The Bible, word of God or word of man?

[Fervent]

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.”

Logos and logon are the same word, the case ending speaks of its function in the sentence. The nominative case is the subject of the sentence, the thing doing the action or being the thing, and the accusative is for the object/predicate.

Where logos appears is not always referring to Jesus as that is a very common word, with a specific meaning. Graphe is a word written, rhema is a word spoken, logos is the conceptual aspect of a word. The divine Logos is a philosophical idea that comes from Philo and other Hellenist philosophers pre-dating John's usage especially prevalent among gnostics, so John co-opted it to show that Jesus fulfills that aspect of Divinity and became flesh. The confusion comes because "word" isn't necessarily the greatest translation of logos, especially in John 1 where the central idea is not linguistics but rational content.

 

[zoidar]

Ok this topic can get REAL blasphemous really fast so I'm going straight to the point. My intention is not to offend but to educate people on what the Bible truly is, the very innerant infallible word of God. Many evangelical Christians would not disagree with my statement.

However, a lot of evangelicals don't believe the word of God literally. Tell me, which is it? If its the Word of God than wouldn't the Bible be infallible and without error? Because, God IS infallible and without error! So why are topics like complementarianism or topics like creationism or topics like Eternal security or slavery or homosexuality or any divorce, or anger, or any other topics taken from the Bible, not only not believed, or even talked about but avoided like they're the plague? If you believe the Bible is the word of God, than these things HAVE to be true because they come from the very mouth of God! The Bible is not only true history but its also breathed out by the very mouth of God! If your god is against the Bible than its not really from the God who created the universe and everything in it!


All this being said I'm not saying these people aren't Christians or that they cannot be saved. Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. Salvation comes from God not man and its not our place to say who is saved and who isn't. As we don't save anyone or nobody saves themselves. Salvation is completely, 100% a work of God. How do I know? The Bible says so. How do we know Jesus loves us? The Bible tells us so. How do we know the will of God? The Bible tells us. The Bible, tells us everything we could ever know about God and about life. When Jesus was tempted by Satan he didn't use his own thoughts or inclinations. He didn't attack Satan physically he used the word of God against him. Why? Because the word of God is that, the very words of God.

Otherwise if you doubt even a single part of the word of God it's no longer the word of God but of man. Because God is perfect in each and every way.

Sadly I'm getting the feeling that only my reformed brothers and Sisters will fully agree with me. It shouldn't be that way. The word of God should be viewed and read the same way by all who believe in Jesus. For, how can you truly believe in one whose words you twist to get him to say what you want him to say? Why not just read God's words for what they truly are? God speaking to you.

I first wrote that conservative Lutherans agree with you, but then I read more closely what you wrote. I'm not sure which it is you mean, if you want people to believe that the Bible is infallible and the Word of God or if you mean that we need to come to the same doctrines from reading the Bible as you do? Conservative Lutherans believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, in faith alone, and (generally) in a young earth, but they don't hold doctrines like eternal security or limited atonement.

 

[The Liturgist]

Logos and logon are the same word, the case ending speaks of its function in the sentence. The nominative case is the subject of the sentence, the thing doing the action or being the thing, and the accusative is for the object/predicate.

Where logos appears is not always referring to Jesus as that is a very common word, with a specific meaning. Graphe is a word written, rhema is a word spoken, logos is the conceptual aspect of a word. The divine Logos is a philosophical idea that comes from Philo and other Hellenist philosophers pre-dating John's usage especially prevalent among gnostics, so John co-opted it to show that Jesus fulfills that aspect of Divinity and became flesh. The confusion comes because "word" isn't necessarily the greatest translation of logos, especially in John 1 where the central idea is not linguistics but rational content.

The Greek philosophical connection ignores the correlation to the Hebrew “memra.” At any rate, I do concede there are places in the New Testament. where the text speaks of both our Lord and the Scriptures, but never of the Scriptures only (if it exists, I haven’t found it). From an Eastern Orthodox theological perspective, which I concur with, they view the Scriptures as an icon of Christ, which is why when venerating an icon they either kiss our Lord or an image of the Scriptures, one or the other will always be present. So, because the Scriptures are the revelation to, in and from the Church from the Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists of the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, the two are only distinct in the sense that a pointer in the C programming language is distinct from the value it points to.

 

[Fervent]

The Greek philosophical connection ignores the correlation to the Hebrew “memra.” At any rate, I do concede there are places in the New Testament. where the text speaks of both our Lord and the Scriptures, but never of the Scriptures only (if it exists, I haven’t found it). From an Eastern Orthodox theological perspective, which I concur with, they view the Scriptures as an icon of Christ, which is why when venerating an icon they either kiss our Lord or an image of the Scriptures, one or the other will always be present. So, because the Scriptures are the revelation to, in and from the Church from the Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists of the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, the two are only distinct in the sense that a pointer in the C programming language is distinct from the value it points to.

AFAIK "Memra" is a later attempt to capture the Hellenist idea of Logos used mostly in the Targum so I don't believe John would have been concerned with it. As for the rest, it's an interesting view though I'm not sure it makes practical sense. The Scriptures all testify to Christ, no doubt, but for them to be an actual icon of Him? Seems a fantastic human rationalization.

 

[The Liturgist]

AFAIK "Memra" is a later attempt to capture the Hellenist idea of Logos used mostly in the Targum so I don't believe John would have been concerned with it.

I have seen no evidence the Targum was influenced by Hellenic philosophy. Is it possible? Sure, but it seems highly unlikely. Especially since we see a concept similar to the idea of the Memra in the Sunni doctrine of the uncreated Quran, which suggests a pan-Semitic origin. Furthermore, the Logos doctrine in Greek philosophy was emanationist, which indicates a link to Zoroastrianism, who did have a strong influence on Greco-Roman philosophy, with the Zoroastrian emanation of Mithras becoming the subject of a male-only mystery cult that was kind of a Hellenic equivalent to Freemasonry.

As for the rest, it's an interesting view though I'm not sure it makes practical sense. The Scriptures all testify to Christ, no doubt, but for them to be an actual icon of Him? Seems a fantastic human rationalization.

Well, Christianity is a fantastic religion at times, but is far from fantasy. Consider myrhh streaming icons and relics, but I have seen and experienced them firsthand, as have many others, as my Orthodox and Catholic friends @Greek Orthodox @prodromos and @concretecamper can likely attest.

 

[Fervent]

Well, so do miraculous myrhh streaming icons and relics, but I have seen and experienced them firsthand, as have many others, as my Orthodox and Catholic friends @Greek Orthodox @prodromos and @concretecamper can likely attest.

I don't mean to discount the importance of icons, certainly not trying to be an iconoclast. What I mean is that Scripture is something entirely unique as God's chosen self-disclosure in human language, reducing it to an icon somewhat robs it of its important function and authority. It's not simply an object of worship but a tool for inquiring into the mind of God.

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't mean to discount the importance of icons, certainly not trying to be an iconoclast. What I mean is that Scripture is something entirely unique as God's chosen self-disclosure in human language, reducing it to an icon somewhat robs it of its important function and authority. It's not simply an object of worship but a tool for inquiring into the mind of God.

The Orthodox and Catholics don’t worship icons, they venerate them, and Eastern Orthodox interpretations on the scripture are that it is the center of Holy Tradition and a verbal icon. Only the Gospel Book, or Evangelion, is specifically venerated, for example, it is common to kiss it in the Syriac and Coptic church, ( @dzheremi can enumerate the contexts - I think it is venerated during the Agpeya services before the liturgy and the Evening Raising of Incense and Psalmody, and the priest or deacon makes the sign of the cross with it in the Eastern Orthodox church.

 

[Fervent]

The Orthodox and Catholics don’t worship icons, they venerate them, and Eastern Orthodox interpretations on the scripture are that it is the center of Holy Tradition and a verbal icon. Only the Gospel Book, or Evangelion, is specifically venerated, for example, it is common to kiss it in the Syriac and Coptic church, ( @dzheremi can enumerate the contexts - I think it is venerated during the Agpeya services before the liturgy and the Evening Raising of Incense and Psalmody, and the priest or deacon makes the sign of the cross with it in the Eastern Orthodox church.

The venerated/worship distinction is rather splitting hairs but what I was saying isn't accusing of object-worship but using an object as a part of worship. The icons are often used as a means of concretizing worship of Christ, just as the ancient cultic worship of Israel was functional for directing worship to God. There's nothing inherently wrong about objects of worship, so long as the object itself is not the target of the worship.

 

[The Liturgist]

The venerated/worship distinction is rather splitting hairs but what I was saying isn't accusing of object-worship but using an object as a part of worship. The icons are often used as a means of concretizing worship of Christ, just as the ancient cultic worship of Israel was functional for directing worship to God. There's nothing inherently wrong about objects of worship, so long as the object itself is not the target of the worship.

While you have the idea of iconography right, it is of paramount importance that we understand the significance of worship vs. veneration. I venerate my relatives, living and deceased, for example, but I do not engage in ancestor worship in the manner of Japanese forms of Shinto-Buddhist syncretism and Confucianism/Chinese folk religion-Taoist* syncretism. The Seventh Council of Nicea mandated the veneration (doulia) of icons but strictly forbade their worship (latria).

*Ancestor worship is doctrinally established in both Confucianism and Chinese folk religion, and probably to some extent Buddhism; Chinese folk religion in turn is very frequently coordinated and administered by Taoist clergy, even though it is not related to essential Taoist doctrine and practice (a high level example of this would be the Taoist identification of certain characters from the mythological Chinese folk religion as members of the Immortals; a more low level would be a Taoist temple orchestrating various rites associated with ancestor worship and the placation of ghosts.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ok this topic can get REAL blasphemous really fast so I'm going straight to the point. My intention is not to offend but to educate people on what the Bible truly is, the very innerant infallible word of God. Many evangelical Christians would not disagree with my statement.

However, a lot of evangelicals don't believe the word of God literally. Tell me, which is it? If its the Word of God than wouldn't the Bible be infallible and without error? Because, God IS infallible and without error! So why are topics like complementarianism or topics like creationism or topics like Eternal security or slavery or homosexuality or any divorce, or anger, or any other topics taken from the Bible, not only not believed, or even talked about but avoided like they're the plague? If you believe the Bible is the word of God, than these things HAVE to be true because they come from the very mouth of God! The Bible is not only true history but its also breathed out by the very mouth of God! If your god is against the Bible than its not really from the God who created the universe and everything in it!


All this being said I'm not saying these people aren't Christians or that they cannot be saved. Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. Salvation comes from God not man and its not our place to say who is saved and who isn't. As we don't save anyone or nobody saves themselves. Salvation is completely, 100% a work of God. How do I know? The Bible says so. How do we know Jesus loves us? The Bible tells us so. How do we know the will of God? The Bible tells us. The Bible, tells us everything we could ever know about God and about life. When Jesus was tempted by Satan he didn't use his own thoughts or inclinations. He didn't attack Satan physically he used the word of God against him. Why? Because the word of God is that, the very words of God.

Otherwise if you doubt even a single part of the word of God it's no longer the word of God but of man. Because God is perfect in each and every way.

Sadly I'm getting the feeling that only my reformed brothers and Sisters will fully agree with me. It shouldn't be that way. The word of God should be viewed and read the same way by all who believe in Jesus. For, how can you truly believe in one whose words you twist to get him to say what you want him to say? Why not just read God's words for what they truly are? God speaking to you.

Its the reformed Christians that seem to have the hardest time taking verses like John 15:1-7 or 2 Timothy 2:12 literally. These verses demolish eternal security and if eternal security is demolished then predestination is also demolished because no one can be predestined to anything without eternal security.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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, etc.

Well Ignatius and Polycarp were taught by the apostles themselves, so their writings give some weight as to how the authors intended the scriptures to be interpreted since they had extensive teachings from them on a regular basis.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

The venerated/worship distinction is rather splitting hairs but what I was saying isn't accusing of object-worship but using an object as a part of worship. The icons are often used as a means of concretizing worship of Christ, just as the ancient cultic worship of Israel was functional for directing worship to God. There's nothing inherently wrong about objects of worship, so long as the object itself is not the target of the worship.

Part of this goes to eras when literacy was unusual. During the Orthros (Matins) service, one of the Resurrection Gospel readings is read and we chanters read a short verse and then chant Psalm 51. During this chant, the priest brings out the Gospels is brought out and everyone kisses the book and the priests hand.

FYI, in the EO, the book of the Gospels is made of metal, ideally of silver, gold and gems, which contains only the 4 Gospels. This is normally kept on the altar and used only by the clergy.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't mean to discount the importance of icons, certainly not trying to be an iconoclast. What I mean is that Scripture is something entirely unique as God's chosen self-disclosure in human language, reducing it to an icon somewhat robs it of its important function and authority. It's not simply an object of worship but a tool for inquiring into the mind of God.

Why do you consider it a reduction to say that it is an icon? Is it similarly a reduction when the very scriptures that you and I both love call Jesus Christ Himself "the image (eikon) of the invisible God"? (Colossians 1:15)

 

[The Liturgist]

Part of this goes to eras when literacy was unusual. During the Orthros (Matins) service, one of the Resurrection Gospel readings is read and we chanters read a short verse and then chant Psalm 51. During this chant, the priest brings out the Gospels is brought out and everyone kisses the book and the priests hand.

View attachment 306487

FYI, in the EO, the book of the Gospels is made of metal, ideally of silver, gold and gems, which contains only the 4 Gospels. This is normally kept on the altar and used only by the clergy.

View attachment 306486

In the Syriac Orthodox Church, they use the same binding, but at the end of the liturgy, the Gospel Book is set out so that all the laity can kiss it as they exit, similar to kissing the cross at the end of an EO service (in Russian praxis at least).

 

[GreekOrthodox]

In the Syriac Orthodox Church, they use the same binding, but at the end of the liturgy, the Gospel Book is set out so that all the laity can kiss it as they exit, similar to kissing the cross at the end of an EO service (in Russian praxis at least).

I've seen this practice in Greek Churches as well. Some have a couple of copies and leave one out in the narthex during the Orthros procession and use the other one for the liturgy

 

[The Liturgist]

I've seen this practice in Greek Churches as well. Some have a couple of copies and leave one out in the narthex during the Orthros procession and use the other one for the liturgy

Cool. There is an extremely high level of similarity between the Byzantine, West Syriac (Syriac Orthodox) and Coptic Rites. The Ethiopian Rite is very exotic in terms of paraments and liturgical actions, despite using conventual liturgical texts, and the East Syriac Rite is also exotic, particularly in the Chaldean use, where the Bema and percussion instruments are retained. The Armenian Rite is somewhere in the middle; while using a nearly identical Liturgy of the Catechumens to the Byzantine Rite, and also using a very familiar Anaphora derived from that of St. James, but attributed oddly enough to St. Athanasius, and using altars similar to East and West Syriac designs, and Coptic designs, with the priest on a raised platform also called a Bema, but not like the Jewish style Bema in the Chaldean churches, and a row of icons decorating the gap between the floor and the raised altar, and Georgian-like architecture, however, Armenian liturgical practices are unusual for Eastern churches in many respects, including unleavened bread, undiluted wine, the Eucharist restricted to Sundays and major feast days only, virtually no lay participation in the Divine Office, and no real Divine Office outside of Holy Etchmiadzin, the main cathedral in Lebanon, and the Holy Sepulchre, the retention of the old tradition abolished elsewhere starting in the mid 4th century of celebrating Christmas and the Eucharist on the same day, and a Lenten practice completely divergent from Coptic, Syriac and Byzantine practices, with no midweek liturgies, and indeed no consumption of the Eucharist by the laity at all; the altar is veiled during all liturgies in Lent and the laity do not see it, or partake of the Eucharist, until Palm Sunday, which is the exact opposite of the Byzantine, Coptic and Syriac high frequency confession and Eucharist cycle.

And their Paschal liturgy is in the morning (the Syriac church has both a Paschal Midnight Liturgy and a less popular liturgy the following morning; in the Coptic church that would not work because Copts observe the one liturgy per altar per day rule that exists at least in theory in the Eastern Orthodox Church, although in downtown LA, the Antiochian Orthodox Cathedral of St. Nicholas has, as far as I am aware, only one altar, but does two liturgies on Sunday, one Arabic and one English, but no Orthros or Vespers, which makes me sad, especially given the number of priests who work there and the excellence of several nearby Antiochian parishes, such as Fr. Josiah Trenham’s parish in Riverside County, which I sometimes brave US-95 and I-10 and some other freeways to get to (fortunately I have a client that uses my embedded software located in the same region), and the parish in Santa Barbara is also nice; I like to vacation there, but last year due to Covid I vacationed in Utah instead, and now I am obsessed with developing a plan to convert Mormons).

 

[Fervent]

Why do you consider it a reduction to say that it is an icon? Is it similarly a reduction when the very scriptures that you and I both love call Jesus Christ Himself "the image (eikon) of the invisible God"? (Colossians 1:15)

There's a difference between the Greek word and the functional usage of icon in iconography. An icon is a representation that is necessarily inferior, lacking in some substantial way. Christ as the image of God does not express the fullness of Christ as the substance of God, though because Christ is both image and substance both can be said of Him. An icon does not have that substance, it is simply an image. The Scriptures don't merely paint a picture of Christ, they provide us with a means for relationship and delving into the inner experience of God. While they do not have the substance of God, they are more than a simple image.

 

[The Liturgist]

There's a difference between the Greek word and the functional usage of icon in iconography. An icon is a representation that is necessarily inferior, lacking in some substantial way. Christ as the image of God does not express the fullness of Christ as the substance of God, though because Christ is both image and substance both can be said of Him. An icon does not have that substance, it is simply an image. The Scriptures don't merely paint a picture of Christ, they provide us with a means for relationship and delving into the inner experience of God. While they do not have the substance of God, they are more than a simple image.

Icons, while not in themselves worthy of worship, are (correctly) believed to be more than mere images, which is why many of them miraculously stream myrhh, such as the Iveron Icon of the Theotokos, originally used at a ROCOR church in Hawaii, but there are many myrhh-streaming and wonder-working icons. And the Orthodox church thorougly checks alleged myrhh streaming icons to ensure they are genuine and not fraudulent. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware described icons not as windows but as doors. And traditional icons are not realistic by intention; they are intended to depict spiritual realities rather than earthly reality. Thus we have the distinctive stylized approaches such as those of Byzantine icons, early Western icons, Coptic icons, Armenian icons, Ethiopian icons, and a few different varieties of Syriac icons.

There are also myrhh streaming relics, for example, those of St. Nicholas, the bishop who famously slapped Arius at the Council of Nicea and got arrested, but was a few days later pardoned by the Emperor, and who had been tortured under Diocletian (his relics have been forensically examined indicating his nose was brokem at least three times), and who along with St. Basil the Great is an inspiration for Santa Claus, because he gave purses filled with gold coins to an impoverished family with three girls on the verge of puberty, who would have been forced into prostitution otherwise due to the dowry system then in effect. His relics, which were stolen by the Roman Catholics during a crusade, have always been known to stream myrhh, and are visited by both Orthodox and Catholic pilgrims, as well as Anglican and other high church Protestant pikgrims.

 

[dzheremi]

There's a difference between the Greek word and the functional usage of icon in iconography.

What do you mean by "the functional usage of an icon"? Not all traditions venerate icons in the same fashion (in the Coptic Orthodox Church, and apparently in at least some of the Syrian churches, we 'kiss' them by touching them and bringing our fingers to our lips, while the EO kiss the icon itself with their lips, etc.), make use of them to the same degree, etc.

An icon is a representation that is necessarily inferior, lacking in some substantial way.

I don't agree. I'd say that an icon is different (we don't interact with them in all the same ways as we do the scriptures, depending), but not inferior. Besides, what do you then make of illustrated gospel manuscripts, like the Garima Gospels in Ethiopia (perhaps the earliest example of this phenomenon in the entire world), or the many similar examples we can find in the Armenian and Syrian traditions? These really call into question the distinction between the image and the written word.

Christ as the image of God does not express the fullness of Christ as the substance of God, though because Christ is both image and substance both can be said of Him.

So why would you separate the two? On the contrary, I would say that Christ can only truly be called the image of the invisible God because He makes the invisible God physically real before us, which entails or presupposes the homoousian reality of the Holy Trinity, such that when we see Him, we have seen God. In other words, saying that He is the image of the invisible God is not saying that God the Father is however tall Jesus is, or has the same eye color, or anything else about physical characteristics that the word "image" may conjure up in our minds (so, in this strict sense I agree with you that there is a difference between the word icon and what this all means theologically). Rather, He is the image of the invisible God because He and the Father are One.

I don't think icons 'work', theologically or practically, without understanding this beforehand. Otherwise, yes, it is just a picture and is thereby necessarily inferior.

An icon does not have that substance, it is simply an image.

If we're talking about the icon as a material object (i.e., the mounted or framed painting), then sure. But note that the same would be true of the Bible: it's 'just' a book, of whatever dimensions it has, of whatever length it has depending on the typesetting or footnotes, etc. This way of approaching things is not illuminating, whether we are talking about the Bible, icons, or anything else. Something having whatever physical properties it has is not the point in any case.

The Scriptures don't merely paint a picture of Christ, they provide us with a means for relationship and delving into the inner experience of God.

As icons do as well.

While they do not have the substance of God, they are more than a simple image.

And neither are icons just simple images.

 

[Clare73]

Well Ignatius and Polycarp were taught by the apostles themselves, so their writings give some weight as to how the authors intended the scriptures to be interpreted since they had extensive teachings from them on a regular basis.

Ignatius and Polycarp were not taught by Paul, who is the one who reveals the relation of works of the Law to salvation. That revelation of Paul is not in the gospels.