Who Is The Biblical God?

[Kevin Christensen]

Fellow Pilgrims, I've been watching this board for years and find that I'm in need of your help, I need the thoughts of the whole diverse lot of you guys.  I stopped attending the LDS church about two months ago because, as I told my children, Daddy needs more Jesus.  My youth consisted of Baptist and Methodist churches, and I joined the LDS church in undergraduate school after having fought against it.  I joined based on my interpretation of the New Testament and the LDS doctrine of God.  This was about 19 years ago, and it was only 1-1/2 years ago that I was emotionally able to open up and read the BOM.  And I believed the best I could.  A lot of influences have been floating through my head: George MacDonald, N.T. Wright, Tim Keller, Karl Barth, Dan Peterson and the folks at Interpreter, FARMS.  There is much to sift through, but one primary issue stands out.

 

So it's all come down to this: whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone?  I don't trust the creeds and I don't trust "modern day revelation" or modern claims of authority.  I don't trust my feelings, necessarily.  What is most biblical, A or B?  Or are there other possibilities?

 

A)  Holy Trinity.  One God in three Persons, coequal, cosubstantial, incomprehensible.  In my opinion, no good evidence for the concept of the trinity can be found in a plain, straight forward reading of the Bible.

 

B) Elohim, Yahweh, Wisdom (Holy Spirit) as distinct and separate members of the Godhead.  The Old Testament, and new, is riddled with references to El Elyon as the Most High God and Yahweh as the Son of El Elyon.  Stephen's vision refers to this idea.  In 1 Corinthians 15, God put all things under Jesus' feet, excepting God Himself, and at the end, Jesus will himself submit to God.  All the demons call Jesus Son of the Most High God. Margaret Barker's research suggests this.  Modern archaeology supports the idea that Israel worshiped Yahweh as their patron god while El Elyon was above Yahweh.  

 

I think B is the best answer, but then why do I feel I need to go elsewhere to find my Lord? When I told my bishop that Jesus is everything to me, he answered Jesus isn't everything, that His purpose is to take us to the Father, who is found in the Temple and its rites. The true goal is the Father, not Christ.  So I feel I have to leave the Lord that I know, whom I love, so that I can "progress", I just can't do it.  But scripture points that way.  

 

Any and all thoughts are well appreciated.

I don't think there is anything wrong with you saying "Jesus is everything to me." See Alma 36, or Paul, for instance, both talk that way, while also recognizing the relation of the El Elyon, the Most High, to his Son, the Lord. Your Bishop is also sort of correct. Since Jesus points us to the Father, and says, "If ye have seen me, ye have seen the Father," worrying over much about leaving Jesus for the Father misses the essence of how Jesus represents the Father.

As far as whose version of God is best represented by the Bible alone, that is far more complicated than it sounds. Which Bible? Whose version and translation?

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

Might there be any "plain and precious things" missing? See 1 Nephi 13, especially verses 39-41.

39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other bbooks, which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.

40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in bone; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.

If you have read Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, you might just be able to see the literal fulfillment of this prophesy.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[EllenMaksoud]

Here is another thought for the faithful soul seeking to consider all the possibilities with justice, invoking the grace of the Holy Spirit;

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-27.html

Whose version ? Whose version ? Seriously?   Heavenly Father changed us a Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). We don't speak the same language, we don't think the same, and we don't see the same God.  And, we each think that our version is the best. In my own opinion, calling Heavenly Father "God" is one of the least respectful forms of address, but that is just me. And, my personal favorite is Allah SWT.  Over the years I have heard just so many people say that Allah SWT is a different God. In reality, it is simply the Arabic translation for the word God in English.  I can't say for sure that there aren't others who say they are a God, but I do insist that there is ONE supreme God.

[rameumptom]

Jesus himself said that it is He who leads us to the Father.  Jesus is the Way (to the Father).  So, when we embrace Christ, we are preparing to also embrace the Father.  Even the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood (D&C 33-40) tells us that when we receive Christ, we receive the Father!

 

Remember, your bishop is not a scriptorian. He did not train in a college seminary for years to prepare to be a bishop.  More than likely, he was content, sitting in a pew with his family, when the stake president called him over.  So, when it comes to doctrine, take some things with a grain of salt that come from our local Church leaders.

 

The ultimate goal is to be one with the Father. But that path must go through Christ, and that means the whole path goes through Christ. 

 

Note that the Book of Mormon speaks more on Jesus and the atonement than even the Bible does, so don't knock it.  The Gospels tell us about his life and some of his teachings, but do not explain the atonement very well.  Paul's letters and those of the other Church leaders go into more detail on atonement, but still do not discuss it on the level of King Benjamin, Nephi, or Alma.  The Book of Mormon will get you closer to Jesus than any other book on earth, and works in tandem with the Bible to help us develop that relationship with both the Father and the Son.

 

Finally, do not look beyond the mark.  When you describe the Holy Ghost as Wisdom, it shows you are studying.  But be careful that the leaves of study do not overpower the roots of your belief.  It is of less importance to know the difference between the Godhead and Trinity, than it is to know Christ as your Savior and Redeemer.

[rameumptom]

Whose version ? Whose version ? Seriously?   Heavenly Father changed us a Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). We don't speak the same language, we don't think the same, and we don't see the same God.  And, we each think that our version is the best. In my own opinion, calling Heavenly Father "God" is one of the least respectful forms of address, but that is just me. And, my personal favorite is Allah SWT.  Over the years I have heard just so many people say that Allah SWT is a different God. In reality, it is simply the Arabic translation for the word God in English.  I can't say for sure that there aren't others who say they are a God, but I do insist that there is ONE supreme God.

 

Versions ARE important.  Some versions of the Bible are written with agendas in mind.  Some translations are better than others.  Some include ancient interpolations that were added much later (Johannine Comma, for instance).  So, understanding versions IS important.  Understanding background is also important.

 

Even the NAME of God can be important. While I believe Allah is the same as the Father, there still are significant differences.  Islam does not have Jesus as Savior, Redeemer or the Way.  Their reading of Jesus' life and purpose clearly is different than that found in the Bible.

[EllenMaksoud]

Versions ARE important.  Some versions of the Bible are written with agendas in mind.  Some translations are better than others.  Some include ancient interpolations that were added much later (Johannine Comma, for instance).  So, understanding versions IS important.  Understanding background is also important.

 

Even the NAME of God can be important. While I believe Allah is the same as the Father, there still are significant differences.  Islam does not have Jesus as Savior, Redeemer or the Way.  Their reading of Jesus' life and purpose clearly is different than that found in the Bible.

I know this and I think that much of the reason that we have so many versions is that humans are so petty. Humans seem preoccupied with finding the ONE truth, but in fact there is not ONE narrow truth, but ONE wide truth. Isaiah 35:8 says there is a "way of holiness". I was Christian for a long time and grew so distressed by the infighting that I was eventually thrown out. So, in search of THE truth, I became Muslim. It was a great, and pleasant surprise for me to find the Mormons. And many expect me to abandon what I learned in the past and I now see that is impossible. 

[JLHPROF]

I know this and I think that much of the reason that we have so many versions is that humans are so petty. Humans seem preoccupied with finding the ONE truth, but in fact there is not ONE narrow truth, but ONE wide truth. Isaiah 35:8 says there is a "way of holiness". I was Christian for a long time and grew so distressed by the infighting that I was eventually thrown out. So, in search of THE truth, I became Muslim. It was a great, and pleasant surprise for me to find the Mormons. And many expect me to abandon what I learned in the past and I now see that is impossible. 

 

I have to disagree - there is absolutely one truth as to the character, nature and person of God.  Likewise there is one truth that is the established way back to be with God, and that is by believing in Him and being as like Him as we can.

We may quibble over how wide or narrow that truth is or what its component parts may be, but that doesn't change the truth of eternity.  Our limited understanding may bring us to know God in different ways and methods but there is only one way of truth and holiness in the eternities.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm sure most here will disagree with me but when the Savior says there is one mediator between God and man, I think we should take that at face value.The LDS faith (whether they want to admit it or not) are essentially placing themselves (the leadership along with their temple "ordinances") between man and Christ or God, take your pick.The scriptures say that God the Father "draws" men to himself and that the avenue is Christ. "No man comes to the Father except by me".In other words, the Father draws us to himself and he does so through Christ. So it doesn't surprise me that you feel like you "need more Jesus". The best way to know the Father is by studying the Son, who perfectly represents Him. "If you have seen me you have seen the Father".

So you have become a Calvinist now? The Temple is all about reminding us that Christ is the only mediator between God and man as is every Church service and lesson. If you believe in limited atonement, it will be those who believe it that will find themselves limited. As Christ taught that he was lifted upon the crosses the "he" might draw all men unto him. Everyone has a choice, not just the ones the Father choose to "draw". The number of anti-Mormons grows here everyday.

[3DOP]

Hi bubbachen,

 

You have to decide for yourself if you think the Scripture is so clear and concise as to be plainly teaching one view. I do not say that what I believe is clearly taught Scripture. I insist and can defend that it is compatible with Scripture. Compatibility isn't enough. But obviously it is necessary.

 

I would have you consider the passage in Jn. 13 where Jesus says that the Father is greater than He. On what basis can anyone, from Scripture alone, authoritatively declare how this must be interpreted? Arius ultimately said that it was ontological inferiority. St. Augustine says that Jesus refers to His human nature. St. Hilary says that it refers to Jesus' relationship with the Father. Father's are greater than sons. These are all plausible answers by men who are at least very clever and arguably brilliant. I'll tell you right now that I am not sympathetic to Arius' view, but I can't refute Him from Scripture only.

 

I have said this here many times over the years: "The Scripture alone is inadequate to resolve biblical controversy." This is not liberalism. I hold that the Scriptures are inerrant. (although I don't necessarily prove that Scripture alone either, heh.) The principle in bold explains why controversy persists! It isn't just wickedness or prayerlessness

or stupidity in Bible reading. One of the biggest problem is that many Christians are convinced in their assumption that the Bible is clear. Then they learn one system of thought really well and are impressed with it. They are so certain that this cogent system is correct that they fail to properly consider what an opposing view says. How do Christians become this closed-minded? Because of  unwarranted and unbiblical confidence that the Scripture clearly resolves biblical controversy. I would recommend an open-mind about the possibility that you cannot expect to arrive at most of your foundational beliefs very certainly or with satisfaction on the basis of Scripture alone.

 

There is a former poster here that many will remember with good opinion. He hasn't posted much here since he started a blog a few years back. David Waltz is not LDS but has taken it very seriously for the 23 years that we have been friends. I have a fair reputation around here I think for giving Mormons a fair shake. But not as a fair a shake as Dave! Dave has read the Book of Mormon at least six times, and in a recent conversation, I recollect him saying that he was doing it again at the behest of the missionaries. That's Dave. He leaves no stone unturned, and then he turns it again. I think the missionaries have been visiting for the last 23 years too! Anyway, his blog might be helpful for you, especially the last few months of activity.

 

You have read Barth and seem like you could be able to follow a lot of the discussion. For the last six months or so the blog has been exploring the subject of who is the "One God" in Scripture. He attracts a diverse crowd and I can assure you that your presence would be received with complete respect by the moderator who doesn't at all claim to have all the answers. I think you might enjoy perusing some comments, and if you are so-minded, you can propose some questions and I think you could hear from folks that might be able to help you take a few short cuts to where you want to get. I am not saying that I think Dave or any of the participants are right about everything. I do not. But I think Dave and I agree in principle against the idea that the Scriptures alone can only be plausibly interpreted one way. I would suggest that this is the most important question you should answer at this time. The fact that you have prayerfully studied and labored over some of these foundational questions without finding satisfaction would seem to me to support my position. If you are willing to re-evaluate your approach to Scripture I am sure you could get some help over there.

 

I am not telling you to follow my creeds, or latter-day revelation from LDS or other sources. Frustration results when a good soul prayerfully considers multiple points of view with Scriptures in hand as the only authority. That frustration is I suggest, the answer to the prayers. It is a great grace. Don't disregard it.

 

My name is Rory over there. I hope to see you. God bless you on your journey.

 

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/

Edited October 18, 2013 by 3DOP

[EllenMaksoud]

I have to disagree - there is absolutely one truth as to the character, nature and person of God.  Likewise there is one truth that is the established way back to be with God, and that is by believing in Him and being as like Him as we can.

We may quibble over how wide or narrow that truth is or what its component parts may be, but that doesn't change the truth of eternity.  Our limited understanding may bring us to know God in different ways and methods but there is only one way of truth and holiness in the eternities.

Oh, but we think we understand more than we do, and then sometimes attempt to force others to our view point. One of the lessons in the Missionary discussions insisted that Heavenly Father is "flesh and bone". I finally caved because I realized that the young missionaries were going to have it their way, no matter what. Can it not be that Heavenly Father "can be" flesh and bone? Else how could he travel about in a universe in that we do not know the full dimensions, how could he forge stars, how could he survive a black hole? How could he and Jesus the Christ appear in a grove? He, by witnesses, must have special capabilities to appear and disappear. 

 

If you have answers to my questions above, you did not read what I said.

[EllenMaksoud]

So you have become a Calvinist now? The Temple is all about reminding us that Christ is the only mediator between God and man as is every Church service and lesson. If you believe in limited atonement, it will be those who believe it that will find themselves limited. As Christ taught that he was lifted upon the crosses the "he" might draw all men unto him. Everyone has a choice, not just the ones the Father choose to "draw". The number of anti-Mormons grows here everyday.

I am full on Mormon, but the church practices limited Atonement. For some people " the Atonement applies to part of their lives, but the rest of it has to be worked out in the Celestial Heavens". That is a direct quote, and is pain for many faithful people full stop. And, because we do not agree on this issue, please do not call me "auntie-Mormon".

[Tacenda]

I am full on Mormon, but the church practices limited Atonement. For some people " the Atonement applies to part of their lives, but the rest of it has to be worked out in the Celestial Heavens". That is a direct quote, and is pain for many faithful people full stop. And, because we do not agree on this issue, please do not call me "auntie-Mormon".

According to the EV's, our works are filthy rags to Jesus. And we do works because of the Grace offered. I wonder how bad it is to not accept in faith the full Grace, without works, is it blasphemy?

[EllenMaksoud]

According to the EV's, our works are filthy rags to Jesus. And we do works because of the Grace offered. I wonder how bad it is to not accept in faith the full Grace, without works, is it blasphemy?

Oh, I accept the church fully. My perspective is such that there are many points of view but one Heavenly Father. Even though I accept the faith fully, there are those who can not accept, much less deal with the experiences in my past. The conversation I had with "someone" was comforting and validating. I can be totally committed to Heavenly Father, and Jesus Christ even if some question my sincerity. As he said, "Someone above all of them, has my back".

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I am full on Mormon, but the church practices limited Atonement. For some people " the Atonement applies to part of their lives, but the rest of it has to be worked out in the Celestial Heavens". That is a direct quote, and is pain for many faithful people full stop. And, because we do not agree on this issue, please do not call me "auntie-Mormon".

The atonement saves men and women from death and hell. The CK is for hose who live Celestial Law, the atonement makes that possible but is not limited. People of every faith who would have accepted the gospel will be there as well, but the atonement is extended to all, unless they become the sons of perdition.

Ellen,

If someone is telling you otherwise, you are being misinformed. When it comes to the truth of the gospel..."unto whom much is given, much is required". I am sure even Islam teaches this, I know every EV Church does.

[EllenMaksoud]

The atonement saves men and women from death and hell. The CK is for hose who live Celestial Law, the atonement makes that possible but is not limited. People of every faith who would have accepted the gospel will be there as well, but the atonement is extended to all, unless they become the sons of perdition.

Ellen,

If someone is telling you otherwise, you are being misinformed. When it comes to the truth of the gospel..."unto whom much is given, much is required". I am sure even Islam teaches this, I know every EV Church does.

"Yes, well Heavenly Father has my back".

[danieldemol]

Whose version ? Whose version ? Seriously? Heavenly Father changed us a Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). We don't speak the same language, we don't think the same, and we don't see the same God. And, we each think that our version is the best. In my own opinion, calling Heavenly Father "God" is one of the least respectful forms of address, but that is just me. And, my personal favorite is Allah SWT. Over the years I have heard just so many people say that Allah SWT is a different God. In reality, it is simply the Arabic translation for the word God in English. I can't say for sure that there aren't others who say they are a God, but I do insist that there is ONE supreme God.

Whose version of what?

What does people saying they are God have to do with anything I posted?

[EllenMaksoud]

Whose version of what?

What does people saying they are God have to do with anything I posted?

Sorry, I thought you were Mormon.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Whose version of what?

What does people saying they are God have to do with anything I posted?

Did someone here say they were God...I don't think he posts here.

[mfbukowski]

Here is another thought for the faithful soul seeking to consider all the possibilities with justice, invoking the grace of the Holy Spirit;

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-27.html

This is straight Greek philosophy, with a definite modalistic twist

 

It is quite unbiblical.

Edited October 18, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

This is straight Greek philosophy, with a definite modalistic twist

 

It is quite unbiblical.

I am confused here why are we discussing Bahai references with respect to the Bible?

[danieldemol]

This is straight Greek philosophy, with a definite modalistic twist

It is quite unbiblical.

Being either a)Greek or b)philosphic doesn't make something wrong and/or unbiblical, and there are no shortage of scholars who have noted similarities between Hellenic thought and the Gospel, so you have provided 2 non-issues and an empty assertion in your refutation.

If you wish to invoke race, Joseph Smith was an American, and not a Hebrew, could we dismiss his views as unbiblical on this account?

[danieldemol]

I am confused here why are we discussing Bahai references with respect to the Bible?

The OP asked, "Or are there other possibilities?".

Perhaps you read this as, "Or are there other possibilities from an LDS perspective?"

[mfbukowski]

I am confused here why are we discussing Bahai references with respect to the Bible?

 

 

Being either a)Greek or b)philosphic doesn't make something wrong and/or unbiblical, and there are no shortage of scholars who have noted similarities between Hellenic thought and the Gospel, so you have provided 2 non-issues and an empty assertion in your refutation.

If you wish to invoke race, Joseph Smith was an American, and not a Hebrew, could we dismiss his views as unbiblical on this account?

The question was raised by a Mormon, who has questions about the Biblical God.  The thread is not about the Greek interpretation of God or even the Mormon interpretation of God, or the Baha'i interpretation of God, it is about the BIBLICAL interpretation of God and really in my opinion, should be answered by those among us who have an in-depth understanding of biblical scholarship, like perhaps volgadon or mak or others.  It definitely is not me.  I was simply pointing out that Greek philosophy is not biblical, and therefore cannot answer the question of the OP.

 

Whether or not what the bible says about God is "true" is another question of course.  I tried to go down that road, but without response, so I will also quit that line of questioning.

 

But that is up to the OP- I really don't want to start a derail- I thought I was stopping one.

[mfbukowski]

Being either a)Greek or b)philosphic doesn't make something wrong and/or unbiblical,

Not wrong, but definitely "unbiblical".  I would debate that one til the cows come home but not here.  If you want to know what the bible says, ask a biblical scholar.  If you want to see how a Greek philosopher sees the bible, ask him, but that doesn't mean he sees the bible in its own context.  In fact it guarantees that he will see it in a Greek context.  I will tell you the way I see the bible too, but trust me, that is definitely unbiblical as well.  Strictly speaking you need an ancient Hebrew to tell us what the bible says, but we can do the best we can.

[danieldemol]

I was simply pointing out that Greek philosophy is not biblical, and therefore cannot answer the question of the OP.

I disagree with this point.

Basically the Gospel did not come into a cultural or religious vacuum, it addressed the ideas of the day, and referenced various Greek philosophical and religious ideas.

Various ideas that Jesus used to explain His station, things such as the logos are pre-Gospel ideas of the Greeks.

Although Greek philosophy is not pre-requisite to understanding the Gospel (and the person who provided the explanation in my link was not even Greek), it is a good (imo) explanation of the station of Christ as advanced by the Gospel, and the view that something is unbiblical on the basis of it's similarity to Greek ideas is not a scholarly informed view (imo).

[danieldemol]

Strictly speaking you need an ancient Hebrew to tell us what the bible says, but we can do the best we can.

If I remember correctly, the Gospel was written in Aramaic and Greek, so those ancient Hebrews may need to be multi-lingual as Paul was if they are to have any hope of shedding better light on the Gospel than the Greeks.