinned." It just shows His infinite love for us.

[@Maranatha99]

What is the basis of the idea that Jesus had still become man if we had not sinned?

[@Maranatha99]

Jesus came to seek and save the lost. There is no basis for the idea that He would have come anyway. For the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost” Luke 19:9-10

[@davethesid8960]

@Maranatha99 Hi! I didn't know you were watching Joe's videos. Anyway, the basis is divine love. If you love someone, you want to be as close to them as possible. God wills to be part of Creation from all eternity regardless of sin. Also, I wanted to ask whether you're on Messenger or not.

[@Maranatha99]

@davethesid8960 I already told you yes, I am in messenger. If man had not sinned, we would still be in paradise with God, felowshiping directly with Him.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@Maranatha99We believe that because no man has seen God, even Adam and Eve did not have the fullest communion with God. They walked with Him, but He was not fully revealed to them. But in Christ, the fullness of God is made manifest, and we are told that we will see Him face to face, and that the pure in heart shall see God. We believe that the incarnation would have happened regardless of the fall because God made us to be in full communion with Him, and the only way to have the full communion is to share in essence. We cannot share in the essence of God, but God can take on our essence in the incarnation

[@Maranatha99]

"and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9, 22

[@mgvilaca]

That's because God chose it to be this way, not because it had to be

[@Maranatha99]

@mgvilaca what other could have been?

[@Maranatha99]

@mgvilaca Jesus had to die to fulfill all the types, promises, and prophecies of the Old Testament. Jesus had to die to finish all the sacrifices and ceremonies of the priesthood. Jesus had to die to completely identify with humanity. Jesus had to die to complete His perfect obedience. Jesus had to die to satisfy the justice of God. Jesus had to die to defeat the power of Satan, sin, and death. Jesus had to die to demonstrate the love of God. What is the point n speculating it could have been different? We have to work with the information we have.

[@mgvilaca]

​@@Maranatha99 any other way God could've chosen would be ok, as St. Thomas Aquinas said, for God isn't exercising justice in the person of anyone else. God chose to forgive us through the cross and that's the only way for forgiveness, but it doesn't mean that God absolutely had to do it that way if he willed the opposite

[@Maranatha99]

@mgvilaca sorry, no. God was indeed exercising justice in the person of Jesus. "God presented him as an atoning sacrifice through faith in his blood, to demonstrate his righteousness - because in his forbearance God had overlooked past sins" Romans 3, 26

[@wrtootsie2230]

You might want to redo your video, there’s something hanging out of your nose

[@3339ty]

Can’t unsee

[@shamelesspopery]

Welp, this is my nightmare. Welcome to "so cold you can't feel your face" Midwest winter.

[@seangallagher9580]

😂 thankfully in my case joe, I was listening while working so I didn't get to see your "health malfunction"​@@shamelesspopery

[@clevited]

No shame in a casual pick and flick. Would have upped my respect factor for him 10 fold 😂

[@koderamerikaner5147]

​@@shamelesspopery Wait, you live in the Midwest too? Illinoisan here.

[@stevedavis6618]

No sins were forgiven when Jesus died on the Cross. His Crucifixion and death were atonement for Adam and Eve's crimes. When they committed the original sin they were the entirety of mankind therefore no human being could atone for their transgression, only God could do it. Jesus came to earth to make compensation for their act but not for the sin. Isaiah 53:10 That's why He established His Church here on earth for us and empowered it with the Holy Spirit, and gave it's priests the power to forgive sins through Baptism and Confession. And He promised that He would be with His One and Only Holy Catholic Church until the end of time. John 20:19-23 Matt 28:16-20 Jesus gave the Priests of His Catholic (which means universal) Church the power and authority to forgive sins. “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” John 20:19-23

[@ji8044]

That's false, there is no original sin in Judaism. The concept was created by Augustine.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@ji8044the concept was developed by Augustine based off of what is taught in the Scriptures

[@ob2249]

no he didn`t adam and eve never existed, ergo originaI sin is fake we`re not responsibIe for the actions of characters in a story in the same way we`re not responsibIe for the murder on the Orient express redemption, saIvation and a pretend child sacrifice are aII unnecessary it wasn`t even a sacrifice he returned unharmed 3 days Iater, gave nothing significant up it`s not a sacrifice if you come back

[@Maranatha99]

How did God cover the sin of Adam & Eve? By KILLING innocent animals & making them fur tunics. Everything points to the future sacrifice of Jesus. Already GENESIS 3 shows the ONLY WAY of dealing with our sins!

[@classicalteacher]

You again are starting to understand the Eucharist. Jesus is the Lamb of God, He is body and blood consumed as the Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, there is no Christianity. The OT foreshadows the NT salvation and redemption in the Eucharist.

[@Maranatha99]

@classicalteacher This video is not about the Eucharist but about Jesus' death.

[@classicalteacher]

You just wrote "the sacrifice of Jesus". Jesus became the Passover Lamb, the Eucharist, which was completed on the Cross with the final cup. Jesus proclaimed, "It is finished." He became the Passover Lamb, the Eucharist. That sacrifice is one in the same as the Wedding Feast in Revelation and in the Mass.

[@Maranatha99]

@classicalteacher "it's finished" was pronounced at the cross, not at the last supper. I have heard that idea that links the last supper with Jesus' sacrifice, and I don't agree with it. Many scholars say the last cup will be drunk on heaven: "tell you, I will never again drink this wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in my Father's Kingdom." Mathew 26, 29

[@nicbentulan]

2nd If Jesus beheaded 600-900 Jews or Romans at Jerusalem or Banu Qurayza including 10yo children or women or if Jesus married a 6yo girl would it be 'Christophobic' to condemn this?

[@ji8044]

What if Yahweh ordered the Israelites to murder all the non-virgin women and children but they could keep the virgins for themselves? By the way, when the Crusaders finally took Jerusalem they murdered all the Jews except for the rich ones they could ransom.

[@alexanderkaufman3575]

When it comes to the Incarnation, or even the Immaculate Conception, what makes this so important is that Jesus WAS Human. He didn't just look Human, He wasn't part human and part God. He was FULLY Human. What Jesus' (and Mary's) sinlessness shows us is that humanity is not made for sin. Sin is not a fundamental aspect of what it means to be human. Otherwise, Jesus would have HAD to sin.

[@ji8044]

True, Jesus was human, not God, as he said constantly.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@ji8044Where did Jesus say He is not God?

[@chazchoo99]

Jesus IS human. He rose from the grave and ascended to the right hand of the Father, where He is seated today, fully God and fully Man.

[@Ruudes1483]

⁠@@michaelbeauchamp22ji8044 is an antitheist.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@Ruudes1483Oh I know. He's a rude, haughty "historian" who knows almost nothing about Christian or Jewish thought, but acts like an expert

[@ora_et_labora1095]

Bro keeps using the term ”biblical data” while quoting no more than one verse for every point.. where’s the ”biblical data” for the merits, Marian dogmas etc?

[@Maranatha99]

The pachal lamb had to be perfect, without any blemish. That's why JESUS HAD TO DIE for us, bc He was the only human with a "clean" blood, He was the only human untouched by sin: "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world." 1 Peter 1, 18-20 God planned this BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. There is no other way, whatever anyone says.

[@ji8044]

Human sacrifice is outlawed early in the OT. See the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:21, 20:3 and Deuteronomy 12:30-31, 18:10. But some of the Jewish kings, Ahaz for instance, are said to have done so in desperate times and offended God. So Jeremiah steps forward and again says directly that human sacrifice is forever forbidden. "For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. 6 So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter." Jeremiah 19:4-6

[@Maranatha99]

​@@ji8044Jesus' sacrifice has nothing to do with human pagan sacrifices.

[@ji8044]

The concept of original sin directly contradicts Moses. That's why Jews never believed it, which of course is why Jesus never mentioned it "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. 15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Deuteronomy 30: 11-20 That is the Jewish understanding of being saved. You have not been condemned anew each generation because of Adam. Your fate is in your own hands. There is no need for a Savior

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

Tell me you don't understand original sin without telling me lol

[@janeyount8412]

Romans 5:12-20 is considered the clearest revelation of original sin in the Bible. It states that death spread to all people because of Adam's sin. Genesis 3:11-19 describes the consequences of Adam and Eve's disobedience that have affected all of humanity ever since.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

The Jewish commentary on Genesis 2 indicate that they believed Adam's sin caused a corruption to come upon all His descendants. Hence, death comes upon all men.

[@ji8044]

@@janeyount8412 Yes to the first, no to the second . Though the doctrine of original sin is no earlier than Augustine, his concept of it comes from misunderstanding Romans. There is nothing whatsoever in Genesis about original sin passed down. The consequence of their sin is that humans will not have eternal life. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. 13For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed." The consequence of Adam's sin is clearly death. In fact the passage says directly that Moses takes away any remainder of Adam's sin.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@ji8044 Can you help us to know you know what you're talking about by defining original sin? It seems like you've most definitely misunderstood the doctrine and Augustine

[@johnp.6043]

It’s not complicated, Jesus became sin for us. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. ( Notice there is a wage that has to be paid for) by his grace through our faith in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. Romans 3:25 , Ephesians 2:8-9 The simplicity is in Christ, not complicated.

[@mikekayanderson408]

Amen!

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

Yes, sin kills us, and God mercifully gives us life. But the question is, did God NEED to give us life only through the means that He did, the death of our Lord? God is sovereign, and all-powerful, and could have given us life some other way. He was not bound to go to the cross by anything other than His own will

[@johnp.6043]

@ Read what the scripture says. Leviticus 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” ( animal sacrifices, could never take sin away,but atone them, until Jesus Christ died and shed his blood to take sin away for the world,he than release the OT souls in Paradise to the third heaven to be redeemed. John 3:16. God so loved the world that he gave is only begotten son to “ saved is people from their sins” Jesus became our sacrificial “ Lamb” to redeem us by thy blood. Your statement was incorrect. Sure God did not have to die for us,we would all than be doomed.

[@Thundawich]

Didn't you have a video recently where you said Mary was born without original sin? If God can do that for Mary, why not just do that for everyone then there is no need for Jesus to die at all, and no reason for God to forgive any debts because there are no debts.

[@classicalteacher]

Mary is the New Eve and the New Ark of the New Covenant. Eve brought sin into the world. Eve is the first "woman". Mary brought salvation into the world by Jesus. Mary initiated this salvation at the Wedding of Cana. Jesus calls Mary "woman" to bookend the "woman" Eve. Jesus obeys Mary and turns the ritual cleansing water into wine. Mary always points to Jesus and states (for our benefit), "Do whatever He tells you." The wine also bookends the beginning and end of Jesus' ministry when He drinks the last cup of the Passover Feast on the cross and states, "It is finished." Jesus became the Passover Lamb. Jesus became the completed Eucharist. Mary is the New Ark of the New Covenant. The Ark was holy, sacred, separate to carry the 10 Commandments. Mary is holy, sacred and separated to carry Jesus Christ. Mary is sinless. "Hail, Mary, full of grace" (misinterpreted as "favored one"). The same word in Greek for "full of grace" is used to describe Jesus, "full of grace and truth". To be full of grace is to be complete in God's love, there is no room for sin. Biologically the cells of a baby are transmitted to the mother. The mother will have the baby's cells for the remainder of her life. Mary literally became Jesus with His incorporated DNA. There was no sin in Jesus or Mary. Jesus saved Mary from original sin at her conception. That is a miracle.

[@patrickdtx3638]

That's an understandable question, with a lot of parts to it. Basically, Mary enjoyed a unique grace because of her unique role as Jesus's human mother. The salvific merit of his life, death, & resurrection was applied to her up front so that she would be in the same starting position as Eve. Eve was also created without sin, but she succumbed to temptation in the garden. Mary was born sinless so that, by accepting her role in the plan of salvation and bearing the son of God made flesh, she would be untying the knot of Eve's disobedience. (If you're wanting to dig more in Marian doctrines, I'd strongly recommend Dr. Brant Pitre's book _Jesus And The Jewish Roots of Mary_ )

[@ji8044]

Jews have no original sin. So yes, Mary and every other person in the Bible was born without original sin.

[@ji8044]

@@classicalteacher "Mary is the New Eve and the New Ark of the New Covenant." Not a word of that is in the Bible. In fact, Paul doesn't even know Mary's name.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@ji8044"Paul doesn't even know Mary's name." Come on man, you're better than this shallow thought, right? As if this is something demonstrable from the Pauline corpus

[@Maranatha99]

Recommended article: Propitiation, by Ligon Duncan

[@classicalteacher]

Why read a man-made-up theology and tradition that is only 500 years old? Or are you saying that God left His Church for 2000 years until you came along to fix it with your personal theological worldview? God never left His Church. The Church never went apostate.

[@Maranatha99]

@classicalteacher if you wanna understand better the scope & meed of Jesus' sacrifice, that article is excellent. I'm not gonna try to reason with you.

[@mikekayanderson408]

@@Maranatha99 you can’t reason with him!

[@Maranatha99]

@@mikekayanderson408 have you tried in the past?

[@classicalteacher]

I listen to reasonable people. Try to be reasonable with your arguments and I'll listen. Try again.

[@S7ARK_]

There’s nothing here about the covenant with God, the sin offering through Christ, the Representation for the remission of sins, or the grace received through the Eucharist. I truly appreciate your content, but this aspect is severely lacking. Please do not oversimplify the richness of the faith.

[@shamelesspopery]

Like I said, I'm just scratching the surface of a potentially huge topic. In this case, I'm presenting St. Thomas Aquinas's fivefold argument from ST III, 46, 3 (www.newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm#article3).

[@S7ARK_]

@@shamelesspopery Then go make the full version! LOL thanks Joe.

[@joshyman221]

@@shamelesspoperyI also think Christs suffering is the greatest theodicy. He showed us that the suffering in this life is not the end. Even the greatest Man ever suffered the most horrible pain. For us, He loves us.

[@ji8044]

No Jesus did not have to, nor did he, die for our sins. Judaism has no concept of original sin nor did Jesus ever say he was saving anyone from the sin of Adam. Jesus was killed by the Romans as a claimant to be the Jewish (not Christian) messiah. During their rule over Judea, they killed at least a dozen messiah candidates which are known to history.

[@tsitsifloramunikwa5468]

What do you mean Judaism has no concept of original sin? The book Genesis is part of the Tanakh isn’t it?

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

"Judaism has no concept of original sin" except in the sense that it does. Paul, a devout Jew, gives us the basis for what would later become the doctrine of "original sin." The concept of one sin corrupting the entire lineage of Adam is a very Jewish thought. "Jesus did not die for our sins." Except that's what He tells us He is doing. He makes the claim all over the gospels that He must die, and then He turns His execution into a sacrifice by His actions in the Upper Room when instituting the Eucharist. Further, the most Jewish epistle, the letter to the Hebrews, explains how Jesus was indeed our sacrifice for sins in explicit terms. It is biblical, historical, and Jewish that Jesus claimed to be a Messiah who would take away the sins of the world. If you're denying that based on modern Jewish beliefs, then you're a bad historian for being so anachronistic

[@ji8044]

@@tsitsifloramunikwa5468 "The book Genesis is part of the Tanakh isn’t it?" There is nothing in Genesis about the sin of Adam being passed on to each new generation. According to Genesis humanity must eventually die because of it. That's all. Christians have tried to tell Jews what they believe for 2,000 years now.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@ji8044 This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Jewish conception of Mankind. Each generation of Man is not some altogether different substance in Jewish thought. We are all in Adam as his descendants, and that which damaged him also has affected us. It is a misunderstanding also of original sin, that we somehow inherit the guilt of Adam, rather than his sin merely having an effect on our behavior and tendencies