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.

[bluegreenearth]

In my framework, God is not an agent. God is the Absolute Standard, the Supreme Order, and the Highest State of Reality... An agent can become God, or in better words, perfectly express the divine state, but the Standard itself (God) remains immutable and eternal.

So everything you said make no sense in my framework... because you are trying for the million time, to impose your dogmas in my framework.

Why do you keep going on about imposed dogmas? My internal critique was honestly attempting to examine your framework from within it without imposing anything from the outside. If I misunderstood your framework, then any errors in the internal critique were a function of that misunderstanding, not an externally imposed dogma.

I'll consider the clarification you provided above and apply it in my next attempt at an internal critique of your framework.

[bluegreenearth]

In my framework, God is not an agent. God is the Absolute Standard, the Supreme Order, and the Highest State of Reality... An agent can become God, or in better words, perfectly express the divine state, but the Standard itself (God) remains immutable and eternal.

Please clarify further because your response is a bit incoherent. If not an agent, then what does it mean to claim the god is an absolute standard, the supreme order, and the highest state of reality? Is the god a universal quantum field or something like that?

[Vilferatus]

In my framework, God is not an agent. God is the Absolute Standard, the Supreme Order, and the Highest State of Reality... An agent can become God, or in better words, perfectly express the divine state, but the Standard itself (God) remains immutable and eternal.

Please clarify further because your response is a bit incoherent. If not an agent, then what does it mean to claim the god is an absolute standard, the supreme order, and the highest state of reality? Is the god a universal quantum field or something like that?

God is the Law that sustains and directs reality itself in its Supreme State through the Light that contains it. In that sense, the Light of God would be the executive component (I am also unaware of the exact nature of this Light; I do not know if it is matter or an entirely different category). Now, why can a Being be called God, as in the case of the Father? Because the Father is literally the personal expression of that Law and Supreme State, with the distinction that this Being is an agent. God is not.

And please, when you said it was incoherent, can you point out where the incoherence is?

[bluegreenearth]

God is the Law that sustains and directs reality itself in its Supreme State through the Light that contains it. In that sense, the Light of God would be the executive component (I am also unaware of the exact nature of this Light; I do not know if it is matter or an entirely different category). Now, why can a Being be called God, as in the case of the Father? Because the Father is literally the personal expression of that Law and Supreme State, with the distinction that this Being is an agent. God is not.

What does it mean to claim that reality itself has a supreme state? What does it mean to claim that a light contains reality?

And please, when you said it was incoherent, can you point out where the incoherence is?

That is a fair request.

The terms, absolute standard, supreme order, and highest state of reality, do not describe anything I can reasonably conceptualize at the moment without further clarification.

I understand a "standard" to be an abstract and subjective concept that doesn't actually exist in reality. So, the idea of an "absolute" standard doesn't describe anything coherent from my perspective.

I understand "order" to be a description of how some things and events in the universe are arranged in spacial or temporal proximity to each other. I don't understand what it would mean to claim that a set of things or events had a "supreme" order.

I understand "reality" to be an absolute state and not divisible into progressively lower and higher states. Therefore, the phrase "highest state of reality" doesn't make sense to me.

[Vilferatus]

God is the Law that sustains and directs reality itself in its Supreme State through the Light that contains it. In that sense, the Light of God would be the executive component (I am also unaware of the exact nature of this Light; I do not know if it is matter or an entirely different category). Now, why can a Being be called God, as in the case of the Father? Because the Father is literally the personal expression of that Law and Supreme State, with the distinction that this Being is an agent. God is not.

What does it mean to claim that reality itself has a supreme state? What does it mean to claim that a light contains reality?

And please, when you said it was incoherent, can you point out where the incoherence is?

That is a fair request.

The terms, absolute standard, supreme order, and highest state of reality, do not describe anything I can reasonably conceptualize at the moment without further clarification.

I understand a "standard" to be an abstract and subjective concept that doesn't actually exist in reality. So, the idea of an "absolute" standard doesn't describe anything coherent from my perspective.

I understand "order" to be a description of how some things and events in the universe are arranged in spacial or temporal proximity to each other. I don't understand what it would mean to claim that a set of things or events had a "supreme" order.

I understand "reality" to be an absolute state and not divisible into progressively lower and higher states. Therefore, the phrase "highest state of reality" doesn't make sense to me.

1. I never said Light contains reality, I said the Light that cointains God is God. It would be the same as saying: The body that contains the soul of a person, is that person.

2. Abstract is not the same as subjective... Do you think that the laws of logic or maths... are subjective? No, they are objective, but they are abstract.

3. You said: "I understand "order" to be a description of how some things and events in the universe are arranged in spacial or temporal proximity to each other." Well Supreme Order is the the way the reality functions to function. For example: If your brain was anatomically in the position where you foot is... do you think human life would be viable? The answer is no... that would be a pretty stupid order. So the best order possible, that is God.
This actually takes us to the next point

4. You said: "I understand "reality" to be an absolute state and not divisible into progressively lower and higher states. Therefore, the phrase "highest state of reality" doesn't make sense to me." If there is a better order than others... the reality could potentially be worse than it is... but it is not... the question is why?

The answer in my framework is because God exist.

And btw, you just showed no incoherence in any of my propositions, you just showed an explaination on why you dont understand it. Those are not the same thing.

[bluegreenearth]

1. I never said Light contains reality, I said the Light that cointains God is God. It would be the same as saying: The body that contains the soul of a person, is that person.

Alright. So, how do you square this claim with the law of identity in your framework?

2. Abstract is not the same as subjective... Do you think that the laws of logic or maths... are subjective? No, they are objective, but they are abstract.

First of all, my stated understanding was that a "standard" is an abstract AND subjective concept. That doesn't mean I understand all abstract things to be the same as subjective things. Secondly, I understand the laws of logic and maths to be languages people invented to describe the reality we all seem to experience. The fact of the matter is that there are different kinds of logics and maths people play around with, but I'm not going to pretend to know what they are. So, in that sense, the languages are subjective even if the reality they are attempting to describe is objective.

In any case, I stand by my understanding of what a "standard" is but still don't understand what an "absolute standard" is or how it functions within your framework.

3. You said: "I understand "order" to be a description of how some things and events in the universe are arranged in spacial or temporal proximity to each other." Well Supreme Order is the the way the reality functions to function. For example: If your brain was anatomically in the position where you foot is... do you think human life would be viable? The answer is no... that would be a pretty stupid order. So the best order possible, that is God.
This actually takes us to the next point

4. You said: "I understand "reality" to be an absolute state and not divisible into progressively lower and higher states. Therefore, the phrase "highest state of reality" doesn't make sense to me." If there is a better order than others... the reality could potentially be worse than it is... but it is not... the question is why?

What is the justification for the implied claim that the functionality of the order we observe in the universe could have been something other than what it is? What is the justification for the value judgement you are placing on the order observed in the reality we experience?

I still don't understand what the phrase "highest state of reality" means or how it functions in the context of your framework.

The answer in my framework is because God exist.
And btw, you just showed no incoherence in any of my propositions, you just showed an explaination on why you dont understand it. Those are not the same thing.

And btw, when I stated your response was incoherent, I meant that it was incoherent to me. It would be courteous if you could make an effort to be more charitable in your interpretations of my responses in the future. I will try to offer you the same courtesy.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #1]

1. How does the Bible use the word “God” (God/Elohim/Theos)?

To identify an immortal or divine being (sometimes also men who will one day become immortal.)

Blue letter bible includes magistrates, judges, representatives of God, some root words include mighty ones. Blue letter bible also includes 'godly or godward' as a possible rendering:

εός theós, theh'-os; of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very:—X exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward).


https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

2. Who or what does the Bible explicitly identify as God?

• The Most Holy One (not sure if there is a scripture that includes 'most', but the Temple is a physical example of the spiritual reality: Most Holy Place = Most Holy One; Holy Place (through which one must pass before coming to the Most Holy Place) = the Holy One, Christ. "No one comes to the Father except through the Son."

• God Most High (same person as above)Luke 1:32, Luke 6:35, Genesis 14:22

• The Father of Christ (same person as above) John 8:54; Matthew 17:5

• The Creator (same person as above) Hebrews 11:3, Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 42:5

• JAH, the name of God (same person as above) - Psalm 68:4

• YHWH or [the LORD] (same person as above) - Genesis 2:4

• The Son of God (different person than above, and sometimes with a big "G" and sometimes a little 'g', depending on the translation)

• sometimes men (who are adopted sons of God): Psalm 82:6; John 10:34-36: “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’? / If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— / then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

• sometimes angels (as immortal beings)

3. What distinctions does the Bible make between God, the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit?

God is the Father. (the Father of Christ, the Most Holy One, whose name is JAH) - Christ Himself states that he is the Son of God, that God is His Father.
Christ is the Son of God, the Chosen One of JAH ("This is my Son, whom I have chosen"), the Holy One of God (John 6:69.)
Holy Spirit is not described as God as far as I can recall. But there is controversy around the topic and in translations (where holy spirit is always personified, even though it should not be.)

Holy Spirit which is a person would be Christ (who is both Holy and the Spirit.)
Holy spirit which is not a person is the breath/blood/seed of JAH - which Christ pours out upon those He chooses (as He did with the apostles 'receive the holy spirit', breathing holy spirit upon them), which is the anointing we receive (if we receive it) that teaches and reminds us of all things (1John 2:27.)

4. Does the Bible define God as a being, a person, a nature, a substance, a relationship, or something else?

Answered above (I apologize if I have misunderstood what you meant by any of these questions.)

5. What does “one God” mean within the biblical text?

This is referring to the JAH (usually written as YHWH or [the LORD]). He is One God. He is not multiple gods.

6. How does the definition account for passages that distinguish the Father from the Son while also calling both “God”?

The word "God" is versatile and has multiple meanings. This is probably why God Most High is identified by a specific name (and a few other titles that describe Him - the Creator, the Most Holy one of Israel, the Father of Christ.)

And if men will be called gods (being adopted as sons of God), then how much more so the actual Son of God?

7. How does it account for passages concerning the Holy Spirit?

I think this question might apply only to people who believe "Holy Spirit" is God. I don't think there are any passages that state this, though.

8. How does the definition fit with the broader message of the Gospel rather than being constructed from a few isolated verses?

I tried to cover everything and all uses. I could have missed some.

9. Does the proposed definition remain logically coherent when all the relevant passages are considered together?

I think so, but someone else might need to point out if that is not so.


Peace again to you.