Atheist argument I could use some help with

[Phoenix]

-This atheist wants to know how the God of Christianity is any more real than the mythical god Zeus. Here is his quote:




"Zeus = True God

For religious people:
What would be your argument against this statement?

'Man made his gods, and furnished them
With his own body, voice and garments...'
Xenophanes"

[jerickson314]

It depends what you mean by "Zeus = True God". If you invent a new language called "Zork" in which "Zeus" is a reference to the God of the Bible, this would be a true statement in Zork.

However, if by Zeus you mean the god of Greek mythology, living on Mount Olympus and all, then the statement fails to correspond with reality. There is no historical truth to Zeus's actions, nor has ever such a figure lived on Mount Olympus.

And the God of the Bible doesn't have human form, despite being depicted as such in Michelangelo's paintings, for example. If there is truly a God he could logically be human-like anyway. But nonetheless, the God of the Bible doesn't have man's "body, voice and garments" and thus this is a non-issue.

[Mastermind]

It doesn't matter if Zeus is real or not. Read a bunch of Greek myths and you'll realise Zeus is both weak(by weak I don't mean he's really weak, but rather not the strongest and thus not deserving to be worshipped) and a fool.

[August]

"Zeus = True God

For religious people:
What would be your argument against this statement?

Someone better versed in philosophy can maybe help me here if I have it wrong, but they are essentially asking you to prove a negative, which can't be done.

My first reaction is before you can argue against the statement, they must prove logically that their statement is, or can be, true, i.e. prove that Zeus=True god. It is their assertion, and they must non-fallaciously prove it to be true before there can be any logical argument around it. Otherwise it remains just an opinion, and cannot be proven wrong.

[Prodigal Son]

well, when Jesus came, he performed miracles (confirmed even outside of the bible) that prove he was divine. he also stated this. many of his statements about himself can be confirmed. psychological data/studies can disconfirm and rule out that he was mentally ill or a liar, etc.

Jesus confirmed that the bible is the word of God and an accurate portrayel of God's desires/character. the bible states that the God mentioned in it is the one and only true God.

zeus does not fit the character of God in the bible. so, he cannot be the one true God.

[bcrazy]

Sorry, but did Jesus ever claim to be the Son of God? I'm an agnostic but even if I ever convince myself that there is a God, this may be one major part keeping me from Christianity. As far as I am aware Jesus never claimed to be the son of God and even when given the perfect opportunity when questioned by Pontius Pilate he didn't give a clear answer- why? It would be testing my faith enough if he had explicity claimed to be the son of God (just as if somebody in the street who spoke a lot of sense and could carry out unbelievable acts claimed to be the son of God) but am I actually supposed to rely on the interpretations of others? I realise he claimed he was the only way to God but to me this could just as easily mean he was a prophet passing on new teachings from God and therefore of course he would need to be listened to in order to fulfill God's wishes.

[August]

Sorry, but did Jesus ever claim to be the Son of God?

Yes. There are many references to that, but the most famous is:

John 3:16 (KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Matthew 3:17; Matthew 4:3; Matthew 4:6; Matthew 10:40; Matthew 11:27; Matthew 14:33; Matthew 15:13; Matthew 16:15-17; Matthew 17:5; Matthew 18:10; Matthew 18:19; Matthew 20:23; Matthew 21:37; Matthew 26:53; Matthew 26:63-64; Matthew 27:43; Matthew 27:54; Mark 1:1; Mark 1:11; Mark 3:11; Mark 5:7; Mark 9:7; Mark 14:61-62; Mark 15:39; Luke 1:32; Luke 1:35; Luke 3:22; Luke 4:3; Luke 4:9; Luke 4:41; Luke 8:28; Luke 9:35; Luke 10:22; Luke 20:13; Luke 22:29; Luke 22:70; John 1:1-2; John 1:14; John 1:18; John 1:34; John 1:49-50; John 3:16-18; John 3:34-36; John 5:19-21; John 5:23; John 5:26-27; John 5:30; John 5:32; John 5:36-37; John 6:27; John 6:38; John 6:40; John 6:46; John 6:57; John 6:69; John 7:16; John 7:28-29; John 8:16; John 8:19; John 8:26-29; John 8:38; John 8:40; John 8:42; John 8:49; John 8:54; John 9:35-37; John 10:15; John 10:17-18; John 10:29-30; John 10:36-38; John 11:4; John 11:27; John 11:41; John 12:49-50; John 13:3; John 14:7; John 14:9-11; John 14:13; John 14:16; John 14:20; John 14:24; John 14:28; John 14:31-15:1; John 15:8-10; John 15:23-24; John 16:5; John 16:15; John 16:27-28; John 16:32; John 17:1-26; John 19:7; John 20:17; John 20:21; John 20:31; Acts 3:13; Acts 13:33; Romans 1:3-4; Romans 1:9; Romans 8:3; Romans 8:29; Romans 8:32; 1 Cor. 1:9; 1 Cor. 15:24; 1 Cor. 15:27-28; 2 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:19; Galatians 1:16; Galatians 4:4; Ephes. 1:3; Ephes. 3:14; Col. 1:3; Col. 1:15; Col. 1:19; Col. 3:17; 1 Thes. 1:10; Hebrews 1:1-3; Hebrews 1:5; Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 5:5; Hebrews 5:8; Hebrews 5:10; Hebrews 6:6; Hebrews 7:3; Hebrews 10:29; 2 Peter 1:17; 1 John 1:7; 1 John 2:22-24; 1 John 3:8; 1 John 3:23; 1 John 4:9-10; 1 John 4:14; 1 John 5:5; 1 John 5:9-10; 1 John 5:13; 1 John 5:20; 2 John 1:3; Rev. 2:18

I'm an agnostic but even if I ever convince myself that there is a God, this may be one major part keeping me from Christianity.

What is your major objection if this was the case? It is one of the major premises of Christianity, without Jesus dying and being resurrected, not only as the Son of God, but as God incarnate, there can be no Christian faith. It is of course a matter of faith, and if it was not faith, it won't be called religion.

but am I actually supposed to rely on the interpretations of others?

No, you don't have to, in fact, you should never rely just on what others have to say. It's up to you to find the truth for yourself, and then you can decide whether to agree or disagree with others.

I realise he claimed he was the only way to God but to me this could just as easily mean he was a prophet passing on new teachings from God and therefore of course he would need to be listened to in order to fulfill God's wishes.

I think if you review the Sciptures provided above you will see that that claim was not the only one Jesus made. He was a prophet (Matt 13:57) too, but that was not His only mission. He was the fullfillment of many prophesies, and ultimately the bearer of all of our sins, so that we may be justified before God. The only perfect being is God, and therefore the only one that could bear punishment on our behalf for all sins. God became man to save all of our sorry behinds, and that was why God in Jesus was physically manifest. That overwhelming gift is the whole point of Christianity, not whether Jesus was a prophet, or any of the other things He did while on earth.

[bcrazy]

Thanks for your response Sorry if I wasn't clear but I was looking for a quote from Jesus rather than something John had to write about him- in other words I don't want to rely on someone else in the Bible to say he is the son of God but for Jesus himself to say it. Earlier in John 3 Jesus does make references to the Son of Man (am I to assume this is the same as the Son of God?) but he makes these references in third person- this to me in no way suggests he is the Son of Man.
Matthew 3:17, Matthew 4:3 and Matthew 4:6 are more examples of references not actually coming from Jesus' mouth. Of the passages you mentioned that I have looked at so far Matthew 11:27 comes closest to what I am looking but really if I am being picky I would still prefer something more solid if I was to base my life on it.

All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

Although some might see this as quite clear from my point of view somebody who is a prophet and has a very special relationship with God may easily say such a thing.
Matthew 26:63-64 for me is one of the things that highlights Jesus' reluctance to clearly claim he is the son of God.

63 But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

If he knew he was going to be killed and if he was truly the Son of God, then what would be wrong with a simple answer of "Yes"?

[August]

Hi,

No, I understood perfectly what you were saying.

Sorry if I wasn't clear but I was looking for a quote from Jesus rather than something John had to write about him- in other words I don't want to rely on someone else in the Bible to say he is the son of God but for Jesus himself to say it.

Maybe it will help if we show the whole passage from John:
John 3:2-21 (KJV)
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. [3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. [4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? [5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. [8] The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. [9] Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? [10] Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? [11] Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. [12] If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? [13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
[14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: [15] That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [20] For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. [21] But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

These were the words of Jesus, not of John. If we then further reference it to:
Matthew 16:15-17 (KJV)
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

It becomes pretty clear, and we can follow it through some of the other passages too.

Matthew 26:63-64 for me is one of the things that highlights Jesus' reluctance to clearly claim he is the son of God.

I'm not sure we are interpreting this the same:

Matthew 26:63-64 (KJV)
But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. [64] Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

"Thou hast said" is the same as yes. It can clearly be affirmed by the cross-reference to the other gospel writers:

Mark 14:61-62 (KJV)
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? [62] And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

If he knew he was going to be killed and if he was truly the Son of God, then what would be wrong with a simple answer of "Yes"?

In the account that Luke gave, Jesus did answer clearly. Also, it depends a little what Bible translation you read. The NIV, for example, says this:

Matthew 26:63-64 (NIV)
But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
[64] "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

It is unlikely that the central message being conveyed here will be substantially different, since most translations are done from the original manuscripts, and adapted to read easier.

[bcrazy]

I was using http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp as my reference and used the KJV version and the speechmarks finished just before that sentence- seeing as I can't speak Hebrew is there any way of ever being able to rely on the bible if it has variations like that?

"Thou hast said" is the same as yes

I was under the impression "thou hast said" means "you have said"- that is clearly not the same as "yes".

Although Mark 14:61-62 is the kind of evidence I was initially looking for I'm finding it difficult to put any faith in the Bible if 2 different accounts of the exact same event give what is IMO 2 very different quotes from Jesus.

[August]

I was using http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp as my reference and used the KJV version and the speechmarks finished just before that sentence- seeing as I can't speak Hebrew is there any way of ever being able to rely on the bible if it has variations like that?

Which variations are you talking about?

I was under the impression "thou hast said" means "you have said"- that is clearly not the same as "yes".

"Thou hast said" essentially means "It is as thou hast said". In the KJV, there are quite a few examples of that, in fact, there one just earlier in verse 25, where Jesus speaks to Judas. Judas was in fact the one that betrayed Jesus, so we can very clearly infer from that that the words mean a positive answer. Everywhere where this is used in the KJV, it is taken to be an answer in the affirmative.

Although Mark 14:61-62 is the kind of evidence I was initially looking for I'm finding it difficult to put any faith in the Bible if 2 different accounts of the exact same event give what is IMO 2 very different quotes from Jesus.

Maybe you are just seeing a contradiction because you want to? You are hanging your hat to disbelieve that Jesus was the Son of God on this one partial sentence, whereas there is plenty of other evidence of Jesus saying that He is the Son of God.

We can also analyse that specific statement more logically, and even with your interpretation, it's not a denial that He is the Son of God. It is still an affirmation, maybe not as strong as you want to hear (down to the semantics of mid 1600's English), but that is not in conflict with any other statements He made in that regard. If we turn it around a bit, is there anywhere where Jesus says that He is NOT the Son of God?

The power of the Bible is that it does provide multiple accounts of the same events, and that affirms its truth. If there was only one account, we could question it, but here we have 3 accounts, all saying the same thing. The language differs because it was 3 different authors, just like you would have 3 different sets of wording from 3 eyewitnesses to an event today.

[bcrazy]

Which variations are you talking about?

The version I was looking at did not have Jesus saying that quote as it was outside the speech marks but from your version you believed they were Jesus' words.

"Thou hast said" essentially means "It is as thou hast said".

I'm not sure how I'm meant to know this isn't people just wanting to believe that- in English there is a fundamental difference between those 2 statements, that's all I feel I'm able to judge it on.

I'm not pretending Jesus claimed he wasn't the Son of God- simply that even if choosing the gospels was selective to make Jesus appear more holy I can still not find any explicit statement saying he is the Son of God in the Bible that is not contradicted elsewhere.

[August]

I can still not find any explicit statement saying he is the Son of God in the Bible that is not contradicted elsewhere.

Maybe you should list those contradictions so we can discuss them. So you are saying there are places where Jesus says He was the Son of God, and then somewhere else where He said He was not?

I'm not sure how I'm meant to know this isn't people just wanting to believe that-

Are you talking about the writers of the Gospel, specifically? What would you consider to be proof then, since almost every piece of knowledge you have is based on someone observing it, and relating it to you?

simply that even if choosing the gospels was selective to make Jesus appear more holy

Choosing the gospel over what? Selected from what?

[jerickson314]

See this article - it examines many of the claims of Jesus that he was God. (Most specifics are in the articles it links to, not the main article.)

[bcrazy]

Maybe you should list those contradictions so we can discuss them. So you are saying there are places where Jesus says He was the Son of God, and then somewhere else where He said He was not?

I am not saying that- I am saying one gospel quotes him saying "I am" whereas another quotes him saying "You said I am". Only one of these can be true (fair assumption surely?) and therefore it is a contradiction for the Bible to claim both.

Are you talking about the writers of the Gospel, specifically? What would you consider to be proof then, since almost every piece of knowledge you have is based on someone observing it, and relating it to you?

I don't accept much by simply being told it- normally firstly I need ity explained and then I need to be able to understand it myself- if there are witnesses who I feel I can trust and would not gain anything from lying I will probably accept it. I only trust people from 2000 years ago writing about Jesus as much as I trust people nowadays writing about seeing ghosts- I don't see why people approach the 2 things differently.

Choosing the gospel over what? Selected from what?

Selected by the Church from the many writings available about Jesus.

Thank you for that link jerickson, looks very interesting- I see some of the objections I have made are referred to in some of the links (such as referring to the Son of Man in third person) so it is good to see the arguments against although in the 3rd person case I can't say I was entirely satisfied. However, I may end up accepting Jesus tried to present himself as the Son of God as I feel me believing that he was will be a much bigger step. Thank you to everyone for all the discussion so far.