site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   2619 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 17, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thank you, that was interesting. One thing:

Jesus would not have loudly cried and pleaded for salvation from death while on earth if he was certain he would be saved; and the passage indicates that he saved because of this plea.

Even if he knew he was going to be saved / go to heaven, he might still have loudly cried and pleaded for salvation. Firstly, because it drew attention to him, and his mission was ultimately the salvation of mankind through following him, and secondly because we plead for relief from pain even when we know it is good for us (life-saving surgery in the time before anaesthetic, for example).

Is your contention that Jesus, in mortal life, understood he was special but not that he was, in a way, God?

That theory could work re: pleading, but there are some problems. The passage seems to indicate that the object of the plea (or entreaty) was salvation from death (or the realm of the dead), not from the psychological torment associated with the event. This is reaffirmed in the content of the prayer: let this cup pass from me. And the only case of such a prayer occurring is during the Agony in the Garden; he is only around the disciples, who pay such little attention to him that they fall asleep. There is a sense of authenticity to this in Luke: “being in agony, he prayed more earnestly, his sweat as large drops of blood”.

The whole passage in Hebrews surrounding this is interesting too. It continues:

Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. […] About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain

which is insightful and funny. He needed to learn obedience, and evidently the relationship between his humanity and divine purpose was difficult even for an apostle to articulate. Really, I think the mystery and variety is actually the point. The more mysterious Christ is, in a human way, the more you are drawn into the story, and drawn into imbuing your own situation onto the story. The greatest stories don’t often provide one concrete answer. But the story shouldn’t be mysterious in a logical or philosophical way. There’s nothing to gain from drawing people into thousands of hours of philosophical speculation that have no bearing on behavior, but there’s a lot to be gained when a community is drawn into the same story, identifying with and loving the same figure.

Is your contention that Jesus, in mortal life, understood he was special but not that he was, in a way, God?

Yes, essentially. The Epistles clarify that Jesus is maximally Godly (“the fullness of deity dwells in him”, “the radiance of God’s glory”), but stops short of ever actually declaring that he is God. (Unless we want to abuse the Greek, which they do.) He is described in such a way that “in everything he might be preeminent”, and he has cosmic import and existed before the creation of the world (an existence which I do not think he fully understood while on earth). But the omission of any indisputable assertion or dogma that Jesus is God is really glaring. This would have been the thing that every early follower would be confused about, if it was taught, because of how strictly monotheistic Judaism was, and how there’s no Old Testament evidence of the Messiah being God. It would have been in the oldest Roman creed, but it’s not; in the Didache, but it’s not; and if would preached by Peter in Acts, but instead he calls Jesus a man. So yeah, I think this dogma was added a couple hundred years later, and for the worse.

Jesus is God (the Father) is not in the Nicene Creed either. Nathan Jacobs addresses the issue here: https://nathanajacobs.substack.com/p/does-jesus-claim-to-be-god

I don’t find this compelling.

there's no lack of New Testament passages that identify Jesus as God, using theos (no definite article) as a predicate to describe the nature of Jesus — that is to say, Jesus is God, or divine, or of the same nature as The God, his Father. See, for example, John 1:1, 20:28, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:5-8, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1, or John 1:18.

Even this is too much. John 1 doesn’t tell us what happened to the Word upon becoming flesh, or in what sense the word became flesh, or even to what extent it became flesh. The exclamation of Thomas is just as likely to be the exclamation of someone having witnessed the power of God in Christ, of referring to God generally due to the shocking experience (as we say “my God” today). Romans 9:5 is just as easily read as a doxology to God the Father https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/9-5.htm

There are similar interpretative issues with the other mentioned passages. Hebrews 1:8 is the most compelling, but it quotes a psalm which itself speaks about David. Jesus himself teaches us how to understand this, when the Pharisees falsely accuse him of labeling himself a god despite being mortal:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Thus, the appellation of “god” applied to a mortal as used in the psalms should normally be intepreted as an exaggerated title of honor. This cannot refer to anything more, because “scripture cannot be broken”. The passage is telling: Jesus rebukes the idea that he is divine, and instead comes calling himself “son of God”. This was a title used to refer to those of supreme righteousness in the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which were important works circulating at the time. This is crucially important: no one at the time would have interpreted “son of God” as indicating a being as equally God as the Father is God.

Or in Mark 10

a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him

Note that the man revises the title of Christ according to Christ’s teaching. Christ is Good because God is good, not because he is God/god/ sharing in the divine nature or anything else. This passage makes virtually no sense in a Trinitarian understanding, because if Jesus is equally God he is equally omnibenevolent, inherently good. Well, that’s obviously not what Jesus is saying. All mortals are good only insofar as we radiate the glory of God, allowing ourselves to be sealed by His imprint (Hebrews 1:3).

What you do not find — and would never find, in either biblical literature or in the writings of the Greek-speaking Church fathers, who were abundantly clear about the divinity of Jesus

The way in which Jesus is seen as divine (I would choose “heavenly”) is not as clear as you would expect. In the Shepherd of Hermas you find:

he is Lord of the people, having received all power from his Father. But hear why the Lord took his Son and the glorious angels as counselors concerning the inheritance of the slave. The preexistent holy spirit, which created the whole creation, God caused to live in the flesh that he wished. This flesh, therefore, in which the holy spirit lived, served the spirit well, living in holiness and purity, without defiling the spirit in any way. So, because it had lived honorably and chastely, and had worked with the spirit and had cooperated with it in everything, conducting itself with strength and bravery, he chose it as a partner with the holy spirit, for the conduct of this flesh pleased the Lord, because while possessing the holy spirit it was not defiled upon the earth. So he took the Son and the glorious angels as counselors, in order that this flesh also, having served the spirit blamelessly, might have some place to live, and not appear to have lost the reward of its service. For all flesh in which the holy spirit has lived will, if it proves to be undefiled and spotless, receive a reward. & Now you have the explanation of this parable."

This is divine in an adoptionist sense, though the passage isn’t clear about when this adoption takes place (some verses in epistles seem to indicate after death).

the Creed goes on to confess belief in the Son, who is of the same nature as the Father: That is to say, Jesus is divine in the same way the Father, who begat him, is divine — just as I am human in the same way that my father, who begat me, is human

This is not a good argument, because Jesus is clear that we are all born again from God, that we all become a son of God with the same oneness as Jesus is the son of God (John 17:22-23). Of course we are not turned into sons of God in the sense that we are suddenly turned into a divine being. Neither are we the preeminent Son of God, the firstfruits. But it’s totally anachronistic to make this into an argument for his being God, and it just reads as someone trying to trick those unfamiliar with how words were actually used at the time period.

Ultimately, the importance of adoptionism and “low Christology” is not because it’s the oldest and original, but because it’s essential for the religion to actually have an effect. The Christian must imagine Christ the Man tortured and slain. Truly dying. Truly identifying with him. Complicating this by turning the man into something unimaginable makes identification impossible, destroying the power of the cross. We cannot imagine a divine being with two natures dying on the cross and having this mean anything to us. That’s like telling us the Terminstor died for us. What do you expect the congregant to feel here? Does the mortal Christ have “locked in” syndrome as the divine nature impassibly does whatever is perfect without suffering? This does not inspire any feelings. It’s no longer a drama or tragedy, it’s just worthless philosophical syllogism.

This is not a good argument, because Jesus is clear that we are all born again from God, that we all become a son of God with the same oneness as Jesus is the son of God (John 17:22-23). Of course we are not turned into sons of God in the sense that we are suddenly turned into a divine being. Neither are we the preeminent Son of God, the firstfruits. But it’s totally anachronistic to make this into an argument for his being God, and it just reads as someone trying to trick those unfamiliar with how words were actually used at the time period.

It is basically the same argument Gregory of Nyssa uses. I am far from an expert in ancient or Koine Greek, though, so it is hard for me to independently evaluate what is or is not anachronistic. I agree that we are all called to be sons of God, and also that there is one (Only Begotten) Son of God; we are to attain by grace what He is by nature. And I think that Christ's (eternal) divinity is necessary for salvation. Irenaeus, who stated that man was created in the image and to attain the likeness of God, says:

Jesus Christ was not a mere man, begotten from Joseph in the ordinary course of nature, but was very God, begotten of the Father most high, and very man, born of the Virgin.

  1. But again, those who assert that He was simply a mere man, begotten by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of the old disobedience, are in a state of death having been not as yet joined to the Word of God the Father, nor receiving liberty through the Son, as He does Himself declare: If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. (John 8:36) But, being ignorant of Him who from the Virgin is Emmanuel, they are deprived of His gift, which is eternal life; (Romans 6:23) and not receiving the incorruptible Word, they remain in mortal flesh, and are debtors to death, not obtaining the antidote of life. To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: I said, You are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; but you shall die like men. He speaks undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons?

Ultimately, the importance of adoptionism and “low Christology” is not because it’s the oldest and original, but because it’s essential for the religion to actually have an effect.

Makes sense, I can see how an overemphasis on Christ's divinity causes problems. But I also think that part of the magic of the faith is its ability to hold certain opposites in tension.

Greg quotes 1 Corinthians 15:

”we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality […] the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons”

But in the very line of thought in 1Cor15, Paul emphasizes that Jesus has to be a man for salvation to occur, because Adam was a man. There is no argument that Jesus has to be more than man for salvation to occur; that thought isn’t found. We read here:

[21] For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

By a man has come resurrection! Why would Paul not add that the man had to be divine? We see something of the opposite. The mere man Adam made us mortal; the mere man Christ made us immortal. (Adam is an interesting case when you think about it: a man given immortality while still being a man.)

We also find the notion that Jesus resurrecting is an auspicious indication for the general class of mortal men dying, such that because Jesus resurrected we are consequently sure that we all will be resurrected. This would be a bewildering argument to make unless both the author and audience were certain that Jesus is no more than a mortal man:

[12] Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised

Now, if the author and the audience believed that Christ were more than mortal, then it would be perfectly reasonable to hold that there is resurrection of the dead while still Christ resurrected. Because Christ, being divine, can be resurrected, as he belongs to a category of being beyond mere mortals. A being who is both God and Man being resurrected would not indicate anything for the whole class of mortal men. Yet Paul says that his resurrection indicates that all men are resurrected, and Paul considers it impossible for anyone to hold that (1) Christ can be resurrected, while (2) other mortals can’t be resurrected. In effect Paul says here: you must believe that mortal men are resurrected, because if you don’t, then there is no possible way for Christ to be resurrected. And he reaffirms this twice, which is pretty remarkable; it may be the only case of Paul ever repeating the same argument nearly verbatim.

We also find the notion, again in this chapter, that the original state of Jesus in heaven was as a man:

The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

So for Paul, even when talking about the heavenly origin of Jesus, there is no mention of anything except his being a man. This actually poses a problem for Trinitarianism which separates the two natures of Jesus as mortal and immortal, because afaik they believe that the mortal Jesus did not have his origin in heaven, only the Word. If the heavenly origin of Jesus is purely Word/God, then why is Paul speaking of a man from heaven? Even if this is technically logical(?), it’s a highly unusual way for someone to present the idea.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats