Is there a way to define the traditional theist God that isn't self contradictory? Every time I read up about this topic I get stuck with definitions where being all knowing is nonsensical, or being all good and all powerful conflict, etc etc. Can it be done?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Defining God
- Thread starter habanero
- Start date
They are also not really definitions, they don't make God distinct so that we could tell if it is operating in reality or not.
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
Defining something that is hidden from our lives or has a clear impact is next to impossible. Some use the bible to define God in a literal way and the problem with this, is it does not align with the reality of the world we live in. Others, come up with their own definitions, to try and reconcile the contradictions and that is where it goes off in a multitude of directions.
Upvote
0
Achilles6129
Veteran
Why would it be difficult to define God? Explain how the traditional view is contradictory. God would be omnipotent (meaning he can do anything within the boundaries of his nature), and omniscient (meaning he knows everything). However, and important distinction must be made when we talk about omnipotence: God cannot do something that is outside of his nature. So God is, in fact, bound by his own nature.
Hmm. Well I would say that if the Bible is true then the vast majority of people's conception of reality is false anyway. So perhaps your perception of reality is simply false?
Upvote
0
Achilles6129
Veteran
If your statement were true I would agree with you. But do you really think that the Bible was written by unknown authors? And do you really think that there is no evidence to support the Bible? Have you studied fulfilled Biblical prophecy or looked at other resources which detail the historical/archaeological evidence in support of the Scriptures?
Here's one link to a book by Kenneth Kitchen, an esteemed Egyptologist, on the reliability of the Old Testament:
On the Reliability of the Old Testament: K. A. Kitchen: 9780802803962: Amazon.com: Books
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
I have done a quite thorough investigation into the NT specifically, by reading the work of respected scholars and historians. In fact, this research, is what pushed me over the top in recognizing I was fooling myself into buying the Christian story.
The NT is a mixed bag at best, with significant credibility issues, when objectively viewed without the prejudice of preconceived notions that it must be true, just like any ancient book would be examined for credibility. Most scholars agree, the four gospels were penned by unknown authors and were written 40-70 years after Jesus died. The church attached the four names to the gospels about 150 years after Jesus died. In fact, the gospels themselves, don't claim to be written by the people whose name are attached to them.
Lastly, most NT historians will agree on the following four facts regarding Jesus with a high degree of reliability as being historical:
-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified
Beyond this, little else in the NT is thought to be historically credible by many NT historians, because when the historical method is applied, it just doesn't pass the test for various reasons. Most NT historians and scholars will say this; The bible is a book of theology, not a book of accurate history. It may have bits and pieces that are accurate, but as a whole, it is not a book of historical credibility.
In regards to prophecies, many were written after the fact or were worded so vaguely anyone can interpret them the way the like. There is a reason, the most prominent Christian apologists, rarely use prophecies in their debates, because they can be refuted with reason.
Upvote
0
A mix of indefinite "a being that cold do anything" , "not really like anything I experience ever" and some wishful thinking about how reality is nice.
More of a prayer than a definition.
Upvote
0
Achilles6129
Veteran
The NT is credible, just look at who it was written by:
1) Matthew (one of the 12 apostles)
2) John (one of the 12 apostles)
3) Peter (one of the 12 apostles)
4) Paul (leader of the early church)
5) Luke (companion of Paul)
6) Mark (companion of Peter/Paul)
7) James (half-brother of Christ)
8) Jude (half-brother of Christ)
9) Author of Hebrews (companion of Timothy, who was a companion of Paul)
I don't think so at all. I think you are judging based on what antisupernaturalist scholars say. Look at who the NT was written by: it doesn't get any more authentic than that!
Not true at all: the gospels were always ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, ever since we have records of them. The fact that the early church never doubted their authorship and the fact that they bear witness to facts that only an insider could know is proof that they were written by who they claim to be written by.
You need to check out some NT resources on this subject because if this is what "NT historians" are saying, then it is simply not true. Here are a few resources:
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?: F. F. Bruce: 9780802822192: Amazon.com: Books
http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Re...=UTF8&qid=1398815506&sr=1-2&keywords=blomberg
The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary: Craig L. Blomberg: 9780830838714: Amazon.com: Books
Here is a link to the Gospel Perspectives series:
Gospel Perspectives, Volume 1: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels: R. T. France: 9781592442898: Amazon.com: Books
These are monographs written by world-class scholars which examine many of the issues you mention. I have read several of the books in this series and they are excellent.
Well, the fact of the matter is that most Biblical prophecies were fulfilled during the prophet's lifetime, you are correct. Because of this, it is possible for antisupernaturalists to claim that they were somehow written into Scripture 'after the fact' and get away with it. However, there are some Biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled that it is impossible to fulfill after the fact; for example:
"26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the [aa]Messiah will be cut off and have [ab]nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary." Dan. 9:26a (NASB)
In Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks he has the Messiah dying and then the city and sanctuary being destroyed by the people of the prince (or ruler) who is to come. Christ died in 33 AD and Titus/the Romans destroyed the city/sanctuary in 70 AD. Even by the most antisupernaturalist dating, Daniel was written in the 160s BC (it wasn't, it was actually written circa 530 BC, but we'll just say the 160s for the sake of argument), therefore it would be impossible to go back and write this prophecy into the book of Daniel. Daniel predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple; this was fulfilled in 70 AD.
This is proof of the divine inspiration of the Bible. If you want more proof, you can check here:
Why do Christians Appeal to Fulfilled Prophecies to Prove the Bible is Gods Word? | Josh.org
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
You have chosen very conservative scholars to rely on, but they would be in the minority view point when it comes to historical reliability of the gospels.
Regarding the authors of the 4 gospels, MOST NT scholars and historians agree they are all anonymous and were written 40-70 years after Jesus died and were likely not eye witness accounts.
Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Upvote
0
Achilles6129
Veteran
#1 - You chose Wikipedia as a source.
#2 - There has been an extremely liberal trend in regards to theology that has been building for a very long time. This gives off the false impression that "the majority of scholars" is the common-sense, rational, logical point of view when in fact what we're talking about is simple antisupernaturalist bias. You don't go off of what "the majority of scholars" say, you go off of logic, reason, evidence, proof, and so on.
When you look at the evidence regarding the Gospels, there is absolutely no reason to not ascribe them to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I invite you to refute the previous reasons I posted:
1) They have always been ascribed to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John from the very earliest records in church history and to no-one else
2) They had to have been written by insiders
There is other evidence, too, but that is proof enough.
EDITED TO ADD: The individuals I cited are world-class scholars. They have penned monster commentaries on various books of the New Testament and are experts in their field. I would not dismiss names such as F.F. Bruce, R.T. France, Craig Blomberg, David Wenham, etc., lightly.
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,923
- 11,666
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Hi Habanero,
Perhaps we might also ask how we might estimate the extent to which the Judeo-Christian God wishes for us to know the exact parameters of His nature. It seems that for us to even consider such a 'measurement' is a bit on the side of the sublime.
When we look at Scripture, it seems God more often than not wants His people to know only particularities about who He is or what He will do rather than specifically about His full nature.
What is important for us isn't the analysis of denotations defining the possible attributes we can write on a list, such as those that often come packaged with the so-called 'philosopher's god,' but rather what is important for us to know is if God can do the things that He wishes to do. It really isn't so centered on whether God can do the things that we wish He could do.
Peace
Upvote
0
D
DiligentlySeekingGod
Guest
"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20)
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
I used wiki because they have the sources on the bottom.
I disagree with you and I have read the work of many historians and scholars and probably listened to a minimum of 30 debates in regards to the historicity of the NT.
The majority of historians and scholars, agree the four gospels were anonymous authors (the gospels themselves, don't even claim to be written by those names attached to them), the church added the names 150 years or so, after Jesus died
Lastly, the majority of historians will not state the NT is a historically accurate series of writings, they will say it is a work of theology, not history. Bits and pieces are thought to historical, but much of it does not meet the "historical method" criteria to be deemed "historical".
Bloomberg himself, acknowledges the gospels were anonymous, as do the vast majority of scholars.
The Bible's New Testament, which includes these four Gospels, was originally written entirely in Greek, the common language of the Mediterranean lands in Roman times. The first of the Gospels was probably Mark, written around 70 A.D., about 40 years after Jesus was crucified. Matthew and Luke were written between 80 and 90 A.D. Finally, The Gospel of John appeared in its final form around 95 A.D.
All four Gospels are anonymous in the sense that none includes the author's name. The traditional names - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - did not become associated with these writings until the second century. In the early centuries of Christianity, our four Gospels coexisted with a number of other Christian writings, many of which have not been preserved. Finally, the Synod of Carthage adopted the present twenty-seven New Testament books, including the four Gospels, as the canon of the New Testament in the year 397
http://www.christianbiblereference.org/jintro.htm
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Archie the Preacher
Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
- Apr 11, 2003
- 3,171
- 1,012
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
habanero said:
Habanero, providing a comprehensive definition of an Infinite Being is a bit daunting at best. Could you for instance, provide a comprehensive definition for your best friend? Or your dog? (Not 'a' dog, but the one who lives with you and has been your critter and friend and accomplice for many, many winters?) Neither of them are infinite as God is infinite.
I note the careful wording you use: '... traditional theist God ...' That's a bit more complex, as one then must account for all the 'variations' in understanding people have.
Allow me a question: Do you want to know God more fully and properly? Or are you looking for a handy label for casual use? A 'definition' will be vastly different depending on your intent.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
