Trinitarian God vs. Zeus

[JacksonS]

One of the young adults in my church is in University and taking a course on Greek Mythology.

She has decided to write on the topic Trinitarian God vs. Zeus.

Any ideas as to how she should tackle this? Passages? Resourses?

[Marv]

Acts 14

11 And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, 15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. 16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” 18 Even with these words they scarcely restrained the people from offering sacrifice to them.

[John Roberts]

“The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!”

Possibily where the trinitarian idea can from (pagan philosophy?) But Paul says NO! we are mortals, our nature is mortal, God is immortal. Only God has immortality (1 Tim 6:16). Jesus was mortal, Paul was mortal, Barnabas was motal, all men are mortal. We seek for immortality (Rom 2:7; 1 Cor 15:54)

[New John]

I would take the individual characteristics we use to describe the nature of our God and explain how those apply to the Trinitarian God and then how they apply (or don't) to Zeus. To add a little humor, I'd write from a follower of Zeus perspective a describe how I much prefer a God that is unpredictable (eliminates boredom in life), not all-knowing (can get away with all sorts of things), etc.

[Chad Gibbons]

I'd spend some time focusing on sources and genres. Perhaps a juxtaposition of the gospels and their settings in history vs. the mythology of Zeus separated from history. As far as I can recall, Zeus' first appearance is near the opening chapters of Iliad where he is seen arguing with Hera on Olympus.

[Ratatösk]

I think I’d develop some of the differences between them. Not in regards to whether or not either exists, but what it is specifically would be are claiming does or doesn't exist, if we were to make such a claim.

Zeus (like Marduck and Odin, too) springs from a pre-existing deity.
Father, Son and Spirit are eternal.

Zeus is personal at the expense of being finite.
Father Son and Spirit are personal and transcendent.

Zeus is for Zeus.
Father, Son and Spirit are always looking to another.

Zeus is at the mercy of the Fates.
Father, Son and Spirit are sovereign Lord’s of all creation.

Zeus is an example of an Olympian, ontologically.
There is nothing behind Father, Son and Holy Spirit, ontologically.

Chaos is the most fundamental reality in the world of Zeus.
Ecstatic Shalom characterizes the existence of the blessed Trinity.

Zeus conquers the inevitable violence with violence.
Father, Son and Spirit overcome violence with self-sacrificial love.

Zeus is selfish.
Father, Son and Spirit exist as eternally interpenetrating giver, gift and gifting.

Zeus’s true nature is most clearly seen in the glory of his conquests of enemies and women (and boys).
The blessed Trinity’s nature is most clearly seen in the cross.

Etc.

These aren’t simply statements; there is a logic to them as they lead to each other.

The world is radically different depending on which conception of deity you believe in.

This pagan version is much to be preferred to the navel gazing and isolated transcendent god of the Enlightenment.

[John Roberts]

"Zeus is at the mercy of the Fates.
Father, Son and Spirit are sovereign Lord’s of all creation."

Are you sure you want to say "Lord's"?

because there are many that are called gods and lords but to us there is but one God and one Lord (1 Cor 8:5-6)


Ratatösk said:

I think I’d develop some of the differences between them. Not in regards to whether or not either exists, but what it is specifically would be are claiming does or doesn't exist, if we were to make such a claim.

Zeus (like Marduck and Odin, too) springs from a pre-existing deity.
Father, Son and Spirit are eternal.

Zeus is personal at the expense of being finite.
Father Son and Spirit are personal and transcendent.

Zeus is for Zeus.
Father, Son and Spirit are always looking to another.

Zeus is at the mercy of the Fates.
Father, Son and Spirit are sovereign Lord’s of all creation.

Zeus is an example of an Olympian, ontologically.
There is nothing behind Father, Son and Holy Spirit, ontologically.

Chaos is the most fundamental reality in the world of Zeus.
Ecstatic Shalom characterizes the existence of the blessed Trinity.

Zeus conquers the inevitable violence with violence.
Father, Son and Spirit overcome violence with self-sacrificial love.

Zeus is selfish.
Father, Son and Spirit exist as eternally interpenetrating giver, gift and gifting.

Zeus’s true nature is most clearly seen in the glory of his conquests of enemies and women (and boys).
The blessed Trinity’s nature is most clearly seen in the cross.

Etc.

These aren’t simply statements; there is a logic to them as they lead to each other.

The world is radically different depending on which conception of deity you believe in.

This pagan version is much to be preferred to the navel gazing and isolated transcendent god of the Enlightenment.

[Ratatösk]

Sure,,, but as you point out it isn't enough.

Our language strains when speaking of the God-Who-Is-Three-In-One. Our language isn't the measure of him, though.

My limitations don't tempt me to heresy, John.

Like I said, there is nothing as pathetic and unattractive as the hermit monad god of enlightenment monotheism.

[Ratatösk]

Jackson, as for resources- Hesiod's Theogony is a primary source on the 'genealogy' of the gods and goddesses.

Leithart's Heroes of the City of Man has some helpful analysis of the contrast of between a pagan and Xian account of creation in relation to the concepts of deity involved. I'd check at a library.

Martin Davis's site has a wonderful analysis of the practical importance of Trinitarian distinctives. Go back and start at the beginning- Why a doctrine of the Trinity- and work your way forward.

[Damian]

Plato dismantled the idea that Zeus is the equivalent of the "supreme good" which he called the "true God" 300 + years before the time of Christ. The arguments still hold. For a good outline of this, she can read "The Doctrine of God: Contours of Christian Theology" by Gerald Bray. Chapter 1 is most relevant.

Damian

[joan elizabeth mazzu]

everything I'm saying here is second and third-hand info; so you'll have to verifiy if you use it, but:
1) zeus , theo, and deo are all from the same root.
2) in the jewish confession of faith (call to faith) "here O Israel. The Lord your God is one. . ." The word translated "one" means a complex singularity (There is an actual term in linguistics. I just don't know it.)
at some point jewish scholars replaced that hebrew term for the other term that means a singular one.
I think i'm right on this. The hebrew word in that call to faith is "echad".

[joan elizabeth mazzu]

check earlier discussions "Jesus the Christ:Divine or not?" and "Explaining the Trinity:To do or not to do?"
mike gabriel also gave some links in his answer. I gave my thoughts in more detail there, too.

[JacksonS]

Thanks for the responses, anyone else want to add... I just wanted this to stay out of the abyss for a little longer.