Critiquing: #075 — Qs about Jesus
July 22, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier
Jesus’ humanity — Divine nature — Miracles — Human emotions — Temptation
Episode Assessment:
 | | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Degree of Accuracy | B+ | The discussion presents a well-informed theological perspective, but some statements are speculative and lack strong historical corroboration. For example, the suggestion that Jesus enjoyed being a carpenter is not explicitly supported by scriptural evidence. |
| Degree of Coherence | B | The episode maintains logical coherence, but it occasionally diverges into tangential discussions, such as the hypothetical use of miracles by Jesus to ease his work, which can detract from the main argument. |
| Absence of Fallacies | A | The arguments presented are logically sound and free from identifiable fallacies. The theological positions are well articulated and consistent within their framework. |
| Degree of Evidence | C+ | While the theological insights are rich, they are often not substantiated with concrete evidence. Much of the content relies on interpretative and doctrinal beliefs rather than empirical or historical proof. |
| Degree of Testability | D+ | The claims, being predominantly theological, lack empirical testability. Assertions about Jesus’ divine and human nature are faith-based and cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny. |
| Rational Confidence | B- | The rational confidence in the content is moderate. While the theological arguments are consistent, the speculative nature and lack of empirical evidence limit the overall confidence. |
Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:
1. Degree of Evidence
The argument that Jesus “relished the joy of creativity” while working as a carpenter is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. This statement is based more on theological interpretation than on documented historical facts.
“I think he will have relished the joy of creativity.”
2. Degree of Testability
The theological question of whether Jesus could have sinned is inherently untestable. It relies on doctrinal positions rather than empirical data, making it impossible to verify or falsify.
“Could Jesus have sinned, but he didn’t? Or was it impossible for Jesus to have sinned because of his nature?”
Formulations of Major Arguments
Argument 1: Jesus’ Human and Divine Nature
- Premise 1: Jesus is described in Christian theology as both fully human and fully divine.
- Premise 2: Human nature includes the capacity for emotions and creativity.
- Premise 3: Divine nature encompasses perfect goodness and the ability to perform miracles.
- Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus experienced human emotions and performed miracles out of perfect goodness.
Counter-Argument:
This argument relies heavily on theological doctrine, specifically the hypostatic union, which is not universally accepted. A secular perspective might argue that Jesus was a historical figure whose life and actions were later mythologized. The claim that Jesus’ nature was both fully human and fully divine could be seen as a later theological construction rather than a historical reality. Furthermore, the idea that Jesus performed miracles can be challenged by pointing to the lack of contemporary, independent historical accounts verifying these events. Secular scholars might suggest that miracle stories served to establish early Christian community beliefs rather than reflecting historical occurrences.
Argument 2: Jesus’ Use of Miracles
- Premise 1: Jesus performed miracles as part of his divine mission, according to the Gospels.
- Premise 2: Miracles were used to alleviate social disasters and demonstrate God’s power.
- Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus used miracles for specific, purposeful interventions.
Counter-Argument:
This argument assumes the historical accuracy of gospel accounts regarding Jesus’ miracles. A critical view might argue that these miracle stories are theological constructs rather than factual historical events. The lack of contemporary, corroborative evidence from non-Christian sources casts doubt on the historicity of these miracles. Additionally, one could argue that the purpose of these stories was to solidify Jesus’ divine authority within early Christian communities, rather than to record actual events. From a secular standpoint, the narratives of miracles can be interpreted as symbolic acts meant to convey theological truths rather than literal historical occurrences.
Argument 3: Jesus’ Harsh Words and Emotions
- Premise 1: Jesus exhibited human emotions, including frustration and sorrow.
- Premise 2: These emotions were expressed in response to people’s lack of faith and misunderstanding, as depicted in the Gospels.
- Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus’ harsh words reflect his genuine human frustration and divine sorrow.
Counter-Argument:
This argument presupposes that the gospel accounts accurately reflect Jesus’ emotions and motivations. A secular critique might suggest that these narratives are literary devices employed by gospel writers to emphasize certain theological points. The depiction of Jesus’ emotions could be seen as a method to make him relatable to believers and to underscore his humanity. Moreover, interpreting ancient texts with modern psychological concepts risks anachronism. Instead, one could argue that these accounts should be understood within their historical and cultural context, recognizing that they were crafted to convey specific messages to early Christian audiences rather than to provide a precise historical biography of Jesus.
Formulations of Major Arguments
Argument 1: Jesus’ Human and Divine Nature
- Premise 1: Jesus is both fully human and fully divine.
- Premise 2: Human nature includes the capacity for emotions and creativity.
- Premise 3: Divine nature encompasses perfect goodness and miracles.
- Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus experienced human emotions and performed miracles out of perfect goodness.
Counter-Argument:
This argument is heavily rooted in Christian doctrine, specifically the hypostatic union. A secular counter-argument would question the premise that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, suggesting instead that Jesus was an extraordinary historical figure whose deeds were later mythologized. The supposed miracles could be viewed as narrative devices used to highlight his exceptional character and influence. Historical-critical methods might interpret these stories as symbolic rather than literal, proposing that they were designed to communicate theological truths rather than to document actual events.
Argument 2: Jesus’ Use of Miracles
- Premise 1: Jesus performed miracles as part of his divine mission, according to the Gospels.
- Premise 2: Miracles were used to alleviate social disasters and demonstrate God’s power.
- Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus used miracles for specific, purposeful interventions.
Counter-Argument:
This argument presumes the historical veracity of gospel accounts. A critical view would challenge this by pointing out the lack of corroborative evidence from contemporary sources. Miracle stories can be understood as theological constructs meant to establish Jesus’ divine authority within early Christian communities. From a historical perspective, these narratives may reflect the community’s beliefs and experiences rather than actual events. The purpose of these stories might have been to inspire faith and devotion rather than to serve as factual accounts of Jesus’ life.
Argument 3: Jesus’ Harsh Words and Emotions
- Premise 1: Jesus exhibited human emotions, including frustration and sorrow.
- Premise 2: These emotions were expressed in response to people’s lack of faith and misunderstanding, as depicted in the Gospels.
- Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus’ harsh words reflect his genuine human frustration and divine sorrow.
Counter-Argument:
This argument assumes the gospel accounts accurately portray Jesus’ emotions. A secular critique might view these narratives as literary tools used by gospel writers to convey specific theological messages. The portrayal of Jesus’ emotions serves to make him relatable and to emphasize his humanity. However, interpreting ancient texts through a modern psychological lens risks anachronism. Instead, these accounts should be contextualized within their historical and cultural settings, acknowledging that they were intended to communicate certain theological points to early Christian audiences rather than to provide an exact historical record of Jesus’ life.
◉ The incoherence of a fully divine and fully human Jesus:
A Reductio Argument on the Nature of Jesus’ Dual Identity
The doctrine of hypostatic union posits that Jesus Christ is both fully divine and fully human, encapsulated in the theological claim that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human. While this tenet is central to many Christian beliefs, it also presents profound logical and philosophical challenges. This essay examines the incoherence of such a doctrine by exploring the implications of a syllogism that highlights the inherent contradictions within the concept of Jesus’ dual nature.
Premise 1: Jesus was 100% human and 100% God.
This foundational claim asserts that Jesus embodies the fullness of both humanity and divinity. It suggests a union where neither nature is diminished or altered by the other, thus maintaining the complete essence of both.
Premise 2: Humans can sin.
A core characteristic of humanity is the capacity to sin. Sin, in this context, refers to actions or behaviors that deviate from divine will or moral perfection. The ability to sin is intrinsic to human free will and moral fallibility.
Premise 3: God cannot sin.
In stark contrast, divinity is defined by moral perfection and infallibility. God, being omnipotent and omnibenevolent, cannot commit sin, as sin would contradict the very nature of divine perfection.
Syllogism:
- Jesus was 100% human and 100% God.
- Humans can sin.
- God cannot sin.
Conclusion:
Given these premises, we arrive at a contradiction. If Jesus is fully human, he must possess the capacity to sin. Conversely, if Jesus is fully divine, he must be incapable of sinning. The simultaneous assertion of these two incompatible properties in a single entity leads to an incoherence. The doctrine, therefore, faces a reductio ad absurdum, as it requires one to accept a logical impossibility.
Exploring the Implications:
The inherent contradiction in claiming that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine challenges the coherence of the hypostatic union. If Jesus could sin, this would undermine the claim of his divinity. If he could not sin, this would compromise his humanity. This paradox is not merely a theological quibble but a profound logical issue that impacts the foundational beliefs of Christian doctrine.
Theological Attempts to Resolve the Paradox:
Various theological approaches have attempted to reconcile this contradiction. Some argue that Jesus’ human nature was perfect and therefore free from the inclination to sin, while others suggest that his divine nature provided a safeguard against sin. However, these explanations often appear to either diminish Jesus’ humanity or his divinity, thus failing to fully address the logical conflict.
In conclusion, the doctrine of Jesus being fully divine and fully human presents an incoherence that challenges its logical validity. The inability to sin is fundamentally incompatible with the human capacity for sin, creating a paradox that cannot be easily resolved within the framework of traditional Christian theology.
We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Let’s engage in thoughtful dialogue and explore different perspectives on this intriguing theological and philosophical issue.
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment