Was Jesus' Sacrifice Necessary?

Buy my book here! store.bookbaby...
Planet Peterson Store! planetpeterson...
DISCORD (fixed link) / discord
Check out my podcast rss.com/podcas... or open.spotify.c...
Support me on Patreon / planetpeterson
Support me on Venmo: account.venmo....
Be sure to follow me on social media!
Instagram: / planetpeterson
TikTok: @planet_peterson

[@Tilly-ve8xm]

Why did this guy even call in? "I'm here to defend a book I've never read, so I will concede any and all points" Actually what?!?

[@-Monad-]

There's actually kind of a refreshing honesty to that. He is arguing completely based on pure faith in the truest sense. Which is nonsense, but still refreshing.

[@marknelson4615]

@@-Monad-I think he has just made up definitions and notions and labeled them ‘Christian’ based off his fantasies.

[@lubrew5862]

@@marknelson4615Majority of Christians out there don’t know what is actually in the Bible. The most they have read is a handful of passages suggested by their religious leader. And then take everything the leader of their religion as true to what the Bible states. Yet, those same people will act as experts of the book and their religion. At least this guy is honest about his limited knowledge..

[@drinjj]

@@-Monad-I agree. It’s nice when they are willing to admit that. My problem is, although he conceded that, he suggested that anything that would appear as immoral or illogical is just us misunderstanding or taking it out of context.

[@gowdsake7103]

Typical philosophy, the ability to use big words have no clue what they mean or how that should be used

[@brianlawlor1253]

‘ I’m a new Christian and I haven’t read the book yet’ Great! This is fixable! Go read the book and call back later.

[@SiegahertzCarmin]

I'm sorry but when I hear a "new christian" say : "Oh... I didn't read all the Bible..." That's speaking VOLUME about his faith.

[@Diviance]

The percentage of Christians who have actually read the entire Bible themselves is miniscule.

[@ottomaddoxx5360]

A couple ways that people come to religion later in life is either through an addiction recovery program or by entering into a new romantic relationship. This dude sounds like he just found a new girlfriend who is a Christian.

[@emceaboom]

"Somebody was 'unalived'"?!? What a fucking child

[@KD0AFK33]

Its funny how god can do anything...except make everything clear and concise and understandable and logical.

[@-Monad-]

He'd probably say that God COULD do that but chooses not to for... reasons

[@KD0AFK33]

@@-Monad- gotta love that unfalsifiable narrative

[@Lauren-zg9zo]

Lmao so true

[@Js-gv8qh]

He’s the god of confusion

[@KD0AFK33]

@@Js-gv8qh god is the original slum lord

[@cajohnson130]

Sacrificed himself to himself as a loophole to rules he made.

[@Lauren-zg9zo]

Yep

[@miskatonic_alumni]

That's not even the first time in the Bible that Abraham's God accepted a human sacrifice. Check out the eleventh chapter of Judges.

[@chobin7982]

Spider man is real. According to the Spider man comics, he lived in new york. Because the comics say so, therefore spiderman is real.

[@porkramen]

Yup, God changed his mind so he's not all knowing. Whoops.

[@chobin7982]

@@porkramen perfect comment

[@-gearsgarage-]

Jesus had a bad weekend

[@scorptrio8231]

That was the strangest call ever: someone trying to preach biblical theology, who knows nothing about the bible!

[@gowdsake7103]

Most do not

[@Deconstruction_Zone]

It's easier to defend the Bible when you haven't actually read it.

[@RanEncounter]

Not strange at all when you look at what religions do. They are not looking at facts, knowledge or truth.

[@Diviance]

Jesus was sacrificed because of original sin that existed because Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (how that could be considered a sin, nobody knows). But Adam and Eve never existed, so there was never any fruit eaten. So original sin never entered humanity. Which renders the whole messiah thing to save us from original sin... completely nonsensical.

[@wocxdid8068]

The sin was that Eve disobeyed, not that she ate the fruit. She did not listen to god when he told her not to eat of the tree of knowledge.

[@Diviance]

@@wocxdid8068 Yes, but Eve did not exist, which was the point.

[@wocxdid8068]

@@Diviance I know I was just telling where the sin part occured.

[@Diviance]

@@wocxdid8068 Sure, but they would have been disobedient either way. She would either need to disobey the snake or God... And without the fruit, she would be incapable of determining which was right and which was wrong. Which really makes the whole story so very questionable.

[@gowdsake7103]

You summed up the bible

[@itsROMPERS...]

The Bible is divinely inspired which is why it's ambiguous, inconsistent gibberish.

[@GunnerHeatFire]

Exactly.

[@drg8687]

I believe these statements without understanding them. - this caller

[@KD0AFK33]

Did my gardner do something selfless again? He's always sacrificing something; his best garden shears, a hose, time to spend with his family and Jesus Jr.

[@Lmaoh5150]

Perfect example of someone who takes up Christianity not because of any of its source in history, but purely on a connotative cluster of ideas and values cultivated and produced by a culture that is divorced naturally from any originary ideas and values. The movement of history and culture twists and allows this kind of thinking if someone isn’t careful. It’s clear he is building his ideas with what is present to him, without diving into the development of those ideas in order to build ideas that connect with the larger narrative that started a few thousand years ago.

[@MikeTMike]

Christians believe Jesus is alive today. If that's true, what is this sacrifice people keep talking about?

[@gowdsake7103]

For a long weekend !

[@ianchisholm5756]

He keeps saying 'moral congruency', whatever he means by that, but has a moral system is all over the place. Doesn't help that he has no idea what his book says.

[@piage84]

Why if you know and admit that you are not familiar with the scriptures, you go online to say they are the best thing ever happened to mankind???

[@displacegamer1379]

So, this whole video he basically said he has a faith that is based on nothing.

[@ottomaddoxx5360]

It wasn't even a sacrifice. Assuming that god is the omni-god, the character can't even commit something we would recognize as a meaningful sacrifice. He was never separated from Jesus because of omni-presence, and the omniscient god also knows exactly how the whole thing will play out. It's just not a sacrifice when read simply. If anything, it is a trivialization of the word "sacrifice." It reduces it to something like a queen sacrifice in chess which the player knows eventually leads to a forced checkmate. I don't think believers want to use "sacrifice" in such a trivial manner when they describe what happened to Jesus in the story.

[@porkramen]

"I never read the book I claim to believe in"

[@gottfriedosterbach3907]

The OT is impossible to reconcile without many levels of contradiction. I have yet to know a Christian who doesn't use OT as a weapon and the new covenant as a shield.

[@Tilly-ve8xm]

I have a random question about genesis - since only the tree of knowledge was forbidden, if they'd eaten from the tree of life first, then the tree of knowledge, would we be gods?

[@Jo-JoandTaffy]

Of course.

[@-Monad-]

They were already eating from the tree of life, which is what made them immortal and unaging. They only started aging when they were expelled and lost access to the tree of life. The metaphor is that you can't have both.

[@Desertphile]

Was Iesus sacrificed?

[@youtubestudiosucks978]

Doesnt a sacrifice imply greater loss then gain? And jesus gained omnipotence for being hell for a weekend while the rest get to burn there for all of eternity. Where is all those people who stayed longer their omnipotence? Dude gained way more then he ever "supposedly" sacrified so it's not a sacrifice at all.

[@corringhamdepot4434]

Had to look it up, "Moral congruency refers to the alignment of consistency between an individual's moral beliefs, values, and principles with their actions and behaviors". Apologists flip this on it head and say that their "Absolute Morals" were limited by whatever was the universal common behaviour at the time. This guy has the most messed up and confused theology I have heard for a long time.

[@Rugg-qk4pl]

* speak some gibberish * say moral congruency at least twice * concede point * repeat

[@Taylor-vz4ot]

The god of the bible is a blood god, so blood sacrifice is necessary, at least as far as biblical lore goes.

[@heruraha93]

If i lived in a time and place with no antibiotics or running water and sand in all the food and you told me i would get to sit at the right hand of god after sleeping for 3 days i would be nailing myself up

[@ottomaddoxx5360]

This guest talks like he's only ever learned about Christianity from professional apologists. He admits he's never read the book, but he appears to have a few key words and ideas memorized for defending the book he's never cracked. Dude, you're a Christian now. Open the book and read it. If you're a Christian, it should be your greatest joy and pleasure to read the words of your holy father. I don't understand why he hasn't read it yet.

[@AllanSavolainen]

Should have asked about ten commandments then or jesus telling slaves to obey their masters. Or make him give example of these new better morals.

[@guitarista67]

I wouldn't have even talked to this guy. He doesn't know anything.

[@Js-gv8qh]

Gods are made in the image of humans not the other way around that’s why morals do evolve 😂 which should be one of the many 🚩🚩for believers of these texts.

[@ronaldmccullough2399]

Yo Eric, you should make a video debunking your friend Terrence Howard when you get a chance

[@commentary2378]

My position is I haven't been told what my position is yet, basically

[@lesterclarke83]

He shouldn't talking book he had not read. And does not understand. He sound like rebot, repeatedly saying the same stupid lines over again..

[@sirphoboszoids]

Did that dude just say it was practical to force women to…

[@CeezGeez]

no. next question 🙋

[@MrMattSax]

This is one of the weirdest defenses of Christianity I’ve ever heard.

[@oxcart4172]

Is it even likely?

[@M3g4UBERn00b]

Why did he even get involved? He’s clearly ill prepared

[@spin.chicken]

You dont need to know the scriptures to respond to the points being made.

[@SleepyMatt-zzz]

This guy's position is completely incomprehensible. How do you determine what is morally congruent from a biblical perspective/framework if you just dismiss scripture? He's basically saying that it's just subjective. 😅

[@pixelimperfect7569]

If your viewpoint can't be boiled down at all to be clear and requires as many over complicated words as possible in a row, then it's not a good view point.

[@KasperKatje]

So sad Christians don't realize it is all symbolism. The Lamb of God sacrificed at Pesach to replace the yearly sacrifice of real lambs. And Pesach started as a harvest festival at the first full moon of the year. It had nothing to do with the Exodus myth. And a "sacrifice" of (a part of) himself to himself by playing dead for a weekend? And at the same time claiming Jesus is the only living god? Please...

[@curtismoss8616]

Debate Jay Dyer

[@tsolum4126]

The scriptures require so many trigger warnings, like a couple on each page.

[@HisZotness]

What a complete waste of time!

[@edsparkable]

It wasn't a sacrifice if it even happened. It was a bad weekend. 😂

[@LisaAnn777]

If you care about jesus and his sacrifice then you have to sin! Otherwise his death was meaningless!! Thats why i try and sin at least twice a day.

[@optimus_rhymes6955]

Why would you believe something before having evidence? And then you get evidence, and say sorry I don’t know. Would you go to a doctor that hadn’t went to medical school? People are fucking weird.

[@emceaboom]

That "new Christian" bullshit was annoying. "I concede on that point", as if it's debate class

[@einhinder8809]

This guy said the same 12 words over and over. Baffling.

[@MurderCraw]

Why tf would you debate morals of the Bible before even reading most of it? He was NOT prepared! 😹

[@anlacombe]

highfalutin poo poo

[@emceaboom]

I think i dislike this guy more than the mentalists.

[@jsam1997]

He died as a substitute for our sin to satisfy the wrath of God because the penalty for sin is death, and we are all sinners. Eternity is the most important thing. Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" Everyone is going to die one day and after death comes a place for all sinners called hell which is eternal torment, but there is no need to fear because we were given a savior 2,000 years ago and his name is Jesus, so trust in Jesus today as your savior from hell. Christ is the only solution to the sin problem in our world and the eternal penalty as a result, which is ultimately part of our nature passed down from adam and eve due to their rebellion against God. The good news is that there is a savior from the penalty of sin that God the father sent, and that is his only Son Jesus Christ, born of a virgin and without a sin nature like the rest of mankind. The father established the Old Testament law, which was morally perfect to show man's imperfection in attempting to keep it. But Jesus, being perfect, kept the law perfectly, thus fulfilling the law. However, he didnt just fulfill the law, he also died on the cross as a substitute for all mankind's sin. The penalty for sin is death, so God sent his own son to pay the penalty for Mankind so we dont have to go to hell. The lake of fire is referred to as "eternal/spiritual death" so when Christ died for you and me, he satisfied the father's wrath against our sin. Afterwards, he was buried and then rose again after 3 days, conquering the grave. He did this so that mankind can recieve eternal life as a free gift, all you have to do is believe it was done for you. The gospel of john states "He that believeth on the son hath everlasting life, but he that believeth NOT the son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him." Believe in the original Greek language translates to "pistueo" which means to entrust, in this case, to entrust ones eternal destination to Christ. Ephesians 2:8-9 "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and not of yourselves it is a GIFT of God. Not of works lest anyman should boast." Simply believe what Christ already did for you to receive eternal life and are forgiven of every sin. After this, you are given the righteousness of Christ to be just before the father. Romans 4:6 "just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works "

[@KasperKatje]

So sad you don't realize it is all symbolism. The Lamb of God sacrificed at Pesach to replace the yearly sacrifice of real lambs. And Pesach started as a harvest festival at the first full moon of the year. It had nothing to do with the Exodus myth. And a "sacrifice" of (a part of) himself to himself by playing dead for a weekend? Please...

[@josephmother2659]

Why is the loving omniscient god furious and wrathful against his own children? You are not helping Christianity

[@jsam1997]

@josephmother2659 Everyone isn't his children, only those who accept what Christ has done them are, we are saved from eternal wrath/damnation. Everyone else are just his creations. The reason God Is wrathful is because he is just and the same way a just judge can't excuse a crime, neither can God excuse sin. That's why a person must have a payment (atonement) to cover their sin. In this case, the atonement is Jesus's death. He went on the cross and died as a substitute for the penalty of sin that we all deserve for our own sins, all of them. If you accept Christ's death as the payment for your sin and believe he rose again, God counts your sins forgiven since the wrath you and I deserve was poured out on Jesus, not us.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

Oh brother this guy STINKS!

[@Poepkoekie]

As a Christian you have raised some interesting points regarding the morality of the laws prescribed in Deuteronomy. This made me look into these topics to find sufficient answers. 1. Regarding Deut 22:28: When you look into the Hebrew for this verse, it is clear that there is no explicit mention of rape. The NIV tragically translates the word taphas (תָּפַשׂ) into rape, however this is not the meaning. Taphas generally means to lay hold of or to wield. Hebrew is an interesting language, however, since words can also have different meanings depending on the subject (i.e. whether they are male or female) and the context that the word is used in. For instance, in most other cases that the word is used the subject is either male or an object (the word can also be used for handling things like weapons or instruments from what I've gathered) and in these cases it usually means capture, taken hold of, or wield. In the case of Deut 22:28, however, the context suggests a different meaning for the word since the subject is female and the context isn't about war. A different meaning that would fit this context can be to handle. In addition to this, the word Deuteronomy means "Second Law". Deuteronomy is a reiteration of the original laws given at the beginning of the exodus. Thus, one can assume that the law given in Deut 22:28 would be seen in previous legislations. This is indeed the case. Exodus 22:16-17 states: "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.". A clear parallel can be seen between Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28. This further substantiates the position that the word taphas in Deut 22:28 could mean to handle, as this can also be interpreted as seduction rather than a forceful interaction. Finally, the verse itself also implies consensual interaction, since at the end it states: "they are found". This would imply that the both of them wanted to keep the interaction a secret. 2. Regarding Deut 22:13-21 I also looked into the Hebrew for this verse. Many of the translations for this verse lead to the implication that the only proof that can be given for the virginity of a woman would be the garment or cloth from the first intercourse. However, when you look at the Hebrew, or even more accurate translations (like the Legacy Standard Bible) you will see that in Deut 22:17, the father of the accused should present evidences (plural), and after presenting these evidences he shall spread the garment before the elders. This means that the garment wouldn't have been the only way that they tested virginity. Instead, they would present all the evidence they had and if they had the blood stained garment, that alone would be sufficient enough evidence for the elders. If they did not have the garment, then the elders would have other evidence to base their judgement on. This law was given to protect women against slanderous accusations from men that would want to treat them unfairly (i.e. if they wanted to marry them only for the intention of sleeping with them and getting rid of them afterwards). It gave the women a chance to defend themselves instead of only taking the man's word into account simply for the reason that it's a man's word. In my opinion, for a law that was given 3300 years ago it's quite a good and moral law.

[@mookiesgaming8260]

Hey, I’m gonna join the most popular gang in town without knowing anything about them or gangs, we sit around and talk about our problems, right😂😂

[@anotherwolff3650]

i take for 500: "things that never happend" 😊