• Do not add comments to posts once the thread has been closed for review. A closed thread means there should not be any further comment. Commenting in closed threads can result in a ban.

The Bible is the Word of God, and is God Himself

Roymond

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2022
332
121
67
Oregon
✟7,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Single
Then they got it from the Greeks.
But possibly only because it was used in the Septuagint. I sat and listened once at a study center to two professors arguing the matter; they lost me when they started quoting not just the Septuagint but both rabbinic and philosophical works to make their points. At the time the Septuagint was translated, λόγος wasn't really used in the later sense; Plato and Aristotle were more interested in whether the λόγος of primary forms and the λόγος of the real world were the same, so in use it tended to mean "thought", "word", "matter/topic", "nature", "norm", and "being"-- more focused on the particulars rather than on a grand organizing principle. Stoicism kind of gets there, but they didn't use the λόγος as a universal principle for everything, only for universal reasoning a sort of mind that holds/thinks all truth. It's the "mind" "behind" the universe that defines all the particulars. Neo-Platonism is where λόγος comes into its own, and that's later.

At least that's the "no reliance of Greek thought" argument. It's one of those things I can argue either way, though neither side as well as those two professors; it was like they were incarnation of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament plus Liddel & Scott rolled into one!
The choice here is between Incarnate Word and Incarnate Word of God.
The gospel of John does not use "Incarnate Word of God."
Ah -- okay, I didn't catch that.

Of course John doesn't use "Incarnate Word of God"; after his Prologue the "of God" would be redundant. Phrasing it as "incarnate God the Word" might have fit his thought (Gregory and especially Cyril of Alexandria used the phrase), but that's actually more of a polemical formulation than anything used against Nestorius et al.
 
Upvote 0

newton3005

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2019
523
141
59
newburgh
✟78,141.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is Gnosticism, of the variety which says that when God acts within the world he "emanates" His Own Self into Creation. The only other choice is θεολλάζοντας, "theoLOdzantas", the doctrine that God is mutable, changeable, and thus here holds that God is not merely Trinity but Quaternity†. As both positions are heresy because they set forth a different God from Who we find in the scriptures, it makes little difference which error is the case here; either way it is heresy. It's bad Christology, and makes a very bad mess of the Trinity.
Jesus in Matthew 7:21 -says “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." By your logic, anyone who does the will of the Father is a slave to the Father. Also by your logic, anyone that does the will of the Father recreates for themselves something which is not the Will of the Father. And since you claim this to be true of everyone, you carry this thought along to what amounts to accusing anyone of heresy. But again, may I refer you back to Ephesians 2:8-10.

And it seems that in making language an issue in the Bible, it makes it easier for you to accuse others of losing something in the translation. If we go there, than I guess 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is effectively rendered moot, since no one would know what ideas to walk away with from reading the Bible at face value.
 
Upvote 0
Christian Counseling
  • Bible-based counseling
  • Available 24/7
  • Cancel Anytime
As a BetterHelp affiliate, we may receive compensation from BetterHelp if you purchase products or services through the links provided.

Roymond

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2022
332
121
67
Oregon
✟7,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jesus in Matthew 7:21 -says “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." By your logic, anyone who does the will of the Father is a slave to the Father. Also by your logic, anyone that does the will of the Father recreates for themselves something which is not the Will of the Father. And since you claim this to be true of everyone, you carry this thought along to what amounts to accusing anyone of heresy. But again, may I refer you back to Ephesians 2:8-10.
No, that would be by your logic, which requires that someone doing God's will has no input of their own. You may as well say that God acted like a demon and possessed the bodies of the writers.
And it seems that in making language an issue in the Bible, it makes it easier for you to accuse others of losing something in the translation. If we go there, than I guess 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is effectively rendered moot, since no one would know what ideas to walk away with from reading the Bible at face value.
Language is an issue with the Bible: if you can't even bother to understand the words you're reading, you aren't qualified to offer an opinion at all, only to ask questions.

As one of my linguistics professors in grad school said to every class, "All translations are wrong", his point being that since words only very rarely match in meaning from one language to another, it isn't possible to get everything right when translating. Any point about the scriptures made solely on the basis of a translation are suspect except the very basic ones about the Gospel.

II Timothy isn't rendered moot at all -- it's just linked to the admonitions to study and learn to interpret the scriptures correctly.
 
Upvote 0

newton3005

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2019
523
141
59
newburgh
✟78,141.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As one of my linguistics professors in grad school said to every class, "All translations are wrong", his point being that since words only very rarely match in meaning from one language to another, it isn't possible to get everything right when translating. Any point about the scriptures made solely on the basis of a translation are suspect except the very basic ones about the Gospel.
Well, in order to get anything out of the Bible, we have to start somewhere. Question is, who do you rely on to interpret what the Bible means, if it isn’t feasible to know what God means?

There are ambiguities in the Bible. The first Verse in the Book of John starts with, “In the beginning was the Word...” Is it the Word of God or the word of Christ? One would think that the opening phrase “In the beginning,” which is also the opening phrase in the Old Testament which goes on to say “God created the heavens and the earth,” would imply that John 1:1 refers to the Word of God, given to Christ.

Some may say that the Greek words used to denote “word” in John 1:1 means the word of Christ when translated literally. I don’t know. I wasn’t there when the Bible was translated. My point? Who can we rely on, amongst man, for the truth? Are we going to defer to linguistic professors to tell us what the Bible means?

Seems the better idea is to find out as much about the real world as possible, so you can decide whom you may find to be credible. Interesting that, unless something got lost in the translation, 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn’t add, ‘...and should be discussed with someone in order to get an understanding.’ It should be up to people themselves to discern whether something in the Bible needs further understanding beyond what you read. If you automatically defer to someone else, without knowing anything, you risk deferring to a particular individual to your detriment as far as your relation with God goes.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
35,270
24,948
Pacific Northwest
✟656,777.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Well, in order to get anything out of the Bible, we have to start somewhere. Question is, who do you rely on to interpret what the Bible means, if it isn’t feasible to know what God means?

There are ambiguities in the Bible. The first Verse in the Book of John starts with, “In the beginning was the Word...” Is it the Word of God or the word of Christ? One would think that the opening phrase “In the beginning,” which is also the opening phrase in the Old Testament which goes on to say “God created the heavens and the earth,” would imply that John 1:1 refers to the Word of God, given to Christ.

The Word in John 1:1 is Christ. The Word that was in the beginning with God and is God is a Person: It's Jesus. John 1:14 says "And the Word became flesh, and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.".

The Word being spoken of here is not the Bible, or a message; this is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Divine Son and Word of the Father, Jesus Christ.

Some may say that the Greek words used to denote “word” in John 1:1 means the word of Christ when translated literally. I don’t know. I wasn’t there when the Bible was translated. My point? Who can we rely on, amongst man, for the truth? Are we going to defer to linguistic professors to tell us what the Bible means?

We can easily look at the original language,

John 1:1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
En arche en ho Logos kai ho Logos en pros ton Theou kai Theos en ho Logos
In [the] beginning was the Word and the Word was toward* the God and the Logos was God**

*the Greek preposition πρὸς (pros) means "toward", "near", "with", the sense of being "face-to-face with".
**a woodenly literal translation of καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai Theos en ho Logos) would be "and God was the Word", however grammatically it is more correct to translate it as "and the Word was God", as ho Logos ("the Word") is being called Theos ("God"). In other words we have God with God in the beginning, aka God the Son with God the Father in the beginning.

This Logos or "Word" who is in the beginning God with God, then became flesh,

John 1:14
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

Kai ho Logos sarx egeneto kai eskenosen en emin kai etheasametha ten doxan autou doxan hos monogenous para Patros pleres charitos kai aletheias

And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us and we beheld the glory of Him [the] glory of the only-begotten of [the] Father full of grace and truth

Seems the better idea is to find out as much about the real world as possible, so you can decide whom you may find to be credible. Interesting that, unless something got lost in the translation, 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn’t add, ‘...and should be discussed with someone in order to get an understanding.’ It should be up to people themselves to discern whether something in the Bible needs further understanding beyond what you read. If you automatically defer to someone else, without knowing anything, you risk deferring to a particular individual to your detriment as far as your relation with God goes.

There is two thousand years of clear and unambiguous Christian exegesis and teaching that is available to us. We don't have to defer to a single individual, or simply try and divine the meaning of Scripture through our own self-efforts. The whole Christian Church spanning two millennia has been reading, hearing, believing, and confessing the Scriptures. And the Holy Spirit Himself is in the Church, as our Helper in accordance with the word and promise of our Lord Jesus. He was poured out two thousand years ago, on Pentecost, and He lives in us both individually as believers and corporately as the Church. He keeps us in true faith as we abide in the truth which we have received from the beginning, as we hear and abide in the Scriptures, as we abide in the faith that was "given to the saints once and for all delivered" (Jude 1:3), so we can therefore abide in the teaching we have received from the beginning (2 Thessalonians 2:15), not chasing after the doctrines of others, but in the apostles' teaching which is from Christ and is the inspired word of God by the power of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21).

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,074
2,271
PA
✟210,403.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The English Standard Version of 2 Timothy 3:16 leaves no doubt when it says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...” Similarly, other versions says that all Scripture is God-breathed.
Paul is referring to the Tanakh, not the Bible. There was no Bible around 65 AD
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pavel Mosko
Upvote 0
6

newton3005

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2019
523
141
59
newburgh
✟78,141.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul is referring to the Tanakh, not the Bible. There was no Bible around 65 AD
The Tanakh is the Torah. If 2 Timothy 3:16 is referring to the Torah, then is everything in the Bible after the Five Books of Moses, which is what the Torah is composed of, beyond the realm of this Verse? Seems this Verse may be inferring that everything that is presented in conjunction with the Torah, such as everything else in the Bible, is there for our teaching, reproof, correction and training as well.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
21,496
4,783
North Carolina
✟163,362.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Paul is referring to the Tanakh, not the Bible. There was no Bible around 65 AD
There is evidence that the church was already considering the apostolic writings as Scripture, as in
2Pe 3:16 where the Apostle Peter places the Apostle Paul's writings on the same level of authority as the God-breathed writings of the OT (2Ti 3:16).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Roymond
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
35,270
24,948
Pacific Northwest
✟656,777.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The Tanakh is the Torah. If 2 Timothy 3:16 is referring to the Torah, then is everything in the Bible after the Five Books of Moses, which is what the Torah is composed of, beyond the realm of this Verse? Seems this Verse may be inferring that everything that is presented in conjunction with the Torah, such as everything else in the Bible, is there for our teaching, reproof, correction and training as well.

The Torah is the first five books of the Tanakh, it's the "Ta" in Tanakh. There is also the Na and Kh of the Tanakh--i.e. the Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings).

St. Paul's statement, contextually, referred to what we call the Old Testament (though it was not yet formalized in either Judaism as the Tanakh or as the Old Testament in Christianity, that came later); but its meaning extends to all Scripture as received and confessed in the Church: both Old and New Testaments. So while there wasn't a New Testament yet, and therefore no Bible, as Christians we confess and acknowledge the Canon of Scripture received down through the ages as the divinely inspired word of God. That Canon of divinely inspired Scripture is what we call the Holy Bible, aka "the Holy Books".

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roymond
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,074
2,271
PA
✟210,403.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Tanakh is the Torah.
No
then is everything in the Bible after the Five Books of Moses, which is what the Torah is composed of, beyond the realm of this Verse?
Your premise is incorrect therefore your conclusion is also incorrect.
Seems this Verse may be inferring that everything that is presented in conjunction with the Torah, such as everything else in the Bible, is there for our teaching, reproof, correction and training as well
Paul was not prophesizing. Paul referenced the Scriptures, and at that time, the scriptures for the Jewish people was the Tanakh.
 
Upvote 0
10

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,074
2,271
PA
✟210,403.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There is evidence that the church was already considered the apostolic writings as Scripture
Nope, that has been proven false many times.

Also, Many other writings that didn't make the cut were read at the Divine Liturgy.
 
Upvote 0

Think...

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
419
91
South
✟12,838.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Bible is the Work of God, and in that context it is the WORD of God. The English Standard Version of 2 Timothy 3:16 leaves no doubt when it says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...” Similarly, other versions says that all Scripture is God-breathed.

Other versions, such as the New Living Translation, starts out by saying “All Scripture is INSPIRED BY God.” Is there really any difference as to whether all Scripture is breathed out by God or inspired by God when the purpose of the Scriptures in God’s name is the same?

Some may argue it’s not the same thing. They may say that the phrase “inspired by God” suggests that the Bible is the work of man rather than of God. But in terms of true faith, the only works that count are those of God. Those works are either from God himself or they are manifested in others as God’s works. Ephesians 2:8-10 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. AND THIS IS NOT YOUR OWN DOING; IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD, NOT A RESULT OF WORKS, SO THAT NO ONE MAY BOAST. For we are his workmanship, CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS FOR GOOD WORKS, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

One good work of God is manifested in those of the Faith who write the Word of God in the Bible. Those of the faith are not writing their own words, they’re writing the Words of God. Every Word of God, from the Ten Commandments to the numerous battles in the Old Testament, to the birth of Jesus, his teachings and his Ascension are the Words of God. So, to risk an analogy, as every word of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is Lincoln himself (but reflecting God’s good works), every Word of God in the Bible is God Himself.
Yes, but some twist this to mean strange things that it does not.

It is God's essence, yes. It is God's Spirit, yes; as Jesus tells us in John 6:63, and Peter confirms in John 6:68.

But it is not God Himself sitting there in your lap, or on the table in front of you. You are not marking on God when you make notes in your Bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David's Harp
Upvote 0
15

Roymond

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2022
332
121
67
Oregon
✟7,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Single
There are ambiguities in the Bible. The first Verse in the Book of John starts with, “In the beginning was the Word...” Is it the Word of God or the word of Christ? One would think that the opening phrase “In the beginning,” which is also the opening phrase in the Old Testament which goes on to say “God created the heavens and the earth,” would imply that John 1:1 refers to the Word of God, given to Christ.
You just gave an example of how not to read the Bible: adding to the text. Your question "Is it the Word of God or the word of Christ?" forces a dichotomy on the text that the text doesn't include. The grammar is easy enough; from the portion you cited "the Word" means "the Word" -- period. Adding in something that isn't there is a great way to make sure you won't figure out what the text is saying because you're forcing it to fit categories you dragged in.
Some may say that the Greek words used to denote “word” in John 1:1 means the word of Christ when translated literally. I don’t know. I wasn’t there when the Bible was translated. My point? Who can we rely on, amongst man, for the truth? Are we going to defer to linguistic professors to tell us what the Bible means?

It's impossible to get "the word of Christ" out of translating John 1:1 because those words aren't present. It "literally" cannot be turned into "the word of Christ" by a translator -- you can't translate words that aren't there.

As for deferring to "linguistic professors", you have no choice unless you want to actually learn the original languages yourself -- every single translation is the work of linguistics scholars, so by reading a translation you just deferred to linguistics professors.
 
Upvote 0

Roymond

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2022
332
121
67
Oregon
✟7,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Word in John 1:1 is Christ. The Word that was in the beginning with God and is God is a Person: It's Jesus. John 1:14 says "And the Word became flesh, and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.".

The Word being spoken of here is not the Bible, or a message; this is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Divine Son and Word of the Father, Jesus Christ.



We can easily look at the original language,

John 1:1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
En arche en ho Logos kai ho Logos en pros ton Theou kai Theos en ho Logos
In [the] beginning was the Word and the Word was toward* the God and the Logos was God**

*the Greek preposition πρὸς (pros) means "toward", "near", "with", the sense of being "face-to-face with".
**a woodenly literal translation of καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai Theos en ho Logos) would be "and God was the Word", however grammatically it is more correct to translate it as "and the Word was God", as ho Logos ("the Word") is being called Theos ("God"). In other words we have God with God in the beginning, aka God the Son with God the Father in the beginning.

This Logos or "Word" who is in the beginning God with God, then became flesh,

John 1:14
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

Kai ho Logos sarx egeneto kai eskenosen en emin kai etheasametha ten doxan autou doxan hos monogenous para Patros pleres charitos kai aletheias

And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us and we beheld the glory of Him [the] glory of the only-begotten of [the] Father full of grace and truth

Actually retaining the "woodenly literal translation of καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" is useful if you remember that this is a philosophical statement and translate the verbs with their full force: that clause then reads "and GOD is what the Word was being". The structure is treating "GOD" as the nature of the Word, the essence of His Being. To do the whole verse from that perspective, we get:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος -> In beginning/foundation the Word was being, and the Word was being towards God, and GOD is what the Word was being.

That picks up the sense of the Greek imperfect as well.

BTW, the phrase ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, "the Word (who is God in His essence) FLESH became" was the biggest scandal to heretics for all the centuries of church history. The claim that the ineffable, unreachable, beyond-comprehension organizing intelligence from which the universe was made and by Whom the universe continues to exist didn't just make a human body as a puppet or avatar but actually united Himself to flesh is mind-bogglingly shocking to pretty much every human system of thought.

There is two thousand years of clear and unambiguous Christian exegesis and teaching that is available to us. We don't have to defer to a single individual, or simply try and divine the meaning of Scripture through our own self-efforts. The whole Christian Church spanning two millennia has been reading, hearing, believing, and confessing the Scriptures. And the Holy Spirit Himself is in the Church, as our Helper in accordance with the word and promise of our Lord Jesus. He was poured out two thousand years ago, on Pentecost, and He lives in us both individually as believers and corporately as the Church. He keeps us in true faith as we abide in the truth which we have received from the beginning, as we hear and abide in the Scriptures, as we abide in the faith that was "given to the saints once and for all delivered" (Jude 1:3), so we can therefore abide in the teaching we have received from the beginning (2 Thessalonians 2:15), not chasing after the doctrines of others, but in the apostles' teaching which is from Christ and is the inspired word of God by the power of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21).

-CryptoLutheran
A good place to start is those who were alive when Apostles still were -- the Apostolic Fathers; their writings can be found here:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ViaCrucis
Upvote 0

Roymond

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2022
332
121
67
Oregon
✟7,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Single
Nope, that has been proven false many times.
You should take a course on the canonization of the New Testament -- by the end of the first century of the church, Paul's writings were already included in the scriptures. Churches swapped list of "what is read in our churches", a term that indicates the texts listed were considered scripture; this was carried over from the synagogues where scrolls were kept to be read from during worship. Nothing not considered scripture was read in synagogue, and the church followed that pattern, so by saying "we read this in our churches" they were saying "this is our list of the scriptures".
Also, Many other writings that didn't make the cut were read at the Divine Liturgy.
"Many"? No, only a few, Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache prominent among them. The total is around a dozen, several of which were already recognized as forgeries, for example the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel According to the Egyptians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fervent
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,074
2,271
PA
✟210,403.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You should take a course on the canonization of the New Testament
Really, please give me a resource
by the end of the first century of the church, Paul's writings were already included in the scriptures
Proof please
Nothing not considered scripture was read in synagogue, and the church followed that pattern, so by saying "we read this in our churches" they were saying "this is our list of the scriptures".
Synagogue?

Clement's letter was read at the Divine Liturgy. That is of course until the Church concluded it was not divinely inspired, then it wasn't read. Please brush up on history.

"Many"? No, only a few, Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache prominent among them. The total is around a dozen, several of which were already recognized as forgeries, for example the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel According to the Egyptians.
Thank you for confirming my claim.
 
Upvote 0
19

YahuahSaves

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2022
1,760
706
Melbourne
✟22,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Other versions, such as the New Living Translation, starts out by saying “All Scripture is INSPIRED BY God.” Is there really any difference as to whether all Scripture is breathed out by God or inspired by God when the purpose of the Scriptures in God’s name is the same?

Your thread title is misleading.
The bible is not God himself, but writings by men who were "inspired" by the Holy Spirit.
The bible is Gods plan of redemption through Jesus Christ the Son of God.
All of the scriptures point to him.

God himself is living and present not just then, but the here and now.
Jesus is in the Father, we are in Jesus and Jesus is in us, and we have a relationship with God through his Holy Spirit.

Traditional religion has confused a lot of people making them believe the book is solely how we have a relationship with him, it isn't - but it is a tool. We renew our minds with the truth on a daily basis.
 
Upvote 0