Defining God

[brightlights]

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?

The practice of definition itself has many problems. No definition is really totally precise or concrete. But if asked to define God I would say: God is the person that created the world, brought Israel out of Egypt, and raised Jesus Christ from the dead.

 

[brightlights]

NT scholarship is interesting but useless if the biblical God can't be defined.

Defining God really isn't the relevant issue. God is a person and so it would be more helpful to talk about becoming acquainted with him and knowing him personally.

Define Johnny Cash.

 

[brightlights]

You could also go with Jesus Christ. Paul says: "He is the image of the invisible God." To know Jesus is to know God.

 

[durangodawood]

Defining God really isn't the relevant issue. God is a person and so it would be more helpful to talk about becoming acquainted with him and knowing him personally.

Define Johnny Cash.

Person
Songwriter
Guitar player
Grew up in T town, in S state
Parents were x and y
Children were a and b
was artistically interested in themes c and d
Liked to wear color B

 

[Davian]

...

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.

How about a definition that would, in some objective manner, differentiate your god from simply being a character in a book?

 

[Davian]

Defining God really isn't the relevant issue. God is a person and so it would be more helpful to talk about becoming acquainted with him and knowing him personally.

Define Johnny Cash.

God is a person, like Johnny Cash? Human? Male? Born? Can he also die?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Defining God really isn't the relevant issue. God is a person and so it would be more helpful to talk about becoming acquainted with him and knowing him personally.

Define Johnny Cash.

God is supposedly omnipotent and all knowing, I highly doubt defining an individual human being compares to attempting to define god.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

You could also go with Jesus Christ. Paul says: "He is the image of the invisible God." To know Jesus is to know God.

Amen.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You could also go with Jesus Christ. Paul says: "He is the image of the invisible God." To know Jesus is to know God.

Hardly, Jesus is just a part of the trinity, it would be like saying you can understand an elephant just by seeing its trunk.

 

[Davian]

You could also go with Jesus Christ. Paul says: "He is the image of the invisible God." To know Jesus is to know God.

How do you get an image of the invisible? Could Jesus go invisible too?

 

[Dave Ellis]

How do you get an image of the invisible? Could Jesus go invisible too?

Stealth Jesus!

 

[brightlights]

God is a person, like Johnny Cash? Human? Male? Born? Can he also die?

Johnny Cash is a person like God. God is the original person. God did take on humanity but He hasn't always been human. God contains both masculinity and femininity, in a sense, but he is a male in Christ. He was born in a manger 2000 years ago but he also existed before his birth. He did die on a cross but he is also eternally existing and can never not exist.

 

[brightlights]

How do you get an image of the invisible? Could Jesus go invisible too?

God is not visible unless he chooses to be. When he chose to become visible it was Jesus Christ.

 

[Davian]

Johnny Cash is a person like God.

That is not what I asked. I have no idea what gods are like, so you switched them around, you rendered it meaningless. I am a person, I know persons. I unfamiliar with gods.

God is the original person.

Person (noun): a human being
(Merriam-Webster)

God is human? How did he live prior to the Earth being habitable to humans?

God did take on humanity but He hasn't always been human.

Not human. What is he when he is not human other than not human?

God contains both masculinity and femininity, in a sense, but he is a male in Christ.

God is a hermaphrodite?

He was born in a manger 2000 years ago but he also existed before his birth.

Of course. He had to get Mary pregnant with himself. Did Mary have a say in that?

He did die on a cross but he is also eternally existing

Did he die or not?

and can never not exist.

Why not? Only because your story falls apart if that is not so? And, by any objective measure, this is all indistinguishable from myth?

 

[Davian]

God is not visible unless he chooses to be. When he chose to become visible it was Jesus Christ.

So Jesus could not go invisible? Could he do the drinking of poison and handling of snakes?

 

[Achilles6129]

I used wiki because they have the sources on the bottom.

Then why not just use the sources themselves? Anyone can edit Wikipedia; that's the problem with using it as a source.

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

The church did not "add" the names, the Gospels were always ascribed to the persons to whom they are now ascribed. There has never been any doubt whatsoever in the church. All the early church fathers are unanimous in regards to the gospels; Blomberg states that the early church knew already in the first century that the authors were Matthew/Mark/Luke/John.

Source: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed., by Craig Blomberg (pg. 27).

Irenaeus/Papias agree that Matthew was the author of the first gospel; Blomberg adds that they provide evidence that Matthew was written in the 50s/60s. Your interpretation is a very liberal one.

Source: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed., by Craig Blomberg (pp. 25-26).

And, of course, we come back to the point that the gospels must have been written by insiders. The only ones who are candidates are the apostles, or someone who knew the apostles quite well (like Luke or Mark).

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

Introduction - the Gospels

I'm not sure who wrote that article you're quoting from, as I do not see a name on the site, but there is really no doubt as to who wrote the four gospels. As I have said, the only doubts come from the extreme liberalism that's been introduced into Christianity.