[avar]

I'm an atheist, but this is an honest question: does it?

My understanding of catholic doctrine is that Jesus was part of the holy Trinity and knew it before he sacrificed himself.

Therefore when he sacrificed himself for humanity he wasn't in the sort of personal danger or at risk of eternal damnation that a mere mortal in his shoes would be.

I've always understood that as God making a grand gesture of some sort, not that Jesus was in personal danger comparable to that of a mortal in his shoes.

Of course being tortured for days before being guaranteed a seat by God's side in heaven upon death would royally suck in the short term.

But I'd think an internally cotsisconsistent interpretation of doctrine would call for a personal sacrifice short of that of Jesus in his last days from a mere mortal, the odds being stacked in the deity's favor. No?

[nemo44x]

Catholics don't really take the bible as literal as many protestant religions do. Some fundamentalist Catholics do but the Catholic Church (capital 'C') does not and has not for a very long time. Pope Benedict XVI in 1993 when he was a Cardinal:

“Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development… The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem… Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.”

So because of that it isn't really necessary to logically evaluate it unless you want to poke holes in a Protestant and Fundamentalists cheery picked parts. I want to be careful to not run into a "No true Scottsman" thing here, but Catholics by and large have tried to adapt the Bible to modern problems, not dissimilar to Reform Judaism.

[phd514]

Unfortunately, Benedict is conflating fundamentalism with literalism here. It's a common mistake (and "fundamentalist" has become essentially an epithet) although one that I am surprised to hear from someone as otherwise erudite and thoughtful as Benedict. Theological fundamentalism came out of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the early 1900s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93moderni...) and none of its earliest and strongest proponents (Machen, Van Til, etc.) were literalists. In fact, they were quite the opposite.

While certain strains of fundamentalism have literalist tendencies, there is nothing implicit literalist in fundamentalism. Some might look at the Five Fundamentals [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93moderni...] and consider them implicitly literalist, but most of them are contained in the creeds and confessions that Catholicism and Protestantism hold together and so denying any of them would place one outside of either Catholic or Protestant doctrine.

[nemo44x]

That's very interesting, thank you for the color there. Especially clarifying the literalist and fundamentalist part. I'd always just sort of assumed that they are one and the same.

I'm not particularly religious but over time I've come to respect the erudite and philosophical side of it. It's so easy to just dismiss the entire thing when looking at the worst of it which IMO tends towards protestant church's that are more a political organization than a spirituality center. Or of course the scandalous and criminal history of the Catholic church covering up so many bad things.

[1MachineElf]

>Therefore when he sacrificed himself for humanity he wasn't in the sort of personal danger or at risk of eternal damnation that a mere mortal in his shoes would be.

A Christian would say the same of themselves, because through Jesus, they have eternal life in Heaven.

[kodah]

Am an atheist that grew up Catholic and studied at a Catholic school for 10+ years; Jesus was more like someone who knew he had a deep connection to God but didn't know he was a part of the holy trinity until his resurrection. He experienced serious moments of doubt exemplified on the cross when he shouted, "Father why have you forsaken me?" He was intwined with local hookers and is thought to have had a relationship with Mary Magdalene.

That would make his moment of sacrifice an entirely human experience. imo, that but was designed intentionally because Catholics believe that everyone is a somewhat lesser version of Jesus in that way. Everyone has "original sin" and conflicts and doubt, but can be saved by the intent which they live their lives, not mere acts.

[gjsman-1000]

Then your Catholic school did you wrong.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/could-jesus...

[kodah]

That reads like an opinion piece and the etymology of the website is decidedly so: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Answers

Catholics, in fact, are not a monoculture just because they follow the pope. If you travel the coasts, through the South and Midwest you'll see very stark delineations of Catholicism and their beliefs.

[aeneasmackenzie]

The only relevant part of the article is the quote from the Council of Chalcedon:

> Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

This is one such stark delineation. All Catholics are required to be inside it.

[kodah]

Sure, I agree that it's dogma within the church, that's why I mentioned the Holy Trinity.

The holy trinity wasn't known to Jesus at the time of his life or death. It became apparent that he, the holy spirit, and god were the same post resurrection. That's what separates Jesus from other canonical characters like saints and disciples - he was destined to become one because it was God's manifestation of himself. The others are just humans with extraordinary presence whom God chooses to act on the world through. It was pretty clear Jesus perceived himself as the latter.

Anyway, I could be wrong. I learned all this nearly 20 years ago and only remember it because it was beat into me.

[aeneasmackenzie]

> The holy trinity wasn't known to Jesus at the time of his life or death. …

If this was beaten into you the school you went to was not Catholic or even Chalcedonian, which is a low, low bar. This appears to be some form of the heresy of kenoticism and your parents deserve a refund.

[swader999]

Jesus was tempted on the cross by Lucifer and Jesus had free will to choose. God risked it all in that moment.