Maison Bailesu

Christian theologies that deny the doctrine of the Virgin Birth and hold that Jesus was an ordinary man who was adopted as God's son during his life – often at his baptism, though some strands place the event elsewhere – are broadly grouped under the heading of "adoptionism". We'd need to get a lot more specific about the particular theological claims being made to narrow it down any more than that.

As is always the case with Christian heresies, it's tough to pin down exactly how commonly adoptionism has actually been practised, as most surviving descriptions of it come to us via its critics, and early Church authorities were notorious for making up guys to get mad at. However, in the case of adoptionism in particular, we have pretty solid evidence of widespread practice prior to the First Council of Nicaea, and the argument can be made that it was the majority view in at least some Christian communities as late as the 5th Century.

God calls him his son, but there is no hint other than the baptism scene of how he's God's son.

in modern trek, they always present the idea of logic vs emotion, with spock being logic and kirk being emotion, but thats not how tos has it. in tos, the logic vs emption debate is spock vs mccoy. kirk is supposed to be the mediator between the two, sometimes siding with one side over the other, sometimes finding a middle ground between the two. thats why hes the captain, hes able to see all angles and pick the best course

when you make kirk the emotional one, it completely breaks the format, because 9 time out of 10, it means kirk has to be correct. theres no more balance

When I teach rhetoric in my college essay writing/analysis course, it's always with the example of Kirk, Spock, AND McCoy. Ethos, Logos, Pathos--you need all three. Kirk isn't the counterweight to Spock; he's the fulcrum that balances Spock and McCoy.

Kirk isn't emotion. Kirk is ethos: credibility, authority. Spock and McCoy are there to stop him from damaging that credibility by falling back on an authority he doesn't actually have in the situation, to remind him of the logic or compassion that's lacking when an abuse of power would be the easy or basely satisfying thing to do.

Christian theologies that deny the doctrine of the Virgin Birth and hold that Jesus was an ordinary man who was adopted as God's son during his life – often at his baptism, though some strands place the event elsewhere – are broadly grouped under the heading of "adoptionism". We'd need to get a lot more specific about the particular theological claims being made to narrow it down any more than that.

As is always the case with Christian heresies, it's tough to pin down exactly how commonly adoptionism has actually been practised, as most surviving descriptions of it come to us via its critics, and early Church authorities were notorious for making up guys to get mad at. However, in the case of adoptionism in particular, we have pretty solid evidence of widespread practice prior to the First Council of Nicaea, and the argument can be made that it was the majority view in at least some Christian communities as late as the 5th Century.

Perhaps there was a reason we didn’t see Turlough’s drawing in The Five Doctors…!