Were Adam and Eve the first?

[depthdeception]

The reason Christ came in the flesh was not to make his Word flesh, as to make it more believable! The Word became flesh so he could become as a man and die in our place! If Jesus did not have to die for our sins, the Word would not have had needed to become flesh! To come in the flesh, did not make the Word of God more believable! People were still rejecting Jesus Christ in the flesh!

I don't understand what your point is.

Jesus was equating at least equal accountability for what was written, with what he spoke in the flesh. You seem to say that what he said in the flesh holds more truth to it than what he had put in writing.

When did I say that? And what does it have to do with what we have been talking about?

Therefore, we actually have a more solid guarantee by having God's Word in writing! One can always mishear what was said. We can also misread. But, with it in writing, we can have others double check to make sure we have it right. By only hearing it, someone could always accuse us that we heard wrong. That, "the Lord did not really say that!"

This is where our understanding of the "Word of God" differs. I don't think the Word of God is something that can be written down. The Word of God, in my understanding, is Christ, the eternal Logos of God. The "writing" which we have in the Scriptures is the testimony of God's people throughout the centuries to the activity of God in salvation history.

By putting it in writing, God made his Word verifiable forever! It locks in his Word that much the more by having it made continuously repeatable for all us of us to see! Moses heard God, alone. If he only passed along what he said verbally? And, that got passed down verbally? We would all be playing spiritual post office, and over the centuries we would have no idea what was really said! God, by having his Word put down in writing, has locked his Word in time and space FOREVER!

Okay... I still don't understand what this has to do with what we've been talking about.

Jesus is the LIVING WORD!

I agree!

Jesus quoted what was written! We see that in Matthew 4:4! Here was the living Word, Jesus Christ, quoting the written Word to refute Satan! That should tell us something! (and, to most of us, it does!)

Good question. What does it tell us? That the Scriptures are the eternal Logos of God? Nope.

What does that tell us? Satan fears the Written Word being made clear and understood!

So Satan fears the fourth person of the Godhead? Okay. When you equate the Scriptures with the eternal Logos of God, you have asserted that the Scriptures are equal to Christ, whom the Scriptures themselves say is the Logos of God. If the Scriptures are equal with Christ, then they are equal in all ways, including Christ's deity. You can jump around this all you want, but you still haven't answered this charge.

 

[depthdeception]

So far, it has seemed that you are talking about textual issues. You first started this because you are against people saying the Bible is the written word of God. Now, you are saying we are talking only from a theological perspective. So, those that are not theologians, can they call the Bible the Word of God without committing heresy?

I already answered this in my first post. There is a difference between theological terminology and common vernacular. Although I think this is unfortunate, it is the reality which we face. However, since we are engaging in theological discussion, I think it is valid to attempt to be more precise in the way we utilize language.

Now, lets talk theology. First off, are you aware that in seminary school and in masters/phd level theology courses they refer to the Bible as God's written word? Why would theology courses do this, if your claim is that it is wrong?

Interestingly enough, I am in seminary. In my experience, the distinctions which I have been advocating are common fare. To not make a distinction, in my opinion, is theologically lazy.

The Bible has commonly been refered to as God's Word all the back and before the middle ages. People understand that if you say God's Word you are refering to the Bible. If one is refering to Christ, they usually say call Him by name, Jesus Christ or use references to Him such as Son of God.

But when people talk about the eternal Logos of God, they do not refer to the Scriptures--they speak of Christ. I am merely attempting to prevent misunderstanding by those who do not understand the imprecise ways in which the vast majority of Christians talk about Chirst as the Word of God and the Bible as the Word of God.

I am not claiming the Bible is God. I am claiming that the Bible originated from God. When Jesus said no man can get to the Father but through Him, was that Jesus' words? If that is Jesus' words, do the words give to truth to who He is? If so, then they are apart of Him. You cannot separate the fact of what He said from who He is.

I am not saying that the words are not Jesus' words. HOwever, the chronicling of Jesus' life and words in the Scriptures are the church's testimony to the self-revelation of God, Christ, the eternal Logos.

Is it your intention to separate what is written about God from God; to say that what is written is really not God. What is the Bible, teachings of men or teachings of God?

Yes, I am suggesting that what is written is not God. What is written is the testimony of God's people throughout the history of humanity to the self-revelation of God in Christ, the eternal Logos of God.

When one says God's Word it is commonly understood that the Bible contains what God has to say to mankind; that it is not all God has said, but contains what God wants it to contain. It is those who just want to argue and bring more division within the Church that will make the argument you are making now.

I realize this is what is commonly understood. However, if you ask the "common" Christian to describe the Trinity, they will most likely repeat some form of heresy, not because they are intending to, but rather because they are unaware of the nuances of the orthodox belief concerning the Trinity. So to use your logic, the "common" understanding is perfectly legitimate, even though it will probably contradict orthodox belief.

As far as being accused of causing division, I am doing this in the context of a theological forum, not in the context of a local church setting where theological uneducated people will have no idea what is being discussed. THerefore, I think your criticism is a bit unwarranted.

Christian theology, one that actually is believing all the Bible has to say - I say this because many groups claim to be Christians and do not believe what the Bible says - has always refered to the Bible as God's written word.

First of all, you should probably prove what you are saying with actual evidence. Second, I am sure that these same people--if they are being truly theological--will allow for the more precise definitions which I am advocating.

When you raise this argument, it seems you really are against the Bible containing God's teachings and you seem to want to assert that they are not God's they are man's.

I will say what I have always said. The Scriptures, in my opinion, is the testimony of God's people to the self-revelation of God in Christ, the eternal Logos. If God has been self-revealed through the Word (Christ), then this testimony of God's people is valid and in line with the will of God. Therefore, it is Christ, the Logos, who is the "teaching" and "truth" of GOd, and the Scriptures are the testimony of God's people to the revelation of divine truth in Christ, the Logos of God.

 

[depthdeception]

I agree that Bible is man's testimony to Truth, and not in and of itself as a unit the very truth of God. But the message God expresses through it is at that moment and for that purpose an expression of the Logos of God, and hence True and what it is communicating is Truth.

I don't do this often, but I will accept your suggestions about the "expression" of Truth in the testimony of God's people in their production of the Scriptures. However, I think it is still unnecessary to apply the term "Word of God" to the Scriptures, as that term is theological loaded in correlation to Christ. For although the Scriptures may express a measure of the nature of the Logos, they are not the Logos (as they have not existed from eternity in consubstantial unity with the Godhead). THerefore, why should we preserve such confusing terminology? If more precise language can be used, it should be used!!!!!!!!!

I disagree. If James Jackson wrote a blurb on the back of Jack Jameson's book, and there were a few quotes in the book from Jackson, it doesn't make the book equivalent to revelation from Joe Jackson.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make with this.

 

[Didaskomenos]

And I, in turn, would agree that we should steer far clear of referring to the Word of God apart from Christ Himself, for the sake of possible obfuscation and at the risk of biblioidolatry; I am so frustrated by the fundamentalist hijacking of the term "Word of God", which I never personally use in reference to the Bible or any of its parts.

My point was that just because we can recognize some portions of Scripture as actual bona fide revelation, we aren't necessarily in danger of completely equating the whole of Scripture with the Logos of God. Quoting the Word doesn't make the quoter the Word.

 

[Critias]

I already answered this in my first post. There is a difference between theological terminology and common vernacular. Although I think this is unfortunate, it is the reality which we face. However, since we are engaging in theological discussion, I think it is valid to attempt to be more precise in the way we utilize language.



Interestingly enough, I am in seminary. In my experience, the distinctions which I have been advocating are common fare. To not make a distinction, in my opinion, is theologically lazy.

Have you taken the Systematic Theology courses yet? I am not sure what seminary school you are going to or what denomination you are.

In the Systematic Theology courses, usually the first one, it speaks about the Bible and how the Early Church Fathers referred to Scripture - Old Testament and the letters of the New Testament - as God's Word. Augustine was very fond of calling the Bible God's Word. Martin Luther referred to the Bible as God's Word, Calvin and Wesley did as well.

Everyone one of these people would be considered wrong in your view, committing heresy.

But when people talk about the eternal Logos of God, they do not refer to the Scriptures--they speak of Christ. I am merely attempting to prevent misunderstanding by those who do not understand the imprecise ways in which the vast majority of Christians talk about Chirst as the Word of God and the Bible as the Word of God.

I suppose you are drawing this "doctrine" from John 1:1-2, correct? Can you find in John 1:1-2 where it states Word of God or God's Word? Simple answer is that it doesn't.

This is what it says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." John 1:1-2

Here is the Greek:

"En arche hen ho logos, kai ho logos hen pros ton Theon, kai Theos hen ho logos. autos hen en arche pros ton Theon." John 1:1-2

Not in English or in Greek is there God's Word or Word of God.

The transliteration of the Greek is:

"In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word. This One was in the beginning with the God." John 1:1-2

I am not saying that the words are not Jesus' words. HOwever, the chronicling of Jesus' life and words in the Scriptures are the church's testimony to the self-revelation of God, Christ, the eternal Logos.



Yes, I am suggesting that what is written is not God. What is written is the testimony of God's people throughout the history of humanity to the self-revelation of God in Christ, the eternal Logos of God.

That was my mistake in typing. It should not have read what is written is God, but rather was is written is about God.

I realize this is what is commonly understood. However, if you ask the "common" Christian to describe the Trinity, they will most likely repeat some form of heresy, not because they are intending to, but rather because they are unaware of the nuances of the orthodox belief concerning the Trinity. So to use your logic, the "common" understanding is perfectly legitimate, even though it will probably contradict orthodox belief.

As far as being accused of causing division, I am doing this in the context of a theological forum, not in the context of a local church setting where theological uneducated people will have no idea what is being discussed. THerefore, I think your criticism is a bit unwarranted.



First of all, you should probably prove what you are saying with actual evidence. Second, I am sure that these same people--if they are being truly theological--will allow for the more precise definitions which I am advocating.



I will say what I have always said. The Scriptures, in my opinion, is the testimony of God's people to the self-revelation of God in Christ, the eternal Logos. If God has been self-revealed through the Word (Christ), then this testimony of God's people is valid and in line with the will of God. Therefore, it is Christ, the Logos, who is the "teaching" and "truth" of GOd, and the Scriptures are the testimony of God's people to the revelation of divine truth in Christ, the Logos of God.

What Scripture are you using to say God's Word can only mean Christ? John 1:1-2 does not support your assertion.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I suppose you are drawing this "doctrine" from John 1:1-2, correct? Can you find in John 1:1-2 where it states Word of God or God's Word? Simple answer is that it doesn't.

Revelation 19:11-16: "Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

 

[depthdeception]

And I, in turn, would agree that we should steer far clear of referring to the Word of God apart from Christ Himself, for the sake of possible obfuscation and at the risk of biblioidolatry; I am so frustrated by the fundamentalist hijacking of the term "Word of God", which I never personally use in reference to the Bible or any of its parts.

I share your frustrations, and I appreciate your insightful posts!

My point was that just because we can recognize some portions of Scripture as actual bona fide revelation, we aren't necessarily in danger of completely equating the whole of Scripture with the Logos of God. Quoting the Word doesn't make the quoter the Word.

Ah, understood!

 

[depthdeception]

Have you taken the Systematic Theology courses yet? I am not sure what seminary school you are going to or what denomination you are.

In the Systematic Theology courses, usually the first one, it speaks about the Bible and how the Early Church Fathers referred to Scripture - Old Testament and the letters of the New Testament - as God's Word. Augustine was very fond of calling the Bible God's Word. Martin Luther referred to the Bible as God's Word, Calvin and Wesley did as well.

Everyone one of these people would be considered wrong in your view, committing heresy.

I do not consider those who use the vernacular phrase "the Word of God" in relation to the Scriptures heretics. The point I am making is that our language easily confuses the term and does not allow for very precise distinction between the nature of Christ in relation to God, and the nature of the Scriptures in relation to Christ. The term "Word of God" is commonly used to refer to both, yet this broad usage does not allow for the theological precision necessary for the accurate explication of the differences between Christ and the Scriptures. Even though these individuals which you mentioned used this term, they still made clear and precise distinctions between the nature of Christ and the nature of the Scriptures. All I am calling for is more precise usage of language. If such precision was impossible, I would not have a problem. HOwever, it is an easy thing, so why should we stubbornly hold onto terms (that in themselves are empty and meaningless) instead of employing language that more accurately describes the nature of what we believe?

 

[GenemZ]

Revelation 19:11-16: "Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

The Word of God, always said..... "It is written" as his means to communicate God's Word to others while he was in the flesh.

Matthew 21:12-13 niv
"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"

The Word of God was showing us that the written Word and the Living Word are ONE.

Mark 7:5-7 niv
"So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"
He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'

If you have a written instruction book on assembly of a product? If you call the one who created it, because you are not clear on something it says? You will be asked what page is it on. Then what is written will not be changed, but clarified for you. The one who created the manual sticks with what is written because what was written is what he thinks and knows! God raises up men to clarify, not add to, the Word of God.

How did the Word of God deal with attacks by Satan? Did the Word of God simply make declarations?

Matthew 4:4 niv
"Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' [ Deut. 8:3] "

Its interesting how the living Word of God would always refer to the Written Word of God, to represent what he thought!

It was like, he was saying..... Don't ask me! "Look in your Bible! I am already there!"

Now? If you wanted to file a complaint about something I posted? According to your logic? I could say, you can not charge me! For what I wrote is not me! You can only delete the post itself!

When you are held responsible for what you write? Then what you write is seen as being directly from you. If God communicates to man through his Word? Then if it be spoken directly, or put in writing, it makes no difference. The living Word, and the Written Word, ARE ONE!

"Thal shall not " was put in writing. Correct? If you disobeyed? Did you simply disobey what was written? Or, did you disobey God Himself?

Now? What if a Prophet spoke in the power of the Spirit? And said, "So saith the Lord!" Was that the Prophet speaking? Or, the Word of God speaking through him?

The Word of God is manifested to us in various ways. To obey the written Word, is to obey the Living Word of God!

John 14:7-9 niv
"If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."


Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? "

And? Anyone who has seen the Written Word, has seen the Living Word! The same principle applies! One could argue that the Father can not be limited to time and space! The the Father does not have flesh and blood!

And? One can argue that the Word of God can not be limited to ink and paper! That the Word of God is alive and speaks!

Hebrews 4:12 niv
"For the Word of God is living 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."

God sees His Written Word as being ALIVE!

That is, its alive to those who are alive to God! Those who are dead to God, can not see that the living Word, and the Written Word, are ONE! They only view it as a text to convey ideas. Ideas written by men.

2 Corinthians 3:6 nasb
"who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Those who are filled with the Spirit see the written Word as being alive. For those who are so filled, see what as written as being directly from the one who is living, as if he were speaking those very words at the moment they are being read. But, the letters in the Word itself can not reveal this to you. It must come by the Spirit. The Words that are written are spirit made manifest in time and space.

Matthew 16:17 niv
"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."

The insight into the Written Word can not be revealed by man. It must be revealed by the Spirit. No amount of debate can make it known to someone whom the Spirit bears not witness to the Truth. When I see certain things written in the Word? I look up to Heaven and say, "Yes Sir." That is the realtionship the Written Word should have in the believers life if he is filled with the Spirit and he has a an accurate understanding of the Word of God!

The counterfeit for the spiritual believer is the ignorant fundy. Instead of having an accurate understanding, he accepts an understanding that connects with his sinful desire to rule over others, and instead of the Spirit giving life to the words, his emotions drive him to impose his understanding upon others. It makes no difference. It can be a Muslim fundy using the Koran, or a person calling himself a Christian who is a fundy using the Bible. Satan has his counterfeit for the Spirit filled believer. God's, is life. Satan's, is death, and idiocy.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[depthdeception]

Matthew 21:12-13 niv
"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"

The Word of God was showing us that the written Word and the Living Word are ONE.

I do not see how the Scriptures are advocating that they are Christ, the eternal logos of God, which is consubstantial in nature with the Godhead. You still haven't shown that the Scriptures claim such an ontological categorization.

If you have a written instruction book on assembly of a product? If you call the one who created it, because you are not clear on something it says? You will be asked what page is it on. Then what is written will not be changed, but clarified for you. The one who created the manual sticks with what is written because what was written is what he thinks and knows! God raises up men to clarify, not add to, the Word of God.

Ah, but here's where we disagree. I don't believe the Scriptures were "written" by God, as if God dictated the words to the writers. Rather, I believe that the Scriptures are the testimony of the people of God to the activity of God in the history of salvation. I believe that God has spoken eternally through Christ, the eternal logos of God, and that Christ has been the self-revelation of God throughout eternity. Therefore, in this way, it is the revelation of CHirst to which the people of God responded in writing the Scriptures, not the other way around.

When you are held responsible for what you write? Then what you write is seen as being directly from you. If God communicates to man through his Word? Then if it be spoken directly, or put in writing, it makes no difference. The living Word, and the Written Word, ARE ONE!

Again, this is only necessary if one holds to the form of "inspiration" that you advocate. In my understanding, such a relationship is not necessary, and actually elevates the Scriptures to being consubstantial with the nature of God, unavoidably creating a fourth member of the Godhead.

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? "


And? Anyone who has seen the Written Word, has seen the Living Word! The same principle applies! One could argue that the Father can not be limited to time and space! The the Father does not have flesh and blood!

How does this verse prove what you have just said? It only works if one can prove that Christ=Scriptures, or that the Scriptures=Christ. If one rejects such an equation (as I do), your point about this verse is misguided and incorrect.

Hebrews 4:12 niv
"For the Word of God is living 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."

God sees His Written Word as being ALIVE!

First of all, the text does not say "God believes the Word of God is living and active..." You are assuming that this text is a direct dictation of God.

Secondly, commentators are divided as to the interpretation of this text. SOme believe it to be talking about the Scriptures (Old Testament, BTW), some think it is talking about the "whole" of revelation, and some think it is referring to the person of Christ as the eternal Logos of God. Saying this verse proves that the Scriptures are equal to Christ is an interpretation that will not only have little support (for none of the commentators I have read would see this verse as equating Christ and the Scriptures), but you will not find an overwhelming consensus to even prove that it is talking about the Scriptures.

That is, its alive to those who are alive to God! Those who are dead to God, can not see that the living Word, and the Written Word, are ONE! They only view it as a text to convey ideas. Ideas written by men.
[/quote

Thank you for reminding me that I am dead to God...

2 Corinthians 3:6 nasb

"who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Those who are filled with the Spirit see the written Word as being alive. For those who are so filled, see what as written as being directly from the one who is living, as if he were speaking those very words at the moment they are being read. But, the letters in the Word itself can not reveal this to you. It must come by the Spirit. The Words that are written are spirit made manifest in time and space.

C'mon. The context of these verse clearly reveal that the writer is not talking about "Scripture" but is talking about the old way of living under the law.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&verse=17&version=31&context=verse

 

[GenemZ]

[/b] Ah, but here's where we disagree. I don't believe the Scriptures were "written" by God, as if God dictated the words to the writers.

It did not have to be dictation, per se. Though there arevmany examples in Scripture where the Prophet is told to "Write." It could have been inspiration of the kind that absorbs the entire being until what was to be written was complete. The Holy Spirit has such power to guarantee for a moment in time something he wishes accomplished will be done perfectly, and supernaturally.

2 Peter 1:21 niv
"For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

Revelation 21:10 niv
"And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God."
It makes no sense that God's power can do such things, yet will fail to make sure that what is written down is not under the same control of the Spirit. You may want to argue the point. But, it see it as pointless to try.

Rather, I believe that the Scriptures are the testimony of the people of God to the activity of God in the history of salvation.

Some Scripture appears that way. Yet, God intended it to be that way.

I believe that God has spoken eternally through Christ, the eternal logos of God, and that Christ has been the self-revelation of God throughout eternity.

And, it was this same Christ that contnuously said when making a point, "It is written." If its good enough for Christ? Its not good enough for you?

Therefore, in this way, it is the revelation of CHirst to which the people of God responded in writing the Scriptures, not the other way around.

Only those walking in grace could respond correctly. That grace being present, indicates control of the Spirit of God so wants to. If God's Spirit could fill Sampson to pull down stone columns of a pagan temple? How much easier to gently get those God chose to write down what he wanted written down? I do not apologize for applying common sense to this issue.

[/b]Again, this is only necessary if one holds to the form of "inspiration" that you advocate. In my understanding, such a relationship is not necessary, and actually elevates the Scriptures to being consubstantial with the nature of God, unavoidably creating a fourth member of the Godhead.

What are you a lawyer for the other side? What is your point in all this? To prove that the written word is man's words? And, not from God, as God wanted them to be recorded?

God makes sure that only what he wants in Scripture was to be put in writing.

Revelation 10:4 niv
"And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven say, "Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down."

God made sure that only what he wanted to be put in writing, was.

The real problem is how one perceives God. Is he able to make sure that only what he wants is entered into the original texts? Or, is he at the mercy of men? When you look at it that way? I am forced to conclude that your concept of God, falls short of who and what God is. Jesus constantly supplied his ideas from quoting Scripture. Yet, for you? Jesus was only spouting off the opinions of men. Sad story. Very sad.



Matthew 21:13
"It is written,"

Mark 1:2
It is written

Mark 7:6
He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

Mark 11:17
And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:

Matthew 26:24
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him.

Matthew 26:31
[ Jesus Predicts Peter's Denial ] Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "

You want more? There is more! But, for now, this is all the Lord wants me to write.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

Luke 3:4
As is written

Luke 19:46
"It is written,"

Luke 22:37
It is written:

John 6:45
It is written

Matthew 2:5
"In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:

Matthew 4:4
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'

Matthew 4:7
Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'

Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'

Matthew 11:10
This is the one about whom it is written: " 'I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'

 

[depthdeception]

It did not have to be dictation, per se. Though there arevmany examples in Scripture where the Prophet is told to "Write." It could have been inspiration of the kind that absorbs the entire being until what was to be written was complete. The Holy Spirit has such power to guarantee for a moment in time something he wishes accomplished will be done perfectly, and supernaturally.

I still don't see what this has to do with the Scriptures being the eternal logos of God, that which has existed with God from eternity and is consubtantial in nature with the Godhead (as you believe it is)...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=1&verse=21&version=31&context=verse

It makes no sense that God's power can do such things, yet will fail to make sure that what is written down is not under the same control of the Spirit. You may want to argue the point. But, it see it as pointless to try.

I don't have a problem saying that the writer's of the Scripture were inspired in what the wrote. After all, I believe that the Scriptures are a testimony to God's activity in the history of salvation. Therefore, if where there is a testimony, there also is the witness of the Spirit; without the Spirit, there can be no witness. What I do have a problem with, however, is saying that the Scriptures are consubstantial in nature with God (as you have stated that they are).

And, it was this same Christ that contnuously said when making a point, "It is written." If its good enough for Christ? Its not good enough for you?

No, I do not have a problem with Jesus affirming the testimony of the people of God about God's activity in the history of salvation.

Only those walking in grace could respond correctly. That grace being present, indicates control of the Spirit of God so wants to. If God's Spirit could fill Sampson to pull down stone columns of a pagan temple? How much easier to gently get those God chose to write down what he wanted written down? I do not apologize for applying common sense to this issue.
[/qutoe]

How is this common sense? If the people of God are those who are filled with God's Spirit, then that which they testify about God will be what God "wants" to be written down...

What are you a lawyer for the other side? What is your point in all this? To prove that the written word is man's words? And, not from God, as God wanted them to be recorded?

A lawyer for the other side? What other side? My point is merely to point out the important theological distinction that must be made between the Scriptures (which most call the "Word of God" without realizing the theological implications) and Christ (who is the eternal logos of God and consubstantial in nature with the Godhead).

However one looks at it, and despite one's presuppositions about it, the biblie is man's words. People like Paul, Luke, and many other of God's faithful wrote the words that compose the bible. One can say they are "from God" or "inspired by God" or whatever, but in the end they are still words recorded by human beings...

The real problem is how one perceives God. Is he able to make sure that only what he wants is entered into the original texts?

I agree that the issue is how one perceives God. I have never denied that God is not able to do anything. The issue I have is how God accomplished this, and what one's perception of the final product is supposed to be.

I am forced to conclude that your concept of God, falls short of who and what God is. Jesus constantly supplied his ideas from quoting Scripture. Yet, for you? Jesus was only spouting off the opinions of men. Sad story. Very sad.

Well, your conclusion is your conclusion, and you are free to believe whatever you will about whatever you will. I disagree that my perspective paints a "deficient" view of God, and in fact I would argue that what I am advocating actually highlights the sovereignty of God more than that which you adovocate. Furthermore, I never said that Jesus was "spouting off the opinions of men." Rather, I have advocated that Jesus affirmed the testimony of God's faithful as contained in the Hebrew Scriptures.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=21&verse=13&version=31&context=verse

 

[GenemZ]

I still don't see what this has to do with the Scriptures being the eternal logos of God, that which has existed with God from eternity and is consubtantial in nature with the Godhead (as you believe it is)...

Tell us all something?

Will you, please?


How do you even know about the Eternal logos of God? Where are you getting this information from?


Grace and peace! GeneZ
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=1&verse=21&version=31&context=verse

 

[depthdeception]

Tell us all something?
Will you, please?
How do you even know about the Eternal logos of God? Where are you getting this information from?

I get this "information" from the testimony of the people of God. Throughout the Scriptures (using my definition, of course), the people of God consistently speak of the self-revelation of God in Christ. This testimony is the basis for my statementes and is the tradition through which I make these claims. Obviously, there is no way to affirmatively "prove" that Christ is the eternal Logos of God. However, the people of God have consistently affirmed this truth throughout the centuries in response to the self-revelation of GOd in Christ. This affirmation has become the Scriptures which we have today, and is the basis for the assertions that I am making.

However, in response to your loaded question, simply because something contains information about something does not make it equal in nature with the thing or person it is communicating information about. That would be like saying my yearbook is "me" simply because it contains information about me, and is a testimony to who I am and what I have done...

 

[GenemZ]

I get this "information" from the testimony of the people of God.

And? Where did they get it from?

Personal visions of God?

Or, from the Written Word?

You got it from the Written Word. Right? Or, just what people tell you?

Throughout the Scriptures (using my definition, of course), the people of God consistently speak of the self-revelation of God in Christ. This testimony is the basis for my statementes and is the tradition through which I make these claims.

According to you. The Bible is nothing more than one big compiled collection of commentary. Filled with men's ideas about God. But, not directly from God.


So? Do you hear God's voice to guide you? You do not need the Written Word? God taught you directly all you are telling us? Is that true?


Revelation 1:1-3 niv
"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near."

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[artybloke]

Or, from the Written Word?

There was a people of God before there was a Written Word: (the NT wasn't completed until at least the end of the 1st century) so, how did they get their "information?"

Must have been from the church's encounter with the Risen Christ and the oral tradition then...

 

[depthdeception]

And? Where did they get it from?

Personal visions of God?

Or, from the Written Word?

They got if from reflection upon the involvement of God in the history of God's people. They "got" it from their experience of the self-revelation of God in Christ, the eternal Logos of God.

You got it from the Written Word. Right? Or, just what people tell you?

I base what I have said upon the Scriptures which are the testimony of God's people.

According to you. The Bible is nothing more than one big compiled collection of commentary. Filled with men's ideas about God. But, not directly from God.

I have already explained it. The people of God are those who are filled with the Spirit of God. Therefore, if the Spirit of God dwells with these people, then their testimony about the self-revelation of God in Christ is valid.

So? Do you hear God's voice to guide you? You do not need the Written Word? God taught you directly all you are telling us? Is that true?

I never said that I do not need the Scriptures, no do I suggest that what I am telling you is "directly" from God. What I have learned about God is that which I have learned from the testimony of God's people throughout the centuries.

 

[GenemZ]

There was a people of God before there was a Written Word: (the NT wasn't completed until at least the end of the 1st century) so, how did they get their "information?"...

And? (this is so ironic) You got that information from the Written Word!

Or, did you someone find an old note in a pocket of clothes from 5000 years ago?

and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

They got if from reflection upon the involvement of God in the history of God's people. They "got" it from their experience of the self-revelation of God in Christ, the eternal Logos of God.

So..... The Bible is the newspaper of God? Published by God's reporters?

I base what I have said upon the Scriptures which are the testimony of God's people.

That would be like saying. You know your girfriend cheated on you. She told you she did. And, you know she would never lie to you because she is faithful in all she does.

What could you tell me that you have been with any authority, if you never saw the Written Word? Nada. Ziltch! Zero!

The Written Word is to God, as if I wrote something to insult you. Then you found me, and punched me in the nose. I took you to court and sued you for harm to my nose. My claim was that you should have ripped up what was written and burned it. For what I wrote is what bothered you. I am not what I wrote! (is it sinking in yet?)

God's Word can not be separated from the being of God. What God has contained in his Word, is what God intends for it to contain. He is responsible for all its contents as he had them placed there. It contains all we are to ever need to know while we live on this earth. When we enter into the dimension of living in Eternity, then new avenues of the Word will be opened to us.

The Written Word is God's way of saying:

"This is all I want you to know about me at this time." "What it contains, and what I purposely left out, reveals my thinking, attitude, and purpose, concerning all what I desire all believers to know about me at this time."

We can not know God beyond what is already contained in writing. What more we will know will not happen until after our soul leaves the body we are now in.

I have already explained it. The people of God are those who are filled with the Spirit of God. Therefore, if the Spirit of God dwells with these people, then their testimony about the self-revelation of God in Christ is valid.

The validity of their self revelation must be verified by what is in writing. Otherwise, we run into serious problems. Such as:

2 Corinthians 11:4 niv
"For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

The only way to check their "self-revelation" of God, is the Written Word.

I never said that I do not need the Scriptures, no do I suggest that what I am telling you is "directly" from God. What I have learned about God is that which I have learned from the testimony of God's people throughout the centuries.

Name one who you learned from, that did not learn from the Written Word, what they did proclaim?

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Floodnut]

I have some questions regarding Adam and Eve. I feel in my heart that they were not the first man and woman in the world. The bible even mentions that their son goes away and comes back with a wife. How can that be? If Adam and Eve were truly the first wouldn't that make thier son's wife his sister? Please help me with this question it has been bothering me for some time.

Where did Cain get his wife?

I'd tell you if I was ABEL!