What is the Christian definition of God according to the bible?

[Vilferatus]

This is a question about definition, not denomination.

When I ask, “What is the Christian definition of God according to the Bible?”, I am not asking:

- What does your church say God is?
- What does the Nicene Creed say God is?
- What does a particular theologian say God is?
- What definition have you personally been taught?

I am asking:

If we take the Bible as a whole, what does the biblical text itself establish that “God” is?

And by “definition,” I mean more than simply listing attributes such as omnipotent, eternal, loving, holy, etc. Those describe God, but they do not necessarily tell us what God is.

So I think the question should be approached by examining the biblical data as a whole:

1. How does the Bible use the word “God” (God/Elohim/Theos)?
2. Who or what does the Bible explicitly identify as God?
3. What distinctions does the Bible make between God, the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit?
4. Does the Bible define God as a being, a person, a nature, a substance, a relationship, or something else?
5. What does “one God” mean within the biblical text?
6. How does the definition account for passages that distinguish the Father from the Son while also calling both “God”?
7. How does it account for passages concerning the Holy Spirit?
8. How does the definition fit with the broader message of the Gospel rather than being constructed from a few isolated verses?
9. Does the proposed definition remain logically coherent when all the relevant passages are considered together?

I am especially interested in a definition that satisfies three conditions:

1. Biblical: It should be grounded in the actual biblical text.

2. Holistic: It should account for the relevant passages across the Bible rather than selecting only those that support a predetermined theological system.

3. Rationally coherent: The resulting definition should not require us to redefine ordinary terms or accept contradictions simply because a particular theological tradition requires it.

I am not asking anyone to abandon their theological tradition. I am asking something more fundamental:

«Before we appeal to a theological system to explain the Bible, what definition of “God” can we actually derive from the Bible itself?»

If someone believes the biblical definition is consistent with Nicene Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, LDS theology, or another Christian model, that's fine.

But then the important question is:

Can you demonstrate that definition from the biblical text as a whole, and explain how the relevant passages fit together?

That is the discussion I am interested in.

[1213]

This is a question about definition, not denomination.

When I ask, “What is the Christian definition of God according to the Bible?”, I am not asking:

- What does your church say God is?
- What does the Nicene Creed say God is?
- What does a particular theologian say God is?
- What definition have you personally been taught?

I am asking:

If we take the Bible as a whole, what does the biblical text itself establish that “God” is?....

...the only true God...
John 17:3
...is greater than all...
John 10:29
...is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24
He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8
We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]

If we take the Bible as a whole, what does the biblical text itself establish that “God” is?....

...the only true God...
John 17:3
...is greater than all...
John 10:29
...is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24
He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8
We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

___________________________________

A whole-Bible count is interpretive, but approximately 25 distinct characteristics are explicitly attributed to God.

As a creative writer, I say that the number seems a little low.
I can think of hundreds of characteristics that aren't mentioned in the bible.

I think that Christians can be just as creative and might not have to restrict their ideas about God to what the Bible authors mentioned. The characteristics seem to be hyperbolic in the same sense that a man in love will talk about his wife.

There are books full of love letters full of imaginative hyperbole.
Of course, there's no need to attempt a demonstration of husbands, wives, and the thousands of lover letters they send to each other.

We have a need to wonder about if the God of the bible is "real".
That's a huge difference.

As to Christians using creative hyperbole, some Christians, for example, call themselves "slaves to Christ"... making it seem that God is a slave master.

Of course, this is metaphorical slavery, not real slaves like Jesus never commanded to be free.

The term used in the original language can mean slave or servant, depending on the translation and context. The label "Lord and Master" also needs interpretation.

All of the terms used to describe God in the bible are debated in theological circles... that's not pointing to a very clear idea of what the God is supposed to be.

It seems to me that the term "God" can mean anything at all.

There's a bible list of definitions, there's subjective Christian beliefs that are derivative from how the Bible describes him, and then, outsiders to your faith have no problem having their own secular descriptions that are also based on the bible.

When I read the bible, my conclusion about "what God is" can be wildly different from any Christian, I can use all sorts of creative ways to describe my reaction to the stories.

When I read the genesis flood I think " God is an evil genocidal maniac".
I use the bible to conclude it.

I can very easily make a case for that, and I hope that you will challenge me.
I would make a new post about it, and explain the whole idea in great detail, which would be great fun for me.

Let me know if you have an interest.
( I might end up doing it anyway... I like my fun !! )

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #3]

Yes, I would be interested in that argument, because I think it raises an important methodological question.

I agree that it is possible to read the flood narrative and conclude, “God is an evil genocidal maniac.” The fact that the Bible contains the narrative gives you material from which such an interpretation can be constructed.

But I don't think that is enough to establish the conclusion.

The interesting question is whether the whole biblical text actually supports that interpretation better than competing interpretations.

For example, there is a difference between:

«“I can interpret this particular action as morally evil.”»

and:

«“Therefore, the God presented by the Bible is an evil genocidal maniac.”»

The first is a moral interpretation of an event. The second is a much broader claim about the identity and character of the being the Bible calls God.

To establish the second claim, you would have to deal not only with the flood itself, but also with the biblical passages that describe God's character, purposes, justice, mercy, judgment, relationship with humanity, and the reasons given for particular acts.

And I don't mean that those other passages automatically prove the Christian interpretation. They don't. They are simply additional evidence that any whole-Bible interpretation has to account for.

Otherwise, the method becomes extremely powerful but also extremely unconstrained: I can select a disturbing episode, interpret the action in the strongest possible moral terms, and then use that interpretation to define the character of God. But I could do the same thing in reverse with passages emphasizing mercy and conclude that God is essentially a loving being.

Both conclusions would be based on the Bible in the loose sense that both use biblical material. That doesn't yet tell us which interpretation is actually warranted by the text as a whole.

So yes, please make the post. I'd genuinely enjoy testing the argument.

The part I'd be most interested in is not whether you can make a case that the flood was morally horrific. I think that's an interesting question in itself.

It would be whether you can move from:

“This action appears morally monstrous to me”

to:

“Therefore, the biblical God is properly defined as a morally monstrous being,”

while accounting for the rest of the biblical data.

That's where I think the really interesting philosophical discussion begins.

[1213]

....The term used in the original language can mean slave or servant, depending on the translation and context. ..

It is interesting how people choose when they use the translation slave and servant.

...When I read the genesis flood I think " God is an evil genocidal maniac".
I use the bible to conclude it.

I can very easily make a case for that, and I hope that you will challenge me.
I would make a new post about it, and explain the whole idea in great detail, which would be great fun for me.

Let me know if you have an interest.
( I might end up doing it anyway... I like my fun !! )

It is quite boring claim. But, I would like you first to define the words "evil", "genocidal" and "maniac".

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #4]

«“I can interpret this particular action as morally evil.”»

and:

«“Therefore, the God presented by the Bible is an evil genocidal maniac.”»

The first is a moral interpretation of an event. The second is a much broader claim about the identity and character of the being the Bible calls God.

_______________________________

Well, you might be making a valid argument, but when I say that someone is evil, I'm using a common English way of saying "The person did an evil deed that I dislike, and I consequently dislike that person for what he did."

I know that sometimes, people do evil things by mistake or because they are forced to. As an all powerful being, God can't do mistakes nor can he be forced to do something he doesn't want.

I hope that clarifies my use of the phrase "God is an evil genocidal maniac."

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #5]

It is quite boring claim. But, I would like you first to define the words "evil", "genocidal" and "maniac".

Please, don't underestimate my laziness.
I will bother when I post that debate topic.

Thanks.

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #6]

I understand, but thats not what I said. You claim is that God did those things, so thats why you consider Him evil. You have to prove He did those things in order for your conclusion to make sense.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #8]

I understand, but thats not what I said. You claim is that God did those things, so thats why you consider Him evil. You have to prove He did those things in order for your conclusion to make sense.

_______________________________________________

Yes, my claim is that god perpetrated genocide when he drowned almost everyone except for a certain family.

But words can have multiple usages.

Here is what I mean by genocide in the context of the Genesis flood.

Genocide is the deliberate destruction of a substantial portion of an identifiable human population or group of people.

In the flood narrative, God drowns everyone except for one family. This would be a very substantial portion of the identifiable human population.

Apparently they were identifiably evil.

I don't know about you, but the act of genocide is evil for me.
Sometimes, I say that a person is evil if he perpetrates genocide.

I would say the same of Hitler, for example.
His "Holocaust" was genocidal.

I don't think of Hitler as a morally "good" person.
I feel the same about the God of the bible.. except, Hitler was real.
His Holocaust is well documented as being real.
The bible story is most probably a myth.

In order to prove that the story contains a genocide in the flood narrative.. one only has to read a bit of Genesis.

Here is my proof:

Genesis 6:13: “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.”

Genesis 6:17: “I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life.”

Genesis 7:4: “For in seven days I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”

Genesis 7:21–22: “And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings. Everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.”

Genesis 6:7: “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created.”

Genesis 7:23: “Only Noah and those with him in the ark were left.”

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #9]

Then your claim is that God is evil for that genocide. What is morality according to you? Cause if you think He was evil for doing it, then you must have a standard of what morality is.

I personally dont look at it as an evil act.

This is an extreme scenario but it would be analogic to the case you are presenting:

If you see someone commiting sexual abuse to you dauther, and you kill him to prevent him to keep doing it, while he is doing it... was that evil?

Now, right now im just asking about your personal moral interpretation about, But whatever you anwer, is not an abjective standard for morallity, it would be just your opinion.

So, again: what is the definition or standard of morality you are using to judge God as evil?