# Give us your defense of the theory that Jesus is God. Atheists welcome. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2003, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046 "2003-11-02T22:54:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/21 "2003-11-03T04:43:01Z")
Maybe its just me **Svt4Him** ; It’s late and I’m tired, but what the hell did you just say? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/22 "2003-11-03T05:06:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Svt4Him \* > \*\*If God was to pay the price for man’s sin, and remain just (can’t just forget about it), how would you propose He do it? > > And if God were not as smart as you, and chose to become a human, in order to die for humans, how would you think He’d be born? \*\* Of course, if God is truly omnipotent, then he could just Poof! away ‘our sins’… Zeus could take the form of a white bull and do the deed with humans, so surely the Islamic-Judeo-Christian God can ‘create’ a deific Jesus. That is the beauty of the sci-fi/fantasy genre; You can do anything that you can imagine! ---
**Author:** ![Not\_In\_Anger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3ab097/32.png) [@Not\_In\_Anger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Not_In_Anger)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/23 "2003-11-03T05:35:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*Of course, if God is truly omnipotent, then he could just Poof! away ‘our sins’… > > Zeus could take the form of a white bull and do the deed with humans, so surely the Islamic-Judeo-Christian God can ‘create’ a deific Jesus. That is the beauty of the sci-fi/fantasy genre; You can do anything that you can imagine! \*\* Cool! I think I’ll write me up some new gods. After I’ve shovelled the actual existing snow off the actual existing walk, of course. ---
**Author:** ![DANDANIMAL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@DANDANIMAL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DANDANIMAL)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/24 "2003-11-03T07:53:37Z")
EXCELLENT!! An Athiest,a Pagan & a Muslim all glad handing each other. Typical. ---
**Author:** ![DANDANIMAL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@DANDANIMAL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DANDANIMAL)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/25 "2003-11-03T07:55:57Z")
ResIpsaloquitor, RIGHT ON!!! ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/26 "2003-11-03T08:29:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by El\_Kabong \* > OK, I don’t personally believe in a God, but from a theoretical standpoint I don’t have any difficulty imagining a God powerful enough to create a representation of Himself in human form. The human form doesn’t replace God, it’s an extension or manifestation of God. > > I really fail to see what the issue is here. I agree. And this is just my personal theory, so I hope noone takes offense, but I’ve always suspected that the God-man duality of Jesus is a paradox that’s not necessarily _supposed_ to be understood, and serves a similar purpose to the koan (paradoxical riddle) used in Zen Buddhism. IOW, it’s to be meditated on, not explained. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/27 "2003-11-03T08:53:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by El\_Kabong \* > \*\*OK, I don’t personally believe in a God, but from a theoretical standpoint I don’t have any difficulty imagining a God powerful enough to create a representation of Himself in human form. The human form doesn’t replace God, it’s an extension or manifestation of God. > > I really fail to see what the issue is here. \*\* Not that I wish to argue, but I’m pretty sure that mainstream (whatever that means) Christianity holds that Jesus was more than just a representation of God; that the Jesus-part of God actually departed from heaven and fully inhabited a human form, as a resident, rather than a telepresence. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/28 "2003-11-03T12:50:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Not that I wish to argue, but I’m pretty sure that mainstream (whatever that means) Christianity holds that Jesus was more than just a representation of God; that the Jesus-part of God actually departed from heaven and fully inhabited a human form, as a resident, rather than a telepresence. Good point, and more accurate than my comment. Maybe what **Alde** is really saying is that he doesn’t get the concept of the Trinity, in which case he would not be alone. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/29 "2003-11-03T13:02:59Z")
You’re probably right and (at least as far as I understand the concept) I think the doctrine of the trinity is that the trinity is impossible to properly describe (very Tao/Zen). But it is possible to describe what the trinity _ **isn’t** _; It isn’t three Gods (because it is one God in three persons) It isn’t one God split into equal thirds (because each person is ‘fully’ God) It isn’t one person doing three different jobs, or just three different ways of looking at the same thing. I think that another part of **Aldebaran** ’s trouble is the idea of a holy God getting his hands dirty; the only real way to respond to this is that Christians believe that God _chose_ to get his hands dirty and if he wanted to do something, but was unable to, then he wouldn’t be God. (immovable rocks notwithstanding). ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/30 "2003-11-03T13:33:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Not In Anger \* > \*\*Thanks Aldebaran. They needed an unanswerable question, for humility. Atheist here. The concept of god is impossible, since no such a thing could possibly exist. It is outside the laws of physics, the first principle of which is that all things exist and have force, things that don’t exist are irrelevant to the study of physics. If you cannot believe whole-heartedly in the impossibility of god, then you cannot logically believe in anything. \*\*Do you hold that it’s impossible for anything to exist in a state or nature or construct outside of our own physical universe? And to clarify, I’m not asking if you believe such a thing has occurred, only if it is possible. A related question: Has this physical universe always existed? > [@](#): > > \*\* As far as Jesus is concerned, that’s just another superstition promulgated by people in big cults or people afraid of their own mortality, for some inexplicable reason.\*\* You know this how? Is this just an issue of faith for you, or do you have something to support this contention? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/31 "2003-11-03T13:38:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > \*\* A related question: Has this physical universe always existed? You know this how? Is this just an issue of faith for you, or do you have something to support this contention? \*\* It is not up to the atheists to disprove the existence of whatever the diety of the millienium is. ---
**Author:** ![mrsam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5ac83/32.png) [@mrsam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrsam)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/32 "2003-11-03T13:55:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > \*\*A related question: Has this physical universe always existed? You know this how? Is this just an issue of faith for you, or do you have something to support this contention? \*\* [Linkety link.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=203743) ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/33 "2003-11-03T14:35:17Z")
According to Christian theology, in Jesus Christ God became a man, totally human, and yet remained completely divine. (See article II of the [Thirty-Nine Articles](http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1571-39articles.html) of the Anglican churches: “The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.”) The 2000 [Baptist Faith and Message](http://www.utm.edu/martinarea/fbc/bfm/2.html) (Southern Baptist Convention) states that “God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures”, a statement which I think would be accepted by most Christian theologians. I don’t think either of these statements would be disputed by Catholic theologians, other Protestants from within the mainstream of Protestant theology, or (probably) Orthodox theologians. If Jesus Christ was God incarnated, then was Jesus Christ omniscient–did he have perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future? Did he have such knowledge even while he was a baby in the manger? On the one hand, if Jesus _was_ omniscient, it seems hard to justify saying that God “became a man”. To a human being, with limited knowledge, events take place in sequence, we exist in a changing universe, and we experience the flow of time. To an omniscient God, with perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future, all things would appear to have already happened, and the universe would be a static whole, with all parts of it already grasped, viewed from an eternal perspective outside time. Omniscience is such a radical departure from the human condition, and the mind of a being with perfect knowledge must be so different from the mind of a being like ourselves, that while God might create a man-shaped apparition which humans could talk to and which could appear to eat and sleep and so on, God could not really become a man. On the other hand, it may be that Jesus was _not_ omniscient when he was a human being. (See [Mark 13:32](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=mark+13%3A32&NIV_version=yes&language=english).) Perhaps God voluntary gave up some of his divine attributes when he was incarnated as a man. However, while it’s possible to imagine Zeus voluntarily giving up his ability to hurl thunderbolts for a time, and yet still remaining as Zeus, omniscience is so central to the kind of being the Christian God is that I don’t see how God could give up such things and remain himself. A human might voluntarily surrender the power of sight or the ability to move for some period of time, and yet remain himself; but it would be meaningless for a human to “incarnate” himself as a statue. He might _create_ a statue, he might _act_ like a statue for some period of time (by simply holding still), but he couldn’t _become_ a statue without ceasing to be a person. Of course Arians (and Jehovah’s Witnesses) have said that Jesus was not really the omniscient God, but was simply the highest of God’s creations–the “Son of God” in a different sense–but this view is and has been rejected by the great majority of Christians. It might be imagined that the omnscient God would have perfect knowledge of what it was like to be Jesus Christ incarnated as a human being, but an omniscient God should already have perfect knowledge of the thoughts and feelings of _all_ human beings. The response that God is omnipotent and can therefore do anything he wants, and can therefore meaningfully become a human being while retaining omniscience, or meaningfully surrender omniscience while remaining the Christian God, opens the door to all sorts of arguments of the “Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?” sort. (And note that the [1917 _Catholic Encyclopedia_](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/) has no problem with defining [omnipotence](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm) as “the power of God to effect whatever is not _intrinsically impossible_”–_empahsis_ added–so the traditional conception of omnipotence is not just some logical “Get Out of Jail Free” card.) There is of course the response that this is simply a “Mystery”, but that response obviously solves nothing. In my opinion, the problems of the Incarnation are worse than the problems of the Trinity, and it’s no wonder so many Christian heresies have arisen from people trying to reconcile what it means for an omniscient God to become a human being. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/34 "2003-11-03T14:54:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*It is not up to the atheists to disprove the existence of whatever the diety of the millienium is. \*\* No, indeed it is not. That’s why I find it curious when one seems to have done so, and I become interested in what supports their conclusion. Those atheists that would prefer not to discuss those positions probably shouldn’t offer them. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/35 "2003-11-03T15:19:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mrsam \* > \*\*[Linkety link.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=203743) \*\* An interest linkety-link it is. Are you suggesting that this shows that there is no existence possible outside of our Universe’s context? Do you believe this counters an argument I am implying? I found this interesting and accurate from blowero: > [@](#): > > \*\*Other universes are not ruled out, they just can’t be linked to our universe by a chain of events. If there are other universes, there would be a temporal disconnect between them. Science does not interest itself with sheer speculation, so until some evidence becomes available, the question, “Do things exist outside of the universe?” must remain unanswered. It’s not ruled out; it’s just not related in the way that some people assert that it is. \*\*This rings true to me, and it allows that our Universe is simply the only existential construct we understand (but not necessarily the only one that is or was or will be). God’s existence can’t be proven or disproven (not based on what we know now). Those who state God does not exist do so, I can only assume, out of a sort of faith. It’s another thing entirely to say, I am not convinced there is a God, as there is no scientific evidence to support such a being. Splitting semantical hairs perhaps (an atheist might counter, “I also don’t believe in pixies”), but apropos in this particular debate, it seems to me. ---
**Author:** ![Scarf-Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Scarf-Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarf-Ace)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/36 "2003-11-03T15:21:14Z")
Simply because Jesus was good (loving) without equal, and God is love. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/37 "2003-11-03T19:28:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > \*\*Not that I wish to argue, but I’m pretty sure that mainstream (whatever that means) Christianity holds that Jesus was more than just a representation of God; that the Jesus-part of God actually departed from heaven and fully inhabited a human form, as a resident, rather than a telepresence. \*\* I’m afraid anything I say will merely be a subset of **Buckner** ’s excellent post, but is it official doctrine that God actually _became_ Jesus? From the accounts in the Gospels, it would seem to me that God did not _leave_ heaven, but rather occupied both heaven and Earth simultaneously. When Jesus addresses God: “Why have you forsaken me?”, he isn’t talking to _himself_, is he? ---
**Author:** ![ResIpsaLoquitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b3f665/32.png) [@ResIpsaLoquitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ResIpsaLoquitor)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/38 "2003-11-03T19:41:49Z")
I’ve always thought of it this way: if I write myself into a novel, then I’m existing in both the omniscient form of the author and the limited form of a character at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/39 "2003-11-03T19:41:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > \*\*1. God is God = the uncreated, transcendent, eternal Creator of all > 2. No human is/can be God or God wouldn’t be God.(see above) > \*\* You seem to be very quick to put a limit on God’s powers. Why if God is all powerful cannot he chose to be Human? You do God a disservice if you think he is so0 limited in power. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2003, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046/40 "2003-11-03T20:01:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\*Perhaps God voluntary gave up some of his divine attributes when he was incarnated as a man. However, while it’s possible to imagine Zeus voluntarily giving up his ability to hurl thunderbolts for a time, and yet still remaining as Zeus, omniscience is so central to the kind of being the Christian God is that I don’t see how God could give up such things and remain himself. \*\* Why? Why couldn’t the defining attribute of God be the ability to love in an unqualified manner? Why couldn’t he retain this trait while voluntarily assuming a form that did not manifest all the traits of God (e.g., he could experience physical pain)? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/give-us-your-defense-of-the-theory-that-jesus-is-god-atheists-welcome/211046.md?page=3)