Transcription
I really like the way that Jordan Peterson articulates it, but I think he misses the forest for the trees in all of this. What do you think of Jesus?
In the last basically 20 minutes of the conversation, Wes pivots to ask Joe this question, and the conversation that ensues is epic. Let's watch.
I like you don't know in all of this. What do you think of Jesus, like in terms of your own journey? What do you think of Jesus journeying and trying to find answers to ultimate questions? What do you think of the historical person of Jesus?
Well, it certainly seems like there's a lot of people that believe that there was this very exceptional human being that existed. So the question is, what does that mean? Does it mean he was the Son of God? Does it mean he was just some completely unique human being that had this vision of humanity and this way of educating people and spreading this ideology that would ultimately change the way human beings interact with each other forever?
So what is he? Is he the Son of God? Well, are we all? That's another question, right? Do we all have that inside of us?
You can see just right off the bat here, he's basically giving two big alternatives to the Christian alternative. He's saying one is he just like a really good moral teacher, someone who had a vision of what humanity needed, or two, when he says the Son of God, he's saying that we all have within us the Son of God. This is kind of the Richard Rohr sort of Christ Consciousness idea: Jesus was Christ, and you can be also.
You can see the different influences on Joe Rogan's thought here. It almost feels like he's butting up against this idea that Jesus was who he said that he was, and it's like, "Ah, but I don't know about that."
But let's think about this. It continues on, but I love the direction that this takes. We all have that ability to change everything around us inside of us. We all have that unique connection to the Divine. Is he a representation of the best version of that, or was he an actual person that was the Son of God? And is it important?
Yeah, I don't know. Wes does an amazing job showing that there are more sources for Jesus from Nazareth than there were for Tiberius Caesar, who was literally the Caesar during the time of Christ.
But you can again see it's like a river running downstream, and he's hitting these different rocks. He's not sure if he wants to stay at the dam or if he wants to keep going downstream to his ultimate final destination.
I'll let it keep playing here. What does it mean? It's just the fact that it's a question to ponder is a miracle in itself, in a way. Just the fact that there's this concept of this person that died for our sins, the Son of God. But you have to believe in a bunch of stuff to go that way.
Just the concept of that is interesting to people because what it can do to people is offer them a very unique way to change the way they feel about the world itself. If you do follow that, I know a lot of hardcore Christians are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet in your life. So it does work, right?
If you do live like a Christian and you do follow... and so here you can see he's basically transitioning into what people have called therapeutic moralistic deism. Basically, Christianity is good in the extent that it's utilitarian. It's good in the extent that it serves some purpose. It's not necessarily true. Jesus wasn't necessarily actually who he said that he was.
This is yet another common way of viewing the Bible that is coming up in this conversation. It's so funny to me because it's like he's throwing everything at the farm here, but let's see where this conversation goes.
All the principles of Christ, you will have a richer, more love-filled life. So it is true, right? But you have to submit to this concept that this guy was the child of God who came down to earth, let himself be crucified, came back from the dead, explained a bunch of stuff for people, and then said, "All right, see you when I come back."
You don't know how you can wrap your head around that particular claim.
Here's the thing: if he came back, who the would believe him today with all the fake news and all the CGI and AI? Imagine that would be the most bizarre thing of all time. If we get to a point where AI... I do think about that too.
We actually had a whole video on this because there's another Joe Rogan video where he's talking about Jesus returning on the White House lawn and how that would be the biggest story in the history of the world, bigger than UFOs or aliens or anything else. I have to agree with that.
Artificial reality is indistinguishable from regular reality, and Jesus chooses to come back at that moment. Boy, that's the ultimate test of faith, right? When it's impossible to discern if we really reach a point where virtual reality is indistinguishable from regular reality, which we're probably a hundred years away from that or something like... maybe not even that.
Yeah, I don't know. I mean, that's probably why Jesus came in the first century and not the 21st century. But imagine if that's the big catch: like Jesus does return, but when he returns, we're just so confused.
And I think the way that he's putting this here is honestly a little bit of a troll. He's got a twinkle in his eye, and I think he's basically again kind of just trying to avoid that one answer: that Jesus actually was the unique Son of God, that Jesus actually is the Incarnation of the invisible God, that he really did die for a purpose, and that the death of Jesus actually had power in it to save people from their sins.
You know, that's the Christian claim. And it's even here, you know, this concept that he's talking about of how it would be difficult to know if it was really Jesus in the age of AI and all this... all of that undermines God's ability to communicate to people and basically the authority of God in the real world.
But I think he's purposefully trolling Wes a little bit here.
We can't even tell. Yeah, or maybe that's how he returns in the first place. Maybe he returns through AI.
Yeah, maybe that's the portal to Jesus. I don't know anything about that.
Yeah, I mean, that scares the out of me. I really appreciate, I mean, guys that you're friends with, right? Like the Jordan Petersons and the Douglas Murrays of the world, or you know, they get into talking about Jordan Peterson's archetype and Jesus as a moral exemplar.
Wes does an amazing job here of showing the common misunderstanding around these ideas. Holland's not the Spider-Man actor, the historian who talks about this stuff.
I think I really like the way that Jordan Peterson articulates it, but I think he misses the forest for the trees.
How so?
In that he sees Jesus as an archetype, and I don't think actually even Jesus gives you the opportunity to see him as the archetype.
I have this love-hate relationship with all of Peterson's stuff because he seems to get so much right where he walks up to the line, but he doesn't want to cross over.
Is the crossover you think connected to a life in academia, or what do you think it is?
I wonder, and I'd love to talk to him about this: how do you remedy this issue? Because he seems to think that the concept of Jesus as an example is more important than the actual flesh-and-blood first-century itinerant Jewish preacher who was crucified and rose from the dead physically, which is the claim of the gospels and the rest of the New Testament.
That's an example for us to look on and live by, but I actually think that Jesus condemns moralism.
Ultimately, what I see Peterson doing is looking at Jesus as a moral example. If Jesus is nothing but a moral example, then you can save yourself, and you don't actually need a savior.
I'm going to let him continue, but I want to say the person who I heard articulate this idea the best, or at least the most memorable to me, was Tim Keller, who said that Jesus is either far below or far above every other religious figure.
Because if he was lying, then he's far below a person claiming to be God. You know, kind of had it coming. There's nothing virtuous about lying. There's nothing virtuous about deceiving people. There's nothing virtuous about, you know, basically starting a false religion if Jesus was lying about being who he said that he was.
Alternatively, if Jesus was telling the truth, then he's no longer on equal plane with any other person in any other religion because he's not pointing to the way. He's not showing you a model of living. He's actually saying that if you've seen me, you've seen the Father, that he is the image of the invisible God, that he and the Father are one, that he's the only way to the Father, that he is the way, the truth, and the life.
So again, Jesus is either far below or far above. It's sort of like C.S. Lewis's famous trilemma of he's lunatic, liar, Lord.
We've already covered the fourth L that's been more brought into the conversation recently of legend, but that has already been thoroughly debunked in this episode of The Joe Rogan Experience.
I'll let it continue here.
And so I think actually Jesus would have critiqued that because Jesus was very against moralism.
How do you define Jesus being against moralism? What do you mean by that exactly?
Well, Jesus looks at the religiosity of his day with particular groups like the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who are these other groups of Jews during his day.
So we talked about the Essenes, who actually aren't mentioned in the Bible, but there are other groups like the Pharisees, who are like lay scholars, and the Sadducees, who are professional priest scholars.
He's constantly critiquing the fact that they have this hypocritical religiosity to them, where they're doing things like tithing their mint leaves to make sure that they get all of this.
This is where we get the idea of the letter of the law versus the intention of the law. Jesus critiques them for that because he says, "You're trying to do everything right, and you're missing the point."
One of the things he says is like, "If your donkey falls in a ravine on the Sabbath, do you pull it out, or is that work?"
What's the point of the Sabbath? Is it to not do any work? Is it to make sure that you're not working too hard because you might be breaking the Sabbath?
What is the point? He says, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
There's this intention. This is the whole Sermon on the Mount, Matthew Chapter 5. He keeps saying, "You have heard it said, but I say..." and he refers to the Mosaic law.
It looks like he's critiquing the Mosaic law.
Yeah, I want to say really quick on this point: a lot of people say, "Oh, there you go. Jesus is a progressive Christian."
He's saying, "You have heard it said, but I say..." But actually, he's going back to the original design that Yahweh intended.
It's actually funny because, again, I'm not making a point about conservative versus liberal here necessarily, but it is actually him conserving the original intention of the law and not progressing into some Brave New World, but actually conserving the original idea.
Then contending against the progressives, who were actually the Pharisees, who had added on a bunch of man-made religion and tradition and things in the oral tradition on top of actually what was given at Sinai.
I mention that because that's often confused. Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount is often wielded to support the idea of an ever-evolving revelation when actually he's going back to the original design.
But he's not actually... he's getting back to the intention of the law, right?
So when he says, "You have heard it said, do not commit murder," but I say to you, "anybody who harbors hate for their brother in their heart has already committed murder."
What he's getting to is like, what's the intention? What's the meaning of the law that God gives to you?
Because the law is like a mirror. It shows you how dirty you are. But his critique is, he's like, "You guys are trying to clean yourself with a mirror. That's stupid. If anything, it's going to make you more messy. Get in the shower."
The law is not what cleans you. The law is what reveals that you're dirty.
Amen.
In that sense, I think, you know, if Jesus is a moral example, it actually misses what I think Jesus actually said about what his purpose was in that you can't do enough to actually live up to the standard that God holds you to.
If you keep striving, you're actually going to wear yourself out and be exhausted.
Like atheists... I didn't say you did, Joe. A lot of them go crazy.
They go crazy.
Such a funny note that they end on there, where Joe is actually the one admonishing atheists for moralism.
But I want to say this: the point being made at the end of this by Wes here is so significant because it contends with something that is so often misunderstood about Christianity, namely that it is a system of rules.
Namely that it is just another religion giving you some scaffolding to climb in order to get into God's good favor.
No, Christianity is exactly the opposite of that. Christianity stands apart from every other world religion in the sense that it says that the message of Christianity is that God has done something for us.
There is a good news that we have to cherish and to hold: a message of salvation that God, our creator, has actually paid the price for us.
That God has lived the perfect life that we cannot live, that God has died the death that we deserve in light of our breaking of his law.
God is perfect where we are imperfect. God is merciful where we are sinful. God is forgiving where we have fallen short.
That all have fallen short of the glory of God, but that God has literally said, "I don't want anybody to be apart from me."
I mean that so seriously that the only way that you will be is if you do it over my dead body.
That is literally the message of the Gospel: that God is willing to come and to die for people.
In that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. And that while we were his enemy, Christ died for us.
This conversation is so fascinating because they go into the historic, they go into the intellectual, they go into the scientific, and at the end of the day, Joe here is faced with this question that every person is faced with: was Jesus telling the truth?
Was Jesus really who he said that he was?
The question that made Jordan Peterson cry on camera several years ago: that the narrative world and the historic world could touch, that the greatest myths could actually be embodied in a real person.
That Christ would be the true myth, that at the center of the human story is a cross, is God entering in like Shakespeare entering into Hamlet, laying himself down for people, offering us hope where there is none other, offering us justice in the sense that he contends with the problem of evil.
That he pays the price, he pays the debt, he conquers evil forces, he sets the record straight, he equalizes the playing field of all humanity, offering us forgiveness.
And it happened in history, as Wes clearly lays out here. Christ offers us forgiveness in history.
The theological implications of that get unpacked over the next centuries and really over the thousands of years that follow.
But here is Joe butting up against: was he a good moral teacher? That doesn't really work because he was a liar.
Was he a legend? That doesn't really work because the historic record couldn't be more clear.
And now finally, was he actually telling the truth? Well, now it's getting interesting.
Imagine if Jesus was actually telling the truth. Imagine that the death of Jesus actually accomplished something real.
Imagine if the problem of evil that we all hate actually has a solution in the real world.
Imagine if salvation is available to all. Imagine if Christ died for all so that all might live.
And then you think about the real world, and you think about each life that we're living, trying to make sense of why we're here, trying to make sense of our purpose, our destiny, wrestling against our own evil inclinations, our own addictions, our own depression, our own sense of apathy.
Our own sense of, "What are we getting up in the morning for? What are we living for?"
I just want to connect the dots from this conversation of Christ as someone who shows you the law as a mirror and then asks you not to clean yourself with it, but to look into it and to see your own moral failure.
Why? Not because he wants to give you guilt and shame.
I recently watched the Aaron Rodgers documentary, where Aaron Rodgers walked away wrongly understanding that at the center of Christianity is guilt and shame.
No, it isn't. At the center of Christianity is a contention with the moral failing of the individual.
But that intention doesn't stop there. That intention is intended to point you to humility so that you can see beyond humility, beyond, if you want to call it guilt.
So it's guilt leading into humility, but then beyond that is forgiveness.
And beyond that is a person. Beyond that is the God-man, Jesus Christ, with his arms outstretched, offering hope, offering forgiveness, offering love, offering justice.
So that's where the story ends, with the ultimate exclamation point: that God died but then rose.
And that Jesus showed us that he's the genuine article, that he really is who he said that he was.
And that, by the way, he has the power to defeat death, who is our greatest enemy.
Nobody wants to die, and here's Jesus saying on full display, "Here is my power over death. Here is my power over your biggest BS."
In the cross, nothing can stand in his way. Nothing can compete with him in any other religious tradition.
So it's like, man, free yourself from the shackles of religion, but don't go into atheistic nihilism.
Free yourself from the shackles of religion and moralism and what the Pharisees taught and what every other religion teaches.
And allow Jesus to set you free with his glorious love and his Gospel of Salvation, the good news that he has done for you what you cannot do for yourself.
And that he has a plan for you, a destiny for you, a future for you that is filled with hope.
Free yourself from religion and allow yourself to be loved by your creator through his wonderful, wonderful sacrifice on your behalf, his wonderful love toward you that he has already demonstrated.
And that Christ died for you while you were still a sinner.
It's the opposite of guilt and shame. It's the opposite of religion in many ways.
It's Christ crucified for you so that you would not be dead in your sin and so that you would not face death itself, but that you would have life.
He who has the Son has life. He who does not have the Son does not have life.
Choose this day who you will serve.
Thanks for watching this. I hope you guys liked it. I hope you guys liked Wes Huff. This whole episode is awesome. Go check it out.
And I just also have to say, if you guys like this conversation, there are a lot of other conversations like this on the channel.
There's a Spotify link in the description below to where you can watch the Daily Dose of Wisdom podcast.
We have the Wisdom Society as well below if you want to join in growing in Christ with other believers from around the world.
Join the Wisdom Society. Subscribe to the channel if you guys want more of this type of content.
There's a revival happening right now. There's an intellectual revival, I believe, that is leading people to the authenticity of the Bible and the glory of the central character of the Bible: God himself.
So it's very exciting. I'm very excited to see this happening in our culture.
I think people are so tired of being lied to. I think people are so tired of being told that they're nothing more than matter, nothing more than an evolved ape.
And so I think that the truth rings out in 2025 and that there are ears to hear it.