There is no "God of the Bible"

[Smellin Coffee]

There is no “God of the Bible” and I don’t mean that in some kind of atheistic “all gods are fairy tales” kind of way. I mean it in the sense that the Bible does not present a single depiction of God; rather it presents numerous different and frequently contradictory depictions of God.

The tendency is to add them all together and look at the sum to have a fuller picture of God. In doing so, we get a tangled, paradoxical mess.

What to do to get a true notion of a “God of the Bible” is negotiate with the text; center and prioritize certain depictions, then marginalize, reinterpret or outright ignore other depictions. All of this is in the interest of making the text more meaningful, more useful for us within a given context or situation.

This would mean any “God of the Bible” that we find is situationally emergent, negotiated divine profile because the Bible is not univocal and does not speak in a single unified voice and it does not present a single unified depiction of what God is.

Whatever we conclude, whether attempting to unify such depiction or trying to interpret context, we end up with God as a being of our own personal projection based on our logic and belief system.

When we worship God, we worship our perception, our projection of what we deem God is like as a being. To worship a projection of God is idolatry; hence, since we cannot help but project God, the worship of God is idolatry.

 

[abcaines]

There is no “God of the Bible” and I don’t mean that in some kind of atheistic “all gods are fairy tales” kind of way. I mean it in the sense that the Bible does not present a single depiction of God; rather it presents numerous different and frequently contradictory depictions of God.

The tendency is to add them all together and look at the sum to have a fuller picture of God. In doing so, we get a tangled, paradoxical mess.

What to do to get a true notion of a “God of the Bible” is negotiate with the text; center and prioritize certain depictions, then marginalize, reinterpret or outright ignore other depictions. All of this is in the interest of making the text more meaningful, more useful for us within a given context or situation.

This would mean any “God of the Bible” that we find is situationally emergent, negotiated divine profile because the Bible is not univocal and does not speak in a single unified voice and it does not present a single unified depiction of what God is.

Whatever we conclude, whether attempting to unify such depiction or trying to interpret context, we end up with God as a being of our own personal projection based on our logic and belief system.

When we worship God, we worship our perception, our projection of what we deem God is like as a being. To worship a projection of God is idolatry; hence, since we cannot help but project God, the worship of God is idolatry.

If you're looking for a God you can hold in your hand and understand, then your assumptions are correct.

 

[zechariah]

There is no “God of the Bible” and I don’t mean that in some kind of atheistic “all gods are fairy tales” kind of way. I mean it in the sense that the Bible does not present a single depiction of God; rather it presents numerous different and frequently contradictory depictions of God.

The tendency is to add them all together and look at the sum to have a fuller picture of God. In doing so, we get a tangled, paradoxical mess.

What to do to get a true notion of a “God of the Bible” is negotiate with the text; center and prioritize certain depictions, then marginalize, reinterpret or outright ignore other depictions. All of this is in the interest of making the text more meaningful, more useful for us within a given context or situation.

This would mean any “God of the Bible” that we find is situationally emergent, negotiated divine profile because the Bible is not univocal and does not speak in a single unified voice and it does not present a single unified depiction of what God is.

Whatever we conclude, whether attempting to unify such depiction or trying to interpret context, we end up with God as a being of our own personal projection based on our logic and belief system.

When we worship God, we worship our perception, our projection of what we deem God is like as a being. To worship a projection of God is idolatry; hence, since we cannot help but project God, the worship of God is idolatry.

Your post makes me even more lost

 

[aleshanee]

There is no “God of the Bible” and I don’t mean that in some kind of atheistic “all gods are fairy tales” kind of way. I mean it in the sense that the Bible does not present a single depiction of God; rather it presents numerous different and frequently contradictory depictions of God.

The tendency is to add them all together and look at the sum to have a fuller picture of God. In doing so, we get a tangled, paradoxical mess.

What to do to get a true notion of a “God of the Bible” is negotiate with the text; center and prioritize certain depictions, then marginalize, reinterpret or outright ignore other depictions. All of this is in the interest of making the text more meaningful, more useful for us within a given context or situation.

This would mean any “God of the Bible” that we find is situationally emergent, negotiated divine profile because the Bible is not univocal and does not speak in a single unified voice and it does not present a single unified depiction of what God is.

Whatever we conclude, whether attempting to unify such depiction or trying to interpret context, we end up with God as a being of our own personal projection based on our logic and belief system.

When we worship God, we worship our perception, our projection of what we deem God is like as a being. To worship a projection of God is idolatry; hence, since we cannot help but project God, the worship of God is idolatry.

you have been on this deep dive into darkness and apostacy for a long time now.... and each time you come back here it seems you have gone even deeper still.... ... do you ever get concerned that you might one day reach a point of no return?.....

many people in christian circles say that as long as a person is alive they have not yet reached that point.... but in ocean free diving situations the point of no return is a very real thing... ... and one of the first signs that a free diver has passed that point is when they cease to care whether or not they can return to the surface.... their brain is starting to malfunction from lack of oxygen and hypothermia... ..a weird sense of calm comes over them... and they will even fight off and swim away from others who are trying to rescue them..... ..eventually they start to believe they can breathe like the fishes so they fill their lungs with sea water.....

it might sound irrelevant or even silly to most people but your post reminds me of that tragic scenario.... i still remember the smellin coffee of the old forum back when i first joined it... .i continue to pray for you but as an old friend seeing you like this worries me... ..i would be remiss to say otherwise.....

 

[Ransom]

When we worship God, we worship our perception, our projection of what we deem God is like as a being.

The God of your imagination is literally imaginary. Amazing how much verbiage you waste evangelizing for your personal daydreams.

 

[abcaines]

Your post makes me even more lost

His post has the power to make anyone lost. Smellin' is apostate. He once processed the faith or at least hung out with those who do. He's "deconstructed". He's basically turned his back on everything the Bible stands for.

1 Timothy 4:1-2 speaks of someone who has fallen away from the faith...

1Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, 2influenced by the hypocrisy of liars, whose consciences are seared with a hot iron.

 

[Ekklesian]

When we worship God, we worship our perception, our projection of what we deem God is like as a being. To worship a projection of God is idolatry; hence, since we cannot help but project God, the worship of God is idolatry.

When I meet you on the street, I know some part of you. I don't know all of you (thank God for that). In fact, 90% of you is hiding behind several layers of clothing, but that clothing communicates some truth about you.

My inability to describe the details of your liver or spleen, doesn't mean I haven't engaged some sort of truth about you.

But there is an image of you in my mind, that bears no resemblance to the whole truth about you. (If it did, I could only see you as a worm.)

Yet, when I speak of you, it is you that I speak of, and not another, and I describe what has come through the filters, not what I have imagined you to be like.

And that's the case when the biblical authors speak of God.

 

[subllibrm]

From your IFB beginning to now you have held firmly to at least one thing; an unquenchable need to convert people to your view of the world.

 

[ALAYMAN]

There is no “God of the Bible” and I don’t mean that in some kind of atheistic “all gods are fairy tales” kind of way. I mean it in the sense that the Bible does not present a single depiction of God; rather it presents numerous different and frequently contradictory depictions of God.

Give a few examples.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

When I meet you on the street, I know some part of you. I don't know all of you (thank God for that). In fact, 90% of you is hiding behind several layers of clothing, but that clothing communicates some truth about you.

My inability to describe the details of your liver or spleen, doesn't mean I haven't engaged some sort of truth about you.

But there is an image of you in my mind, that bears no resemblance to the whole truth about you. (If it did, I could only see you as a worm.)

Yet, when I speak of you, it is you that I speak of, and not another, and I describe what has come through the filters, not what I have imagined you to be like.

And that's the case when the biblical authors speak of God.

So the worship of Allah is the same as the worship of Jehovah?

 

[Ekklesian]

So the worship of Allah is the same as the worship of Jehovah?

And the price of rice in China.

 

[sword]

I say from now on we look at the title of smellins posts and if it's not worthy of our time we just don't reply.

I'm not suggesting every post I make is a good one or worthy or others time, but I often feel dumber for haveing read and responded to Smellin's threads.

Not saying he is not welcome, just saying his threads may not be worthy of a response.

 

[sword]

So the worship of Allah is the same as the worship of Jehovah?

The center of salvation is the Cross of Jesus, and the reason it is so easy to obtain salvation is because it cost God so much.”​

~Oswald Chambers

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.​

Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:​

​

​

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.​

​

John 14-18 ​

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:​

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.​

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.​

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.​

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.​

​

Romans 3:22-25​

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:​

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;​

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:​

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;​

​

I could list versus all day, but without Jesus religion of any type can never forgive your sins or get you to heaven its only the shed blood of Jesus Christ and trust in him. ​

​

​

​

 

[Smellin Coffee]

When I meet you on the street, I know some part of you. I don't know all of you (thank God for that). In fact, 90% of you is hiding behind several layers of clothing, but that clothing communicates some truth about you.

My inability to describe the details of your liver or spleen, doesn't mean I haven't engaged some sort of truth about you.

But there is an image of you in my mind, that bears no resemblance to the whole truth about you. (If it did, I could only see you as a worm.)

Yet, when I speak of you, it is you that I speak of, and not another, and I describe what has come through the filters, not what I have imagined you to be like.

And that's the case when the biblical authors speak of God.

Your illustration is duly noted but there is one problem: I am a being whereas God is not. God is not a being (a living thing that exists) because beings have limitations. In order for God not to be limited, it (God) must be BEING itself. Hence, the worship of a projection of any being is idolatry.

Humanity doesn't have the language to express such Being (from which all things originate). Religious language makes attempt to understand Being by personifying Being itself, making it an entity rather than Being itself. "God as king", "God as Father", "God as the rock of ages", etc. can only be religious symbolic language to describe that which cannot be described because it does not empirically exist but rather is.

Religious expression of Being (God) is found in different cultures in different manners but that expression can be only symbolic. Hence, the pantheist and the monotheist both express in their limited means that which does not exist but is the very ground of existence itself. Example: Genesis 1 creation story tries to give language to Being but it can be only symbolism in expression because there is no language of expression

FYI, historic Native American theology understands this principle very well. The sacredness of the earth and all that is a part of it is that of Being (God) so the destruction of anything (even the killing of animals for food) was to have been done with ceremony in attempt to restore balance to Being God. They hold that people are as much a part of that Being as rocks, trees, animals, etc. - even time itself- and that ALL is sacred.

(FYI, this also is religious expression and NOT practices I personally adhere to, but they historically have understood the concept that Being itself is God and God is Being itself.)

To summarize my premise: the worship of any personified being can only be idolatry because it puts God (Being) 'in a box".

 

[subllibrm]

Your illustration is duly noted but there is one problem: I am a being whereas God is not. God is not a being (a living thing that exists) because beings have limitations. In order for God not to be limited, it (God) must be BEING itself. Hence, the worship of a projection of any being is idolatry.

Humanity doesn't have the language to express such Being (from which all things originate). Religious language makes attempt to understand Being by personifying Being itself, making is A being rather than Being itself. "God as king", "God as Father", "God as the rock of ages", etc. can only be religious symbolic language to describe that which cannot be described because it does not empirically exist but rather is.

Religious expression of Being (God) is found in different cultures in different manners but that expression can be only symbolic. Hence, the pantheist and the monotheist both express in their limited means that which does not exist but is the very ground of existence itself. Example: Genesis 1 creation story tries to give language to Being but it can be only symbolism in expression because there is no language of expression

FYI, historic Native American theology understands this principle very well. The sacredness of the earth and all that is a part of it is that of Being (God) so the destruction of anything (even the killing of animals for food) was to have been done with ceremony in attempt to restore balance to Being God. They hold that people are as much a part of that Being as rocks, trees, animals, etc. - even time itself- and that ALL is sacred.

(FYI, this also is religious expression and NOT practices I personally adhere to, but they historically have understood the concept that Being itself is God and God is Being itself.)

To summarize my premise: the worship of any personified being can only be idolatry because it puts God (Being) 'in a box".

Yet God seemed to know who he was.

Exodus 3:13-15​

13 Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?”
14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’

And Jesus claimed the same for Himself thereby providing us with a "being" with whom we can interact, have a relationship and who we can worship as the one true God.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Yet God seemed to know who he was.

Exodus 3:13-15​

13 Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?”
14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’

And Jesus claimed the same for Himself thereby providing us with a "being" with whom we can interact, have a relationship and who we can worship as the one true God.

I'm not Unitarian but their hermeneutic would disagree with your hermeneutic.


Trinitarians will look at Jesus’ phrase “egō eimi” and conclude that he is claiming the same name that God gives for himself in Exodus 3:14. However, this is faulty logic for multiple reasons. First, Jesus does not quote the full title. Jesus does not say, “Before Abraham was, I am who I am.” He only says part of the phrase. Secondly, he says the wrong part of the phrase if this was his goal. If you notice above, God shortens his divine name in the second half of Exodus 3:14 and says to tell them: “The one who is (ο ων) has sent me to you.’” The translators of the Septuagint do not use “egō eimi” here, instead they use ο ων (“ho on”). Thus, if John being quite familiar with the Septuagint (he quotes it in John 2:17), had meant to communicate that Jesus was claiming to be YHWH, at the very least would have used “ο ων,” instead, he uses “egō eimi.” In summary, here in John 8:58, Jesus does not use the complete divine title in Exodus 3:14a, nor the partial divine title in Exodus 3:14b, but instead uses “egō eimi” which was a common expression in Greek to identify oneself as the person being talked about, i.e. “I am he” or “I am the one” (Matt. 14:27; Mark 13:6; etc.).

4. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Verse 56 is accurately translated in the King James Version, which says: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This verse says that Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ, which is normally considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquers the earth and sets up his kingdom. That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham: “For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). Abraham looked for a city that is still future, yet the Bible says Abraham “saw” it. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future? Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham “saw” it by faith. Although Abraham saw the Day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham. Thus, in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived.
Source:

John 8:58b - BiblicalUnitarian.com

The following is a clear explanation of the verse in the Bible that Trinitarians have sometimes used in attempts to “prove” the Trinity...

www.biblicalunitarian.com

 

[abcaines]

I'm not Unitarian but their hermeneutic would disagree with your hermeneutic.

I should hope the Unitarian hermeneutic would disagree with mine...

Because of your Theories of Atonement thread, I have been doing some studying on the various schools of thought, Socinianism being one of them. Unitarianism is the philosophical child of Socialism and it is heretical.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I should hope the Unitarian hermeneutic would disagree with mine...

Because of your Theories of Atonement thread, I have been doing some studying on the various schools of thought, Socinianism being one of them. Unitarianism is the philosophical child of Socialism and it is heretical.

Heresy operates on the premise of presupposition so to discount hermeneutic based on "socialism" (which DOES have a heavy Christian connection, particularly 100 years ago) is ignoring possible correct interpretation because it doesn't fit an apologetic of confirmation bias.

 

[subllibrm]

I'm not Unitarian but their hermeneutic would disagree with your hermeneutic.

Ouch!

So do the unitarians have an explanation why the claim of I AM made the Jews want to kill Jesus? Kind if brings us back to considering how the message was received by it's hearers.

 

[voicecrying]

Ouch!

So do the unitarians have an explanation why the claim of I AM made the Jews want to kill Jesus? Kind if brings us back to considering how the message was received by it's hearers.

Exactly. They wanted to kill him because they knew he was claiming to be God.