The Bible, word of God or word of man?

The Liturgist · Sep 23, 2021

Clare73 said:
Would not the God-breathed (theopneustos) Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16) be the word of God?
Jesus calls Scripture the word of God in Mark 7:3,

Firstly, the verse you are referring to is Mark 7:13. Secondly, if we look at the context, it does not refer to Scripture entire, but to the Mosaic law, with a specific reference to the Decalogue (“Honor thy Father and thy Mother”), which is a type of the Incarnate Logos, in that the Commandments were the words of God, literally, just as Jesus Christ is literally the Word of God, but this is typological prophecy, just as the Ark is a typological prophecy of the Virgin Mary, for it bore the words, just as she bore the Word.

Secondly, if we look at Mark 7:13 in an Interlinear translation, the word our Lord uses in that case is Logon, not Logos, which is what He is identified as in John 1. There is a semantic difference of case between Logon and Logos, and this article does a good job of explaining the difference: Part 4 – Analysis of the Greek Word “logon.”

All cases in Scripture where Logos appears can be interpreted as referring to our Lord, in accordance with John 1, even when they can also be interpreted as referring to the spoken or written words of our Lord. Because our Lord is literally Truth, He is literally Reason, and all of these concepts are conveyed by the Greek proper noun Logos.

Yes, the NT presents the Word of God incarnate (John 1:14), the word of God spoken (Luke 5:1), and the word of God written (Matthew 19:4-6).
Would that not make them all a sound Biblical practice?

Not when Scripture is conflated with Christ. We have to differentiate between our Lord (the Logos), the words of our Lord (Logon) and Scripture, which is a holy and venerable icon of our Lord, although is itself not worthy of worship.

Otherwise, and the specific reason why it is unsound to refer to Scripture as the Word of God, is because it has the potential to make John 1 a stumbling block for new converts to the faith, and to children and less educated Christians, who may inadvertently assume that John 1 is referring to Scripture rather than to Jesus Christ.

The Liturgist · Sep 23, 2021

Clare73 said:
But they do not survive the test of truth. . .the one at the core of the gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), salvation through faith, not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9), and justification apart from works (Romans 4:5, 3:21, 28).

Getting the gospel wrong makes the early church fathers inadequate to me.
Their inadequate understanding has to color/affect their focus.

But that’s untrue. If you think that about the early Church Fathers, you haven’t read them. There is a reason why Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Wesley cited them and used them as the basis for their theology, to the extent they were familiar with them.

The source of confusion really stems from people forgetting about the Epistle of James, or misinterpreting it (which Martin Luther did; he was very talented, but not perfect). The point of that scripture, and the point of reconciliation between the Early Church, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, and even Roman Catholicism. Because what St. James says is that faith without works is dead. The Protestant interpretation of that is that once we have faith, the reality of our faith, of our regeneration, will be evidenced by the good works we subsequently perform. This is not incompatible with either the Patristic interpretation, or the interpretation of the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. The essential component in either case is the universal belief in salvation requiring divine grace and occurring through faith. However, it should also be noted that Luther did interpolate the word “alone” into the text of Romans, which can have the effect of distorting the meaning for people reading translations which followed his example in that respect.

Thus, you are prejudging the early church; your assumption that the views of the early church fathers are wholly incompatible with the Protestant concept of sola fide is unfounded and incorrect, and furthermore, the early church must be understood as being authoritative. Indeed, the Calvinists regarded it as such - the Latin phrase consensus patrum originated with Reformed theologians. And so did Luther - he thought, and John Calvin thought, that they were restoring the Church to what the church fathers believed.

The idea that the Church Fathers were in error is the mistake of some sects of the Radical Reformation, which Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer were, for very good reasons, adamantly opposed to, and the Restorationist movements we see in the late 18th-early 20th centuries. And the people making that error forget that it was the early church fathers who curated for us the Holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament and the New Testament (there were heretics in the early church like Marcion and Valentinus who wanted the Church to do away with the Old Testament, and to introduce false gospels and epistles, and the Church Fathers stopped them).

So, in conclusion, not only did the Early Church Fathers not get the Gospel wrong, they protected and transmitted it to us. Without them, we could have been stuck with falsehoods like the “Gospel of Judas” or the “Tripartite Tractate” or other heretical texts in our Scriptures. Christianity might have been taken over by heretics following in the footsteps of Simon Magus. What kept us safe was the early Church Fathers, like St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius, who defended the essential doctrines of the faith against a seemingly endless slew of attacks.

And if you subscribe to the ChristianForums.com statement of faith, which I assume you do, that contains the Nicene Creed, which is of course the fruit of the labor of the Church Fathers at Nicea, chiefly St. Athanasius, who also developed our 27 book New Testament canon, in refuting the terrible heresy of Arius, who taught the blasphemy that Jesus Christ was not consubstantial with the Father, that He was created, and that there was a time when He did not exist, and that He was only God in a sort of honorary sense, but was otherwise a separate, subordinate entity. It was St. Athanasius and the other fourth century fathers like the Cappadocians (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory Nazianzus), St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Isidore of Seville, St. Ambrose of Milan, and others, who successfully stopped this terrible heresy.

Clare73 · Sep 23, 2021

The Liturgist said:
Firstly, the verse you are referring to is Mark 7:13. Secondly, if we look at the context,
it does not refer to Scripture entire, but to the Mosaic law, with a specific reference to the Decalogue (“Honor thy Father and thy Mother”),

Which was in the writings of Exodus in their Scriptures.

which is a type of the Incarnate Logos, in that the Commandments were the words of God, literally, just as Jesus Christ is literally the Word of God, but this is typological prophecy, just as the Ark is a typological prophecy of the Virgin Mary, for it bore the words, just as she bore the Word.
Secondly, if we look at Mark 7:13 in an Interlinear translation, the word our Lord uses in that case is Logon, not Logos, which is what He is identified as in John 1.

There is a semantic difference of case between Logon and Logos, and this article does a good job of explaining the difference: Part 4 – Analysis of the Greek Word “logon.”

Scripture is still the word of God in John 5:38-39 and Hebrews 4:12, and is more emphatically seen as the word of God in Matthew 19:4-6, where Jesus calls the words of the penman in Genesis 2:24 (Moses) the words of the Creator (God). For Jesus, what Scripture says God says.

Nor have I encountered nor been made aware of any that conflate Scripture with Christ.

I say we don't remedy any conflation by mitigating Scripture as the worrd of God, but by correct teaching regarding the conflation.
I say we don't trim the sail of Scripture with the jib of misunderstanding/error.

Clare73 · Sep 23, 2021

The Liturgist said:
But that’s untrue.
If you think that about the early Church Fathers, you haven’t read them.

I may be thinking desert fathers when you say early church fathers.

There is a reason why Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Wesley cited them and used them as the basis for their theology, to the extent they were familiar with them.

I suggest that Luther and Calvin used Scripture as the basis for their theology.

The source of confusion really stems from people forgetting about the Epistle of James, or misinterpreting it

Their is no confusion in Paul's gospel (Romans 2:16) regarding "through faith not by works," nor "justification by faith apart from works".
Perhaps you could acquaint me with those church fathers who defended Paul's
gospel against the "confusion."

(which Martin Luther did; he was very talented, but not perfect). The point of that scripture, and the point of reconciliation between the Early Church, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, and even Roman Catholicism. Because what St. James says is that faith without works is dead. The Protestant interpretation of that is that once we have faith, the reality of our faith, of our regeneration, will be evidenced by the good works we subsequently perform. This is not incompatible with either the Patristic interpretation, or the interpretation of the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. The essential component in either case is the universal belief in salvation requiring divine grace and occurring through faith. However, it should also be noted that Luther did interpolate the word “alone” into the text of Romans, which can have the effect of distorting the meaning for people reading translations which followed his example in that respect.

Thus, you are prejudging the early church; your assumption that the views of the early church fathers are wholly incompatible with the Protestant concept of sola fide is unfounded and incorrect,

Indeed. . .because I don't think "wholly incompaible" is an accurate reflection of my statement.

and furthermore, the early church must be understood as being authoritative. Indeed, the Calvinists regarded it as such - the Latin phrase consensus patrum originated with Reformed theologians. And so did Luther - he thought, and John Calvin thought, that they were restoring the Church to what the church fathers believed.

Did those church fathers have a Canon?
For by their nature as the word of God written, the Scriptures are the authority over all human authority, there is no human authority over the authority of the word of God written.

The idea that the Church Fathers were in error is the mistake of some sects of the Radical Reformation, which Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer were, for very good reasons, adamantly opposed to, and the Restorationist movements we see in the late 18th-early 20th centuries. And the people making that error forget that it was the early church fathers who curated for us the Holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament and the New Testament (there were heretics in the early church like Marcion and Valentinus who wanted the Church to do away with the Old Testament, and to introduce false gospels and epistles, and the Church Fathers stopped them).

So, in conclusion, not only did the Early Church Fathers not get the Gospel wrong, they protected and transmitted it to us.

Without them, we could have been stuck with falsehoods like the “Gospel of Judas” or the “Tripartite Tractate” or other heretical texts in our Scriptures. Christianity might have been taken over by heretics following in the footsteps of Simon Magus.

What kept us safe was the early Church Fathers, like St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius, who defended the essential doctrines of the faith against a seemingly endless slew of attacks.
And if you subscribe to the ChristianForums.com statement of faith, which I assume you do, that contains the Nicene Creed, which is of course the fruit of the labor of the Church Fathers at Nicea, chiefly St. Athanasius, who also developed our 27 book New Testament canon, in refuting the terrible heresy of Arius, who taught the blasphemy that Jesus Christ was not consubstantial with the Father, that He was created, and that there was a time when He did not exist, and that He was only God in a sort of honorary sense, but was otherwise a separate, subordinate entity. It was St. Athanasius and the other fourth century fathers like the Cappadocians (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory Nazianzus), St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Isidore of Seville, St. Ambrose of Milan, and others, who successfully stopped this terrible heresy.

Indeed, those church father saved Christendom from fatal error. Even if they didn't get all the gospel right they, nevertheless, successfully brought her through a mighty battle, for which the church should be forever grateful.

And back to those fathers who defended Pauls gospel, please.

The Liturgist · Sep 23, 2021

Clare73 said:
which was in the writings of Exodus in their Scriptures.

Scripture is still the word of God in John 5:38-39 and Hebrews 4:12,

Both of those verses very clearly and explicitly refer to the person of Jesus Christ. In John 5:38 for instance, our Lord is clearly referring to Himself, whereas he refers to Scripture in John 5:39. Hebrews 4:12 likewise applies to a Christological context. Now, insofar as Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and the scriptures are divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, they can be said to be a reflection or an expression of the Word of God made by those holy Prophets, Psalmists, Historians, Apostles and Evangelists who wrote the different books under the inspiration of our Lord and Giver of Life, God the Holy Spirit. So in a sense, there is a dual applicability. However, both John 5:38 and Hebrews 4:12 are examples of verses which I would cite as having a Christological context.

This is the danger of using the phrase “Word of God” to refer to the Scriptures, in that when the Scriptures are being referred to expressly, we see the word Graphe used, whereas Logon tends to be used where there is a Christological context, and Logos where it is talking about our Lord.

and is more emphatically seen as the word of God in Matthew 19:4-6, where Jesus calls the words of the penman in Genesis 12:27 (Moses) the words of the Creator (God). For Jesus, what Scripture says God says.

Forgive me, but Matthew 19:4-6 does not say any of that. Also, you are aware that Jesus Christ is God? That furthermore, by Him all things were made? God the Father did not reserve Creation unto Himself, but rather, the creation was the work of the Holy Trinity. So when you say something like “For Jesus, what Scripture says, God says,” doesn’t make sense - it should be along the lines of “For Jesus, what Scripture says, He says”, although in fact, what our Lord actually showed us about Scripture in the conclusion of the Gospel According to Luke, when he opened the books for the disciples (the books of the Old Testament, for obviously the books that comprise the New Testament were years or even decades away from existing), is that the Old Testament was about Him personally, a prophecy of His incarnation.

Nor have I encountered nor been made aware of any that conflate Scripture with Christ.

Well, respectfully, I have; in particular, I have also found a great many people who are oblivious to Christological references in both the Old Testament and the New, which is a closely related phenomenon.

I say we don't remedy any conflation by mitigating Scripture as the worrd of God, but by correct teaching regarding the conflation.
I say we don't trim the sail of Scripture with the jib of misunderstanding/error.

Surely that is overstating it greatly. I mean, just to take a step back, why can’t we just refer to it by what it has traditionally been called, which is Sacred Scripture? What is the point of using a term which is just going to trip people up when they read John 1?

d taylor · Sep 23, 2021

The Liturgist said:
They aren’t lies; I have witnessed it myself! I have seen the curvature of the Earth and the International Space Station. You could too. And scripture does not refute that.

Furthermore, if one interprets the Bible in a way that contradicts observable fact, which is hard to do, but possible, then one needs to change their interpretation.

Finally, Jesus Christ is the infallible Word of God; the Bible is the collection of God-breathed holy scriptures which describe Him.

The Concorde: Faster Than Sound | Cigar Aficionado

By the time we blow past Mach 2, 1,420 mph, drinks and dinner are being served. In the time it takes the steward to pour a glass of Champagne, we fly 10 miles. Passengers in all of the approximately 100 seats on board receive first-class treatment; seat-back tables are covered with white linen tablecloths, and the pumpkin cannelloni from the menu is served on a tray with fresh flowers and small bits of fruit.

We're flying above 50,000 feet now, almost 10 miles high. At this altitude you're supposed to be able to discern the curvature of the earth, but for whatever reason, it's not apparent. Maybe the windows are too small or, hey, maybe that guy from the Flat Earth Research Society was right after all. It does seem to be getting dark out there, and downstairs there's a storm brewing over the North Atlantic.

You mean you have see the iss, well i have photographed it several time. And i know, it is not moving at 17,000 miles ph and that it is not 250 miles high maybe 10 miles high and going about 1000+ miles an hr. And that that is an artificial light made to look like the iss is reflecting sun light. They simply cut the light on and off when needed.

At 17,000 miles ph the iss would cover 280 miles per minute. So if i watch the iss for 4 minutes that is around 1120 miles it would have traveled.

Miles Per Hour to Miles Per Minute | Kyle's Converter

fhansen · Sep 23, 2021

The Liturgist said:
Indeed; they are enough for Orthodox, Catholic and traditional Protestant Christians, particularly those who are not beholden to Luther or Calvin or even John Wesley, who I really greatly admire* to the point of following their theology even when it contradicts with what Calvinist theologians started referring to as the consensus patrum. The problem that Luther and Calvin faced was that the Western Church had become overly dependent on Augustinian theology, via Anselm of Canterbury, which was partially mitigated by Thomas Aquinas**, whose systemic theology, while not perfect, was a great accomplishment, exceeded in its time only by the spectacular breakthrough in describing the mystical theology of St. Symeon the New, that we see in the works of St. Gregory of Palamas.

However, Luther and Calvin did not have as much immersion in the writings of the Greek and Syrian fathers as would have been preferable, and there were several Latin fathers who just were not read as much as they should have been from the Dark Ages even into the 19th century in the Western church; had they wanted to get to the consensus patrum, they should, in my opinion, have focused on the Patristic corpus starting with St. Ignatius of Antioch, and continuing with St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, St. Athanasius, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Athanasius, St. Isidore of Seville, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Cassian, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. John Cassian, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Vincent of Lerins, St. Severus of Antioch, St. Jacob of Sarugh, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Isaac the Syrian, and St. John Damascene. However, they had no way of even knowing that, since many of those authors had become obscure by the 16th century, and some were erroneously regarded as heretics, such as St. Severus (even today, many people consider him a heretic, but the Theopaschite Christology of the Chalcedonian and Oriental Orthodox churches and the full ramifications of the concept of Hypostatic Union we find in St. Cyril and in Chalcedon, are largely based on his work; indeed, he was the author of the great hymn Ho Monogenes, which features in both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox liturgy, and which I regard as a creedal hymn on a par with Te Deum Laudamus, which was much beloved by Luther).

I also am of the view that the Counter Reformation in the Roman Catholic church was largely successful. In addition to regarding as saints certain post-schism, pre-Avignon figures such as St. Bruno, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Dominic Guzman, as well as the founders and many members of the Trinitarian and Mercedarian orders, which as you may recall were originally founded to ransom Christians abducted by Muslim pirates in North Africa, I also am comfortable regarding as saints the likes of St. Charles Borromeo, St. Philip Neri, St. Alphonse Ligouri, and Pope St. Pius X.

*Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia venerates Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague as saints and martyrs, and I feel of the other really prominent Protestant theologians from the Reformation until the 19th century, the only two who are certainly worthy of veneration as saints are John and Charles Wesley, although I think a case could also be made for Archbishop Laud and, even more likely, King Charles I, who I am inclined to regard as a martyr, because I am inclined to regard Oliver Cromwell not only as a tyrant and usurper but as a heretic. I believe the Anglican Church, or at least the Episcopal Church USA, has liturgical commemorations for all of the above, along with more recent Protestant saints such as the hieromartyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

** I do love the Summa Theologica however; I am inclined to regard it as one of the five great works of systemic theology, the others being The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John Damascene, Calvin’s Institutes, Karl Barth’s epic Church Dogmatics, and the works of various Russian Orthodox theologians such as Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, by Fr. Michael Pomazansky, translated into English by Fr. Seraphim Rose, and after that fashion, The Teachings of the Orthodox Church by Rev. Michael Azkoul, who I believe is either Greek or Antiochian Orthodox, which is slightly more sectarian than Pomazansky; there are several brilliant Russian works which have sadly not been translated

Thank you-lot’s of good info there. Either way I think the bottom line has to do with teachings on justification first of all. And if I explore the teachings of the ancient churches in the east and west they’re effectively the same-and endure in that same manner until now. The sacraments themselves, incidentally, define and sort of “lock in” that basic theology. Man cannot move himself to God in faith and repentance; He must make that happen even as we can still resist and reject the gift, His grace, refusing to open the door when he knocks. But as we do respond and open it, He takes up residence inside, and that communion is the essence of our justice or righteousness-of a real righteousness given and not merely an imputed one. This happens, according to ancient practice and understanding, formally as we publicly profess that faith at Baptism, sometimes referred to as the “sacrament of faith”. From there we can begin to partake of the Eucharist, aka, communion, because that’s exactly the relationship which faith establishes. We can also compromise this state of justice that we’ve entered into by living very unjustly, with persistence in grave sin, and so the need for metanoia and repentance again, acted out via the sacrament of Reconciliation/Confession would be in order. In this way even the many simple and illiterate folk down thru the centuries could understand the basic teachings of our faith concerning God’s will for us.

So we’re justified, made just, by faith; we cannot possibly justify ourselves with or without the law-only God can justify man. Once justified we’re expected to live like it, as His children, overcoming sin and doing good- working out our salvation with He with works in us as we live by the Spirit now, the only authentic way to righteousness.
“Apart from Me you can do nothing.” John 15:5

“…just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom 5:21

"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.” Rom 6:22

The idea that man will be judged based on what he did or failed to do while here in the body is thoroughly consistent with the church’s teachings and the ECFs. The modern Catholic Church can even put it this way, quoting a 16th century believer, “At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love.” Love is the full-true definition of righteousness for man.

Both Paul and Augustine understood this well: Dr Faith and Dr Grace. Both were battling legalism: “Judaism”, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism, and so the emphasis was now on what God must do as opposed to anything man can do. The terms “faith” and “grace” can almost be used interchangeably here. Faith means more than simply believing in God and his promises, and even more than trust in/reliance on Him; faith means relationship with Him that involves the life of grace, His life in us.

The New Covenant is all about direct relationship with God, about knowing Him personally, to the extent we can in this life. The terms “faith” and grace” both speak to this necessity, to Him, as our sole source of righteousness, and therefore of our salvation. Our part is to cooperate, to remain in Him, born out by the way we live. And so the 2nd Council of Orange (529 AD), beloved by many a Reformer, after numerous canons all insisting on the absolute necessity of grace in order to turn man to God, utilizing Augustine’s arguments and concepts mainly, concludes with:

“According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.”

And that, as well, is consistent with Augustine and the ECFs and the church that preceded Him. As well as Paul in so many places including:

“Consequently, brethren, we are not debtors to the flesh and obliged to live according to the flesh. If you do live according to the flesh, you will die. However, if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” Rom 8:12-13

Clare73 · Sep 23, 2021

The Liturgist said:
Both of those verses very clearly and explicitly refer to the person of Jesus Christ. In John 5:38 for instance, our Lord is clearly referring to Himself, whereas he refers to Scripture in John 5:39.

Referring to himself as incidental there.

John 5:37-39 is about the Scriptures:
". . .you have neither heard his (the Father's) voice nor seen his shape. And you have not his (the Father's) word (Scripture) abiding in you, for you do not believe the one he has sent. You diligently study the Scriptures. . .These are the Scriptures that testify about me. . ."

The word of God in the Scriptures was not in them--in their hearts and minds, it was only among them--in Israel, in the scrolls in the synagogues. And the proof that the word of God in the Scriptures did not abide in them is that they did not believe in the word of God in the flesh, Jesus.
Jesus refers to himself incidental to the Scriptures.

Hebrews 4:12 likewise applies to a Christological context.

Hebrews 4:12 is about the word of God in the Scriptures, which like a two-edged sword will judge those new Hebrew professing Christians if they return to Judaism, which they were considering for whatever reason, instead of entering into full salvation rest through faith in Jesus Christ.

Now, insofar as Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and the scriptures are divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, they can be said to be a reflection or an expression of the Word of God made by those holy Prophets, Psalmists, Historians, Apostles and Evangelists who wrote the different books under the inspiration of our Lord and Giver of Life, God the Holy Spirit. So in a sense, there is a dual applicability. However, both John 5:38 and Hebrews 4:12 are examples of verses which I would cite as having a Christological context.

This is the danger of using the phrase “Word of God” to refer to the Scriptures, in that when the Scriptures are being referred to expressly, we see the word Graphe used, whereas Logon tends to be used where there is a Christological context, and Logos where it is talking about our Lord.

I guess "tends" gets you off the hook here, because in both John 5:37-39 and Hebrews 4:12,
not only language, but also context is speaking of the Scriptures there, not Christ.

Forgive me, but Matthew 19:4-6 does not say any of that.

I guess I will have to, because it says exactly that, except the Scripture from Genesis which Jesus is quoting is 2:24 and not 12:27 as I posted.

"Haven't you read (in the Scriptures) that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female" and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)
God did not speak those words in Genesis 2:24, they are the words of the penman (Moses). Jesus' sees the words of the penman of Scripture as the words of God. . .all Scripture is the word of God.
For Jesus, what Scripture says, God says; i.e., not just God's own words, but also what the penman states apart from God's own words is also what God says. All Scripture is the word of God.

Also, you are aware that Jesus Christ is God? That furthermore, by Him all things were made? God the Father did not reserve Creation unto Himself, but rather, the creation was the work of the Holy Trinity. So when you say something like “For Jesus, what Scripture says, God says,” doesn’t make sense - it should be along the lines of “For Jesus, what Scripture says, He says”, although in fact, what our Lord actually showed us about Scripture in the conclusion of the Gospel According to Luke, when he opened the books for the disciples (the books of the Old Testament, for obviously the books that comprise the New Testament were years or even decades away from existing), is that the Old Testament was about Him personally, a prophecy of His incarnation.

Well, respectfully, I have; in particular, I have also found a great many people who are oblivious to Christological references in both the Old Testament and the New, which is a closely related phenomenon

Well, as I have demonstrated above, John 5:47-39, Matthew 19:4-6 and Hebrews 4:12 are not they, because these are references to the Scriptures, not to Christ.

Surely that is overstating it greatly.

Not to my way of thinking. . .there can be absolutely nothing disadvantageous to staying with what the Scriptures present; i.e., all Scripture is the word of God.
To be honest here, your reason for disliking Scripture as "the word of God" feels more like a justification of something else than it does a true reason for not using it of Scripture.

I mean, just to take a step back, why can’t we just refer to it by what it has traditionally been called, which is Sacred Scripture?

1) In my neck of the woods (Reformed Christianity), the word of God is what it has been traditionally called.

2) Why should what it has been traditionally called trump what Scripture also calls it--the word of God?

What is the point of using a term which is just going to trip people up when they read John 1?

It doesn't trip up the Reformed.

I'm just not seeing a real problem there.

The Liturgist · Sep 23, 2021

Clare73 said:
Referring to himself as incidental there.

John 5:37-39 is about the Scriptures:
". . .you have neither heard his (the Father's) voice nor seen his shape. And you have not his (the Father's) word (Scripture) abiding in you, for you do not believe the one he has sent. You diligently study the Scriptures. . .These are the Scriptures that testify about me. . ."

The word of God in the Scriptures was not in them--in their hearts and minds, it was only among them--in Israel, in the scrolls in the synagogues. And the proof that the word of God in the Scriptures did not abide in them is that they did not believe in the word of God in the flesh, Jesus.
Jesus refers to himself incidental to the Scriptures.

On the contrary, there is an obvious Christological reading they had not His Logos in them, which is to say, Jesus Christ. Note that he uses a different word for referring only to the Scriptures, which underscores the semantic difference between the Divine Logos, which is the ultimate source of the Truth Scriptures, being Truth in person, and the Scriptures themselves.

Hebrews 4:12 is about the word of God in the Scriptures, which like a two-edged sword will judge those new Hebrew professing Christians if they return to Judaism, which they were considering for whatever reason, instead of entering into full salvation rest through faith in Jesus Christ.

Here, a non-Christological reading such as you present does not even make sense; it is actually eisegesis. The Word of God is alive and active because it is Jesus Christ, and it is He, the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, who will judge all of us as Christ Pantocrator on the dread day of judgement at the end of the world. And He is like a double-edged sword, in that He penetrates us to the core. The Christological context is much clearer if we read the verse in the context of the subsequent verse:

12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Furthermore, if we read these exegetically in the context of John 1:1-18, there can be no doubt that verse 12 is talking about the person of Christ.

I guess "tends" gets you off the hook here, because in both John 5:37-39 and Hebrews 4:12,
not only language, but also context is speaking of the Scriptures there.

Aside from the fact that I completely disagree with the idea that the context of Hebrews 4:12-13 is not speaking of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for reasons stated above, the goal was not to “get me off the hook”, for there is no hook for me to be impaled upon; I am a senior presbyter of an independent high church liturgical Congregationalist mission, and my doctrine is in complete agreement with every facet of the ChristianForums statement of faith; rather, my objective was to outline that there are some places where there is both a Christological and a Scriptological interpretation that are both exegetically valid and which even work well together.

This in general also refers us back to a principle I frequently stress on ChristianForums, which is the importance of an exegesis which relies on the approaches of both of the ancient catechtical schools of the early church: the Antiochene literal-historical method, and the Alexandrian typological-prophetic method. We start to see an integration of the two approaches in the fourth century with St. Athanasius, an Alexandrian who also used Antiochene literalism, St. John Chrysostom, who hailed from Antioch but did not remain aloof from Alexandrian interpretation, and the Cappodacians (St. Basil, his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa, and his best friend St. Gregory Nazianzus), where we see an increasingly even balance of the two approaches. This is in contrast to Origen, who relied on a purely Alexandrian interpretation, or Theodore of Mopsuestia, who relied on a purely Antiochene interpretation, both of whom can come across at times as being a bit off course*. Of course, there is a lot more to it than that, and I am simplifying greatly the concepts of the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools, and there were and are other approaches and methods that are relevant.

However, a common thread linking all appropriate and valid forms of scriptural interpretation together is exegesis, the principle of not reading verses in isolation, and the related concept of intertextuality, which is in a scriptural context relates to the connections between different pericopes in different books, different pericopes in the same book, and different verses in the same book. Lectionaries, which liturgical churches use to arrange scriptural lessons, for example, the Revised Common Lectionary*, are generally arranged to as to emphasize the visibility of intertextual connections. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that scriptural verses often have multiple layers of meaning.

I believe, based on John 1, that any exegesis that altogether rejects Christological interpretations of the verses you cited above, is eisegetical, because it is not taking into account John 1 in the reading of other verses which use language that precisely corresponds to John 1, inexplicably, I might add, and thus lacks the prerequisite intertextuality of any valid system of interpretation.

I guess I will have to, because it says exactly that, except the Scripture from Genesis which Jesus is quoting is 2:24 and not 12:27 as I posted.

"Haven't you read (in the Scriptures) that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female" and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

God did not speak those words in Genesis 2:24, they are the words of the penman (Moses). Jesus' sees the words of the penman of Scripture as the words of God. . .all Scripture is the word of God.
For Jesus, what Scripture says, God says; i.e., not just God's own words, but also what the penman states apart from God's own words is also what God says.

The problem there is that it doesn’t say what you assert it says. Our Lord, for example, does not refer to a “penman” (nor would He - pens did not exist in ancient Rome; scribes did). I believe you are going by a popular commentary on the Scriptures which does talk about Moses as the penman for what God is saying.

Also, once again, why are you referring to God and Jesus separately? It really needs to be stressed that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. He is God the Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity, fully God and fully Man, who without change, confusion, division or separation of His natures, took on our humanity from the blessed Virgin Mary, who can properly be called the Theotokos, literally, the Birth-giver of God, because she did bear God and was His mother in His incarnation.

Just as I get concerned when I see people referring to Sacred Scripture as “The Word of God” in a manner which seems to come close to, or actually entail, a contradiction of correct exegesis based on John 1, I also am concerned whenever I see God and Jesus being talked about and repeatedly mentioned in such a way as to suggest to someone not well catechized, that Jesus and God are not the same.

Not to my way of thinking. . .there can be absolutely nothing disadvantageous to staying with what the Scriptures present; i.e., all Scripture is the word of God.

I get what you are trying to say, but the syntax is simply wrong. Scripture is not the Word of God, Jesus Christ is, but all Scripture reveals Jesus Christ, who is the Only Begotten Son and Word of God. This is the message I am seeking to convey on this point.

To be honest here, your reason for disliking Scripture as "the word of God" feels weak and just not real to me.

Well, I can’t help that. My opposition to referring to scripture as the Word of God is precisely because of the stumbling block it creates surrounding John 1, and also, for that matter, other passages where the Logos, Jesus Christ, is clearly referenced, and not Scripture. We have to stress that Scripture reveals the Word of God, but the Word of God is Jesus Christ.

1) In my neck of the woods, that is what it has been traditionally called.

2) Why should what it has been traditionally called trump what Scripture also calls it--the word of God?
I'm just not seeing a real problem there,

I will answer these points in reverse order, because the first one is not a question but a statement, which requires some degree of analysis.

Now, on the subject of your second point, your question - Scripture refers to itself in Greek as graphe in all cases where Scripture is the only intended definition of the phrase in question. Any time you see Logos or Logon, one should assume at least a secondary interpretation which is related to 1 John.

Now, moving on, I don’t know in which neck of the woods you reside, other than it is, I would assume, in the United States, because you and I are of common political orientation (I am a lifelong supporter of the Republican party, although I don’t advertise my personal politics, as I need to be able to minister to people of different political parties and ideologies, and I think it is inappropriate for clergy to involve themselves in politics except in the most extreme and important issues of moral theology and the preservation of the freedoms of Christians to worship, so the only issues I comment on are those such as the urgent need to ban abortion and euthanasia, impose appropriate protections for families from the real danger to children posed by the LGBTQ movement, and the restoration and protection of prayer in public schools).

However, I will say that, since the prevailing Bible edition in the US has historically been the KJV, which I do love, and make use of in my ministry, by the way, because most Americans did not benefit from a classical education where they would learn Koine Greek and be able to read the New Testament in its original form, and because of the very large scale and influence of certain Restorationist churches in the United States that presented novel and unwarranted interpretations of scripture, we do have a crisis of catechesis in the US around certain Biblical words and phrases. The confusion surrounding the correct use of the phrase “The Word of God”, which of course is just one example.

The decision of the KJV to use the word priest, which is an Anglicization of Presbyter, to refer to the Jewish sacerdotal priesthood, the priesthood of all believers, and the hieratic “priests and priestesses” of Pagan religions, has of course become a cause of great confusion, even though it was not when the KJV was originally published, because, the KJV was of course translated specifically with the needs of the Church of England in mind, and the Church of England like all Anglican churches does refer to its presbyters as priests, which is fine, but then when you have non-Anglican Christians who are unaware of the historical context of the KJV or the actual meaning of the word priest read the KJV, and then encounters Anglican churches, inevitably, this scandalizes them, because the way the KJV uses the term could lead a non-Anglican to falsely assume Anglican churches do not uphold the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, which is of course completely untrue.

The Liturgist · Sep 24, 2021

d taylor said:
The Concorde: Faster Than Sound | Cigar Aficionado

By the time we blow past Mach 2, 1,420 mph, drinks and dinner are being served. In the time it takes the steward to pour a glass of Champagne, we fly 10 miles. Passengers in all of the approximately 100 seats on board receive first-class treatment; seat-back tables are covered with white linen tablecloths, and the pumpkin cannelloni from the menu is served on a tray with fresh flowers and small bits of fruit.

We're flying above 50,000 feet now, almost 10 miles high. At this altitude you're supposed to be able to discern the curvature of the earth, but for whatever reason, it's not apparent. Maybe the windows are too small or, hey, maybe that guy from the Flat Earth Research Society was right after all. It does seem to be getting dark out there, and downstairs there's a storm brewing over the North Atlantic.

I didn’t say anything about Concorde. But even if I had, an anecdotal article written by one random dude in a cigar magazine does not constitute evidence (here’s a thought: he could have had eye troubles resulting from smoking-related high blood pressure or heart disease. Tobacco kills, even cigar smokers are at risk (I was very saddened by the recent death of Rush Limbaugh from lung cancer, and he was a cigar smoker).

You mean you have see the iss, well i have photographed it several time. And i know, it is not moving at 17,000 miles ph and that it is not 250 miles high maybe 10 miles high and going about 1000+ miles an hr.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

And that that is an artificial light made to look like the iss is reflecting sun light. They simply cut the light on and off when needed.

Yeah, no, they don’t do that - the angles would be impossible and we lack an artificial light source which can match the brightness or the specific spectrum of wavelengths emitted by the Sun. You see, there’s this thing called spectography which we can use to identify the Sun and other celestial objects, and even infer the elements that comprise them.

At 17,000 miles ph the iss would cover 280 miles per minute. So if i watch the iss for 4 minutes that is around 1120 miles it would have traveled.

Are you not aware that the greater the distance between you and an object you are looking at, and the faster your speed relative to it, the slower it will appear to move? This is why commercial airliners on final approach can at some angles from moving vehicles appear to be stationary or floating, when of course they are still traveling at 160-200 kts.

At any rate, according to your model of the world, when I was blessed with a chance to circumnavigate Antarctica, the vessel I was on would have to have traveled at a fairly high Mach number for us to complete the voyage in the time that we did. And the airline routes flat Earthers claim should exist actually did exist at one time, but aren’t presently served due to lack of demand. For example, Buenos Aires-Johannesburg, Perth-Johannesberg, and Santiago de Chile - Sydney and Auckland.

Holy Scripture does not teach a flat earth, the early Church didn’t believe in a flat Earth, indeed, practically no one did until the formation of a flat Earth society in the UK in the 19th century, and the movement only recently became common again, in the past 25 years, for some bizarre social reason. However, when you tell people that the Christian faith requires they believe the world is flat, not only is that untrue, but it alienates people from Christianity. It hurts us as a religion and plays into the arguments of militant atheists.

Clare73 · Sep 24, 2021

Clare73 said:
John 5:37-39 is about the Scriptures:
". . .you have neither heard his (the Father's) voice nor seen his shape. And you have not his (the Father's) word (Scripture) abiding in you, for you do not believe the one he has sent. You diligently study the Scriptures. . .These are the Scriptures that testify about me. . ."

The Liturgist said:
On the contrary, there is an obvious Christological reading they had not His Logos in them, which is to say, Jesus Christ. Note that he uses a different word for referring only to the Scriptures, which underscores the semantic difference between the Divine Logos, which is the ultimate source of the Truth Scriptures, being Truth in person, and the Scriptures themselves.

So John 5:38 is redundant?

"You have not the Incarnate Word abiding in you, for you do not believe the Incarnate Word"?
Jesus is telling the Jews who were trying to kill him (John 5:18) that he doesn't abide in them?
That must have been a newsflash.

And he doesn't abide in them because they do not believe him?
Well, that must have been a shocker.

This is pure nonsense.

And "You have not his word dwelling in you". . .
Jesus is not "his word", Jesus is "the word." (John 1:1, 14)
His word is the word of God written.

In context, Jesus is presenting to the Jews, who were trying to kill him, the testimony to himself, which testimony is much weightier than the testimony to John the Baptist, whom they believed; i.e., miracles, God's voice (word) at his baptism and in the Scripures (Matthew 15:6), which word in Scripture does not dwell in them (as they think it does) because they do not believe in the one God has sent to them.

This construct of a semantic difference between two forms of the same word, logos,
is totally contrived, and makes nonsense of John 5:37-39.

John's use of logos (word) did not come from the OT phrase, "word of God."
It came from Greek philosophy, where Logos (logic) was the First Cause, the Great Intelligence and Reason behind the Universe. It is the word John used to declare that the recently despised and crucified criminal, Jesus of Nazareth, is the eternal Logos, source of all wisdom and power, who became flesh in order to reveal God to us.

Logos is used to refer to Jesus only by John. . .and only
1) in the prologue of his gospel, and
2) in Rev 19:13, and

logon, used in phrases "word of _---_," is used by John to refer to Jesus only once, where he is clearly identified as "the Word of life"
3) in John's letter, 1 John 1:1,

and nowhere else in the NT.
In John 5:38, "his word" refers to Scripture, the word of God written, not to Jesus, for
Jesus is not "his word," Jesus is "the word."

Mark 7:13: . . .if we look at the context, it does not refer to Scripture entire, but to the Mosaic law, with a specific reference to the Decalogue (“Honor thy Father and thy Mother”).

It refers to the law which was in the Scriptures as well as Numbers 30:1-2, which the Pharisees used to support their tradition of the Corban vow, which is the issue in Mark 7:9-13.

Hebrews 4:12: Here, a non-Christological reading such as you present does not even make sense; it is actually eisegesis. The Word of God is alive and active because it is Jesus Christ, and it is He,

The word of God in Hebrews 4:12 is an "it."

"It penetrates. . .it judges," it is the word of God written.

Matthew 19:4-6: And The problem there is that it doesn’t say what you assert it says.

"Haven't you read (in the Scriptures) that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female" and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)
God did not speak those words in Genesis 2:24, they are the words of the writer.
Jesus' sees the words of the writer of Scripture as the words of God. . .all Scripture is the word of God.
For Jesus, what Scripture says, God says; i.e., not just God's own words, but also what the writer states apart from God's own words is also what God says.
For Jesus, all Scripture is the word of God, even the words of the writer apart from God speaking directly are "God said."

The "word of God" in Mark 7:13, Matthew 19:4-6, John 5:37-39 and Hebrews 4:12 refers to Scripture, not to Jesus, and is NT usage for Scripture, which is why NT Christians use the same.

Also, once again, why are you referring to God and Jesus separately?

Because the NT does so more times than I can count.

Our basic difference seems to be between Orthodox Christianity and NT Christianity.

d taylor · Sep 24, 2021

The Liturgist said:
I didn’t say anything about Concorde. But even if I had, an anecdotal article written by one random dude in a cigar magazine does not constitute evidence (here’s a thought: he could have had eye troubles resulting from smoking-related high blood pressure or heart disease. Tobacco kills, even cigar smokers are at risk (I was very saddened by the recent death of Rush Limbaugh from lung cancer, and he was a cigar smoker).

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Yeah, no, they don’t do that - the angles would be impossible and we lack an artificial light source which can match the brightness or the specific spectrum of wavelengths emitted by the Sun. You see, there’s this thing called spectography which we can use to identify the Sun and other celestial objects, and even infer the elements that comprise them.

Are you not aware that the greater the distance between you and an object you are looking at, and the faster your speed relative to it, the slower it will appear to move? This is why commercial airliners on final approach can at some angles from moving vehicles appear to be stationary or floating, when of course they are still traveling at 160-200 kts.

At any rate, according to your model of the world, when I was blessed with a chance to circumnavigate Antarctica, the vessel I was on would have to have traveled at a fairly high Mach number for us to complete the voyage in the time that we did. And the airline routes flat Earthers claim should exist actually did exist at one time, but aren’t presently served due to lack of demand. For example, Buenos Aires-Johannesburg, Perth-Johannesberg, and Santiago de Chile - Sydney and Auckland.

Holy Scripture does not teach a flat earth, the early Church didn’t believe in a flat Earth, indeed, practically no one did until the formation of a flat Earth society in the UK in the 19th century, and the movement only recently became common again, in the past 25 years, for some bizarre social reason. However, when you tell people that the Christian faith requires they believe the world is flat, not only is that untrue, but it alienates people from Christianity. It hurts us as a religion and plays into the arguments of militant atheists.

Well whatever it it was that you you were in with a high service ceiling. May be one of these Global 6000, the Falcon 5X and the Gulfstream G650, still 10 miles high is just that 10 miles high. compared to 2000 3000 or so miles is not very high. It is just 4 miles higher than a plane.

Neostarwcc · Sep 24, 2021

Interesting replies I don't really have much to add. Others are doing a great job defending scripture.

Clare73 · Sep 24, 2021

Neostarwcc said:
Interesting replies I don't really have much to add.
Others are doing a great job defending scripture.

We aim to please. . .

Neostarwcc · Sep 24, 2021

Clare73 said:
We aim to please. . .

Indeed! Without the word of God what are we?

We don't all have to have the same interpretations of the word of God but without it we are nothing.

As long as you dont get into dangerous territory like denying Christ's diety, you're fine. It's pretty clear from scripture that he is God and completely equal to him.

The Liturgist · Sep 25, 2021

Clare73 said:
So John 5:38 is redundant?

"You have not the Incarnate Word abiding in you, for you do not believe the Incarnate Word"?
Jesus is telling the Jews who were trying to kill him (John 5:18) that he doesn't abide in them?
That must have been a newsflash.

The above reading, although ungainly, is not redundant, because it does not logically follow that just because we believe in something or someone, it or they abide in us. The Christological meaning becomes even more clear when we pull back to review the context:

“And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.”

The Word of the Father is Jesus Christ, according to John 1. Not Sacred Scripture - it doesn’t say that. Rather, it says the Scriptures are divinely inspired, God breathed. And there is no redundancy in a Christological reading of those verses. Our Lord is saying that “Because you do not believe in me, the Word He sent, do not abide in you

And he doesn't abide in them because they do not believe him?
Well, that must have been a shocker.

Ironically, you repeated yourself there, which is technically redundancy.

And "You have not his word dwelling in you". . .
Jesus is not "his word", Jesus is "the word." (John 1:1, 14)
His word is the word of God written.

That is completely inaccurate, because the Persons of the Godhood, although coequal and uncreated, do belong to the unoriginate Father. That is why we sing the following words in the ancient hymn Ho Monogenes, which originated in what is now the Syriac Orthodox Church, and is now sung in all of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches and Eastern Catholic churches, and in Anglican churches, and a growing number of other Protestant churches:

Only-Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God,
Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary;
Who without change didst become man and was crucified;
Who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
O Christ our God, trampling down death by death, save us!

John's use of logos (word) ... came from Greek philosophy, where Logos (logic) was the First Cause, the Great Intelligence and Reason behind the Universe. It is the word John used to declare that the recently despised and crucified criminal, Jesus of Nazareth, is the eternal Logos, source of all wisdom and power, who became flesh in order to reveal God to us.

You are ignoring the conceptual relationship between the Logos and the Hebrew Memra, which is a central part of the revelation. Logos, because of Greek philosophy, became an appropriate Greek substitute for the Hebraic term Memra, but it is entirely wrong to say that the Christian concept of the Logos came from Greek philosophy. And there are numerous differences between the idea of the Logos that we see in Greek philosophy, for example, in Plato, and the Scriptural concept of the Word of God that the Holy Apostles and Evangelists, not just John as you suggest, but all of them, convey, by using the Greek term Logos as the closest possible conceptual analogy to the Hebrew concept of the Memra.

Logos is used to refer to Jesus only by John. . .and only
1) in the prologue of his gospel, and
2) in Rev 19:13, and

logon, used in phrases "word of _---_," is used by John to refer to Jesus only once, where he is clearly identified as "the Word of life"
3) in John's letter, 1 John 1:1,

and nowhere else in the NT.
In John 5:38, "his word" refers to Scripture, the word of God written, not to Jesus, for
Jesus is not "his word," Jesus is "the word."
It refers to the law which was in the Scriptures as well as Numbers 30:1-2, which the Pharisees used to support their tradition of the Corban vow, which is the issue in Mark 7:9-13.

Forgive me, but all of that is merely unfounded supposition, inconsistent with the actual texts, and lacking in exegetical intertextuality. I would critique such an interpretation even from a purely Antiochene-literalist perspective, because of the eisegetical aspects and the lack of consistency. The sacred scriptures, as a divinely inspired set of texts, must be presumed to be internally consistent . I would stress that I do not regard the Sacred Scriptures as the mere words of men, but as the Divinely inspired infallible writings of the holy Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists.

The word of God in Hebrews 4:12 is an "it."

That is entirely irrelevant.

Our basic difference seems to be between Orthodox Christianity and NT Christianity.

Orthodox Christianity is New Testament Christianity, because it was Orthodox Christians who compiled the New Testament!

And you are aware that I am a Congregationalist minister, a Protestant?[/quote]

The Liturgist · Sep 25, 2021

Neostarwcc said:
As long as you dont get into dangerous territory like denying Christ's diety, you're fine. It's pretty clear from scripture that he is God and completely equal to him.

Indeed so. It would also be equally dangerous to deny Christ’s humanity, because scripture teaches that He is also Man. That is to say, acknowledging the deity of Christ is not enough - we must acknowledge that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. And also, we must acknowledge the deity of the Holy Spirit, who spoke by the Prophets, and who is also God, and coequal and coeternal with the Father and Son, and who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified.

The Liturgist · Sep 25, 2021

d taylor said:
Well whatever it it was that you you were in with a high service ceiling. May be one of these Global 6000, the Falcon 5X and the Gulfstream G650, still 10 miles high is just that 10 miles high. compared to 2000 3000 or so miles is not very high. It is just 4 miles higher than a plane.

Yeah, I was not in a business jet...you were warmer with Concorde...

Clare73 · Sep 25, 2021

Clare73 said:
"You have not the Incarnate Word abiding in you, for you do not believe the Incarnate Word"? (John 5:38)
Jesus is telling the Jews who were trying to kill him (John 5:18) that he doesn't abide in them?
That must have been a newsflash.

The Liturgist said:
The above reading, although ungainly, is not redundant, because it does not logically follow that just because we believe in something or someone, it or they abide in us.

Regarding redundancy:
It is redundant if you speak it to someone who hates you and is trying to kill you, and you present their unbelief to them as news, which is how your interpretation renders it.
The correct understanding would show a denial by Jesus of something they thought was true; i.e., his charge that the word of God (in Scripture, which is the only word of God they had) does not abide in them, as they think it does, because they did not believe in him.
Your intepretation does not account for Jesus denial of what they thought was true.

Clare73 said:
And he doesn't abide in them because they do not believe him?
Well, that must have been a shocker.

The Liturgist said:
Ironically, you repeated yourself there, which is technically redundancy.

You are acknowledging my point, because my statement was to show the redundacy of your interpretation, and you agree it is redundant.

Regarding "his word":

“And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.”

"The Word" originates with John the apostle after Jesus' death.
Jesus was never called "the Word" while on earth.
He would not be using that of himself in John 5:38.

The Word of the Father is Jesus Christ, according to John 1. Not Sacred Scripture -

Agreed. . .

And the word of God is also the Scriptures, according to Matthew 19:4-6; John 5:38; Hebrews 4:12 (Ephesians 6:17); 1 Timothy 4:5 (->God's promise of food, Psalms 145:15-16); Mark 7:13 (the stone tablets were lost in the 6th century BC, the Law was preserved only in Scripture,"the word of God" in Mark 7:13).

That ("his word" is the word of God written in John 5:38) is completely inaccurate,

"The Word" originates with John the apostle after Jesus' death.
Jesus was never called "the Word" while on earth.
He would not be using that of himself in John 5:38.

You are ignoring the conceptual relationship between the Logos and the Hebrew Memra, which is a central part of the revelation. Logos, because of Greek philosophy, became an appropriate Greek substitute for the Hebraic term Memra, but it is entirely wrong to say that the Christian concept of the Logos came from Greek philosophy.

Agreed. . .which is why I did not say that. And I'm thinking you know I did not say that, right?
But on the chance that you really think I said that, let me clarify:
while to emphasize the meaning of the Biblical God to the Gentiles, John chose a Greek word which would reflect the Sovereign Omnipotent, John in no way ever suggested that the Greek concept of the Soverign Omnipotent was the Hebrew/Christian concept.
Are you sure you don't already know that?

Forgive me, but all of that is merely unfounded supposition, inconsistent with the actual texts, and lacking in exegetical intertextuality.

However, that Jesus never refers to himself as the Word of God because the phrase didn't originate until John's gospel after Jesus' death is not unfounded supposition.

Jesus is not referring to himself in John 5:38, but to the Scriptures.

I would critique such an interpretation even from a purely Antiochene-literalist perspective, because of the eisegetical aspects and the lack of consistency. The sacred scriptures, as a divinely inspired set of texts, must be presumed to be internally consistent . I would stress that I do not regard the Sacred Scriptures as the mere words of men, but as the Divinely inspired infallible writings of the holy Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists.

Agreed. . .and I would add that the NT shows the Scriptures to be the "word of God" in Matthew 19:4-6; John 5:38, Hebrews 4:12 (Ephesians 6:17); 1 Timothy 4:5 (->God's promise of food, Psalms 145:15-16); Mark 7:13 (the stone tablets being lost in the 6th century BC, the Law was preserved only in Scripture,"the word of God" in Mark 7:13), and which use of "word of God" for the Scriptures is common in Reformed Christianity.

And you are aware that I am a Congregationalist minister, a Protestant?

Indeed, I am, and an impressive one at that. . .but that doesn't alter the fact that our differences lie in the differences between Orthodox Christianity and NT Christianity.

Fervent · Sep 27, 2021

The Liturgist said:
We really need to stop referring to the Bible as the Word of God, because in the Bible, the Bible is referred to in the New Testament as Graphe, meaning Scriptures. We should call it the Holy Scriptures. Calling it the Word of God is dangerous and confusing, not because it is not wholly divinely inspired throughout, but because the Word of God is Jesus Christ (John 1:1-18). Everyone needs to stop and read the first chapter of the Gospel According to John, which is obviously talking about Jesus Christ, and not the Bible.

Referring to the Bible as the Word of God is not the only way to convey the same semantics as what is intended; one could say the Words of God, and that would avoid confusion with our Savior in part, but furthermore, it would mean the same thing if we simply called the Holy Bible the Divinely Inspired Scriptures, acknowledging that they are the heart of the Christian religion and the primary means of revelation we have access to two thousand years after the actual Word of God - Jesus Christ, ascended into Heaven.

The Scriptures themselves are also referred to as logos, not just graphe. I'm not sure but I think they're also called rhema somewhere, as well. Moving away from treating the Bible as the word of God places us in a dangerous place because it removes whatever semblance of resolution we may have as we go from having a discussion of real meaning to debating blind speculation. Besides, when Jesus was called the Logos it's more in line with "logic" or reason of God rather than "word."

The Bible, word of God or word of man?

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.

Blood-bought

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Similar threads