Why Is Jesus Called 'The Word' in John 1:1?

[candle glow]

Revelation 19 and John 1 both talk about Jesus being the word of God (though I think that's already been mentioned).

Jesus said that his teachings are his spirit (john 6:63) and Paul said that the word of God (Jesus' teachings) is the "sword of the spirit", which appears to correlate with the description of the Word of God in Revelation 19, where a sharp sword comes out of Jesus' mouth,( i.e. his "weapon" is the truth which cuts through lies like a sharp sword).

It is also interesting how much of a fuss Jesus makes about people listening to his words and obeying them. In John 12 he says that he will not judge people, but that his teachings will judge them.

In Matthew 15 he says that he will be ashamed of anyone who is ashamed of his teachings.

In Luke 6 and 13 he talks about people who say "Lord, Lord" but who do not obey his teachings.

In Matthew 7, at the end of the sermon on the mount where he gives A LOT of teachings, he tells a parable about a foolish person and a wise person. He says both of these people heard his teachings, but only the wise person obeyed him.

So, when I see the phrase, "the word of God" ,I don't see an argument about divinity or trinity, but rather, I see yet another indication from God that he wants us to hear what his son is saying and act on it.

 

[Radagast]

Revelation 19 and John 1 both talk about Jesus being the word of God (though I think that's already been mentioned).

Jesus said that his teachings are his spirit (john 6:63) and Paul said that the word of God (Jesus' teachings) is the "sword of the spirit", which appears to correlate with the description of the Word of God in Revelation 19, where a sharp sword comes out of Jesus' mouth,( i.e. his "weapon" is the truth which cuts through lies like a sharp sword).

I think we have to distinguish between (1) "Word" ("Logos") as a name or title for Jesus (John 1:1, Rev 19:13), and (2) "word" meaning teaching.

 

[candle glow]

Hi Radagast. Can you explain what difference is you see, and how you feel that applies to what I shared about the name "word of God" being a pointer back to Jesus' teachings and our need to follow those words?

 

[Radagast]

Hi Radagast. Can you explain what difference is you see, and how you feel that applies to what I shared about the name "word of God" being a pointer back to Jesus' teachings and our need to follow those words?

"Word" in the first sense means God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, who became incarnate as Jesus. "Word" here is a name or title.

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:1-14)

"Word" in the second sense means Scripture and teaching. This is a different meaning. Obviously the words of Jesus are not Jesus himself!

 

[ebedmelech]

"Word" in the first sense means God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, who became incarnate as Jesus. "Word" here is a name or title.

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:1-14)

"Word" in the second sense means Scripture and teaching. This is a different meaning. Obviously the words of Jesus are not Jesus himself!

Right on point Radagast!

Candle Glow, if you have a good concordance like "Strongs Exhaustive Concordance" you can do word study and see the difference in meaning and application.

The Greek word used for "word" in John 6:63 is "rhema" (spoken words), which is very different from the Greek word used in John 1:1 to call Jesus "The Word" which is the Greek word "logos" (divine expression). "Logos" is an "all encompassing" word...it is said that any attempt to define of "logos" falls short of all it really means.

That's a pretty awesome word!

 

[talitha]

From Jesus' mouth came the balance: "Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have life, and they are they which testify of me."

You have taken this out of context. Let's read:
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. " (John 5:39-40)
Jesus is saying that searching the Scriptures does NOT bring life, because the Scriptures only TESTIFY of Him. In other words, we must KNOW him - not through the scriptures, but directly!

 

[Lyssah]

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. " (John 5:39-40)
Jesus is saying that searching the Scriptures does NOT bring life, because the Scriptures only TESTIFY of Him. In other words, we must KNOW him - not through the scriptures, but directly!

Yes, I totally agree. Pharisee's had the Scriptures memorized, but their hearts were far from Him. It's about knowing Him. They didn't even know who they were talking to.

 

[Lyssah]

Right on point Radagast!

Candle Glow, if you have a good concordance like "Strongs Exhaustive Concordance" you can do word study and see the difference in meaning and application.

The Greek word used for "word" in John 6:63 is "rhema" (spoken words), which is very different from the Greek word used in John 1:1 to call Jesus "The Word" which is the Greek word "logos" (divine expression). "Logos" is an "all encompassing" word...it is said that any attempt to define of "logos" falls short of all it really means.

That's a pretty awesome word!

This is very interesting info! I knew that John 1:1 used the word 'Logos', but I didn't know that there were two different applications and words for "word" in Greek. (hopefully that made sense )

 

[ebedmelech]

This is very interesting info! I knew that John 1:1 used the word 'Logos', but I didn't know that there were two different applications and words for "word" in Greek. (hopefully that made sense )

Indeed it does!

Some excellent tools for helping word study in the scripture are:

- "Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary Of Old and New Testament Words"

- "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible"

- "Old Testament Word Studies" by William Wilson

- "Easton's Bible Dictionary" by M. G. Easton

Also Lyssa, "E-Sword" is an excellent bible software program that is offered for free. It includes many free resources you can add to the program help you in bible study. If you'd like to download it go to e-sword.net

I hope that info helps you! Be blessed!

 

[Lyssah]

Indeed it does!

Some excellent tools for helping word study in the scripture are:

- "Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary Of Old and New Testament Words"

- "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible"

- "Old Testament Word Studies" by William Wilson

- "Easton's Bible Dictionary" by M. G. Easton

Also Lyssa, "E-Sword" is an excellent bible software program that is offered for free. It includes many free resources you can add to the program help you in bible study. If you'd like to download it go to e-sword.net

I hope that info helps you! Be blessed!

Hey that's great!!! Thanks so much!

 

[candle glow]

Candle Glow, if you have a good concordance like "Strongs Exhaustive Concordance" you can do word study and see the difference in meaning and application.

Hi Ebed. I think you missed a fairly significant part of what I asked radagast regarding his understanding of the difference between the various meanings of "word".

I asked him to explain the difference, in the context of what I shared about Jesus' words (i.e. his teachings) and the title given to him as the "word of God" in order to reinforce the authority of those teachings.

It appears I only got a rehash of what he already posted in his original observation about the difference between the two words which did not address my question to him.

See, I could say the words "wind" and "wind" have two very different meanings depending on how they are used, but so what? Without some kind of reason for pointing out the distinction in the context of how the word is being applied, what's the point of pointing out that the words can have different meanings?

It could be that Radagast was making a simple grammatical observation, but I had the idea that the OP was asking for an explanatioin with a bit more spiritual meat to it than just a point of grammar.

The Greek word used for "word" in John 6:63 is "rhema" (spoken words), which is very different from the Greek word used in John 1:1 to call Jesus "The Word" which is the Greek word "logos" (divine expression).

This is confusing. It looks like, in your effort to showcase some kind of awesome distinction between "logos" and "rhema", you've hinted that Jesus' teachings are not a divine expression.

You say that John 6:63 uses a different word from the one used in John 1 which means "divine expression".

What I am saying is that the title given to Jesus is not just a title; it's a practical reminder back to Jesus' teachings (i.e. his word). Distinctions between the two words appears to become rather inane because the spirit behind both usages strongly indicate a bottom line of listening to Jesus and obeying his teachings.

In John 6:63 he says that his teachings are the holy spirit, and in John 14 and 16 he says the job of the holy spirit will be to remind us and teach us about Jesus' teachings (i.e. the word).

 

[ebedmelech]

Hi Ebed. I think you missed a fairly significant part of what I asked radagast regarding his understanding of the difference between the various meanings of "word".

I asked him to explain the difference, in the context of what I shared about Jesus' words (i.e. his teachings) and the title given to him as the "word of God" in order to reinforce the authority of those teachings.

It appears I only got a rehash of what he already posted in his original observation about the difference between the two words which did not address my question to him.

See, I could say the words "wind" and "wind" have two very different meanings depending on how they are used, but so what? Without some kind of reason for pointing out the distinction in the context of how the word is being applied, what's the point of pointing out that the words can have different meanings?

It could be that Radagast was making a simple grammatical observation, but I had the idea that the OP was asking for an explanatioin with a bit more spiritual meat to it than just a point of grammar.



This is confusing. It looks like, in your effort to showcase some kind of awesome distinction between "logos" and "rhema", you've hinted that Jesus' teachings are not a divine expression.

You say that John 6:63 uses a different word from the one used in John 1 which means "divine expression".

What I am saying is that the title given to Jesus is not just a title; it's a practical reminder back to Jesus' teachings (i.e. his word). Distinctions between the two words appears to become rather inane because the spirit behind both usages strongly indicate a bottom line of listening to Jesus and obeying his teachings.

In John 6:63 he says that his teachings are the holy spirit, and in John 14 and 16 he says the job of the holy spirit will be to remind us and teach us about Jesus' teachings (i.e. the word).

There's a big difference in Jesus BEING the divine expression of God, and the words Jesus spoke. Jesus' spoken words have no power in themselves without the Holy Spirit to apply them to the heart of the believer. Who Jesus is as "The Divine Expression of God" gives authority to what he says.

What I think I see is that you're attempting to hold Jesus teachings as if they have some greater weight than the whole of scripture. *If* true, that would be disastrous. Jesus teachings bear no more weight than the teachings of Paul, Peter, James, or John. Scripture is a cohesive whole:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 2Tim 3:16
(NASB)

This is confusing. It looks like, in your effort to showcase some kind of awesome distinction between "logos" and "rhema", you've hinted that Jesus' teachings are not a divine expression.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Who Jesus is (logos), and what Jesus says (rhema), is all the difference in the world. Jesus' teachings are not divine expression...if they were why is the word "rhema" used?

 

[Exegetist]

I've never thought about this before. I believe it's because of Revelation 19, but does anyone know of any more references or information on why we know this is Jesus?

Thank you

John also says that all things were made through Christ. In Genesis we see that all things were spoken into creation. Jesus Christ is in fact, the YHWH of the Old Testament. He is the great "I AM". In Revelations 1:8 the Lord says of Himself that he is the beginning and the ending; i.e. the creator of time and the creator of language (alpha and omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet). Also, YHWH means the one who is being, who will be being, and has been being; IOW He is beyond or outside of time as we know it.

"8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

 

[candle glow]

Hi ebed.

I'm not clear as to what it is that you are actually arguing. I'll use direct quotes from you to make it very clear what I am trying to communicate.

What I think I see is that you're attempting to hold Jesus teachings as if they have some greater weight than the whole of scripture. *If* true, that would be disastrous. Jesus teachings bear no more weight than the teachings of Paul, Peter, James, or John. Scripture is a cohesive whole:

Without Jesus, what is there for these other guys to preach about? What "weight" do they have? Why are these people saved from disaster "if" Jesus some how is NOT greater than them (as you suggest above)? Did you actually read what you wrote before you posted it (I know I sometimes post before carefully considering what I've written so that's why I ask)? I know that sounds like quite a challenge, but please allow me to explain...

Jesus, as "the word of God" (i.e. the title) shows that Jesus has an authority greater than any other Christian who wrote ABOUT Jesus. The books of the Bible are letters written by various followers of Jesus about Jesus' ministry, which were later compiled together into what we now call "the bible". Although they do a mighty job of promoting Jesus, they are not, ever, referred to in ANY way as the word of God, which ever version of the Bible you may wish to focus on.

ONLY Jesus is referred to as "the word of God" in BOTH "rhema" and "logos". NO other writer included in the compilation that we now refer to as "the bible" ever refers to himself as the word. Not a single one. Jesus is the word of God. Jesus is our savior. Without the words of Paul, Peter, John or whoever, we would still be perfectly fine with the teachings of Jesus.

However, the same cannot be said of the opposite. We would NOT be okay with the words of Paul, Peter, John or whomever, without the words of Jesus. That is because Paul, Peter, John, or whomever is not our savior. Those people are not the "word of God". There is a very good reason why Jesus alone is called the word of God. He is better than those other people. Those other guys, as spiritually giant as they are, can't hold a candle to Jesus.

He is the boss. He is the master. He is the savior.

Can I get an amen?

 

[ebedmelech]

Hi ebed.

I'm not clear as to what it is that you are actually arguing. I'll use direct quotes from you to make it very clear what I am trying to communicate.



Without Jesus, what is there for these other guys to preach about? What "weight" do they have? Why are these people saved from disaster "if" Jesus some how is NOT greater than them (as you suggest above)? Did you actually read what you wrote before you posted it (I know I sometimes post before carefully considering what I've written so that's why I ask)? I know that sounds like quite a challenge, but please allow me to explain...

Jesus, as "the word of God" (i.e. the title) shows that Jesus has an authority greater than any other Christian who wrote ABOUT Jesus. The books of the Bible are letters written by various followers of Jesus about Jesus' ministry, which were later compiled together into what we now call "the bible". Although they do a mighty job of promoting Jesus, they are not, ever, referred to in ANY way as the word of God, which ever version of the Bible you may wish to focus on.

ONLY Jesus is referred to as "the word of God" in BOTH "rhema" and "logos". NO other writer included in the compilation that we now refer to as "the bible" ever refers to himself as the word. Not a single one. Jesus is the word of God. Jesus is our savior. Without the words of Paul, Peter, John or whoever, we would still be perfectly fine with the teachings of Jesus.

However, the same cannot be said of the opposite. We would NOT be okay with the words of Paul, Peter, John or whomever, without the words of Jesus. That is because Paul, Peter, John, or whomever is not our savior. Those people are not the "word of God". There is a very good reason why Jesus alone is called the word of God. He is better than those other people. Those other guys, as spiritually giant as they are, can't hold a candle to Jesus.

He is the boss. He is the master. He is the savior.

Can I get an amen?

This is where I figured you were going. I'm pretty sure others see it too.

So tell me...should we just keep Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and throw away the other writings of scripture?

How did you figure this all out?

Jesus chose these men to carry out his work...he told they would do greater works than he did...yet you want to discount their writings to Jesus?

Keeping mind what Jesus prayed of the Apostles in John 17:

The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.“O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

You see the problem you have for yourself??? Probably not.

 

[candle glow]

so tell me...should we just keep Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and throw away the other writings of scripture?

No, I never said that. In fact, I never even suggested or even hinted at that. So, how do you see it as a legitimate question to ask me, based on what I've actually said? OR, are you basing this question to me on something I've not said, but rather, on something YOU have said?

See, I've ONLY said that Jesus is the boss, and that all those other guys are promoting Jesus. They are his servants. They promote him, not themselves. Jesus is the subject. Jesus is the boss. He is infinitely more important that all those others guys, because without him they would have nothing to say anyway.

What YOU have said is that Jesus is just another one of those guys; indistinguishable from all the others. Although he alone is called the word of God, you've stated quite categorically that his words carry no more weight than any other joe schmoe who happened to make it into the list of writings to be included in the Bible.

Let me quote your own words to be very clear that I am not misrepresenting what you've actually said...

Jesus teachings bear no more weight than the teachings of Paul, Peter, James, or John.

Although Paul, Peter, James NOR John died for our sins, Jesus is no better than them, according to you. Although Paul, Peter, James, NOR John are referred to as the "word of God" (as Jesus clearly is in ANY context) Jesus is still no better than them, according to you.

Although Jesus was the one correcting all those guys and teaching them despite their many, many, difficulties in understanding him, he still carries no more weight than them? Are you really teaching people on this forum that Paul, Peter, James, and John could have just as easily corrected Jesus and they would have been right, because they were all equal?

Seriously, ebed. Where do these arguments from you come from? What is the point of you making such a fuss that Jesus is just as ordinary as any other person who happened to make it into the collection of writings we now refer to as the Bible?

What possible reason could you have for suggesting that Jesus' teachings are not a divine expression of God's spirit? Remember, that is what you actually said. This is not me making something up about you or misrepresenting you. I'm going to very clearly post your own words to back up exactly what I'm saying here...

Jesus' teachings are not divine expression

That is what you actually said, ebed. This is in direct contradiction to everything Jesus said about the need to obey his teachings, including comments about how his teachings ARE the holy spirit (john 6:63) and teachings about how the purpose of the holy spirit is to remind us of Jesus' teachings (john 14 and 16).

He also said "why do you call me "lord" but do not obey me (matthew 7, luke 6 and 13).

He also stated quite clearly that it is his teachings which will judge us in the end (john 12) and that he will be ashamed of any people who are ashamed of his teachings (mark 7, Matthew 15).

How is it that you say that Jesus' teachings are no better than any other biblical writer? Was Jesus being a braggart when he made these claims? Was he puffing himself up? Because certainly no other biblical write made these kinds of claims about their own teachings.

Once again I question your reasons for suggesting Jesus' teachings are not the divine expression of God's love for us. Is there some particular teaching which causes you to react this way?

 

[ebedmelech]

No, I never said that. In fact, I never even suggested or even hinted at that. So, how do you see it as a legitimate question to ask me, based on what I've actually said? OR, are you basing this question to me on something I've not said, but rather, on something YOU have said?

See, I've ONLY said that Jesus is the boss, and that all those other guys are promoting Jesus. They are his servants. They promote him, not themselves. Jesus is the subject. Jesus is the boss. He is infinitely more important that all those others guys, because without him they would have nothing to say anyway.

What YOU have said is that Jesus is just another one of those guys; indistinguishable from all the others. Although he alone is called the word of God, you've stated quite categorically that his words carry no more weight than other other joe schmoe who happened to make it into the list of writings to be included in the Bible.

Let me quote your own words to be very clear that I am not misrepresenting what you've actually said...



Although Paul, Peter, Jame NOR John died for our sins, Jesus is no better than them. Although Paul, Peter, James, NOR John are referred to as the "word of God" (as Jesus clearly is any ANY context) Jesus is still no better than them.

Although Jesus was the one correcting all those guys and teaching them despite their many, many, difficulties in understanding him, he still carries no more weight than them?

Seriously, ebed. Where do these arguments from you come from? What is the point of you making such a fuss that Jesus is just as ordinary as any other person who happened to make it into the collection of writings we now refer to as the Bible?

What possible reason could you have for suggesting that Jesus' teachings are not a divine expression of God's spirit? Remember, that is what you actually said. This is not me making something up about you or misrepresenting you. I'm going to very clearly post your own words to back up exactly what I'm saying here...



That is what you actually said, ebed. This is in direct contradiction to everything Jesus said about the need to obey his teachings, including comments about how his teachings ARE the holy spirit (john 6:63) and teachings about how the purpose of the holy spirit is to remind us of Jesus' teachings (john 14 and 16).

He also said "why do you call me "lord" but do not obey me (matthew 7, luke 6 and 13).

He also stated quite clear that it is his teachings which will judge us in the end (john 12) and that he will be ashamed of any people who are ashamed of his teachings (mark 7, Matthew 15).

How is it that you say that Jesus' teachings are no better than any other biblical writer?

Once again I question your reasons for suggesting Jesus' teachings are not the divine expression of God's love for us. Is there some particular teaching which causes you to react this way?

None of that is the point!!!!

I assert that every bit of scripture is EQUALLY authoritative, whether Jesus said it, or Paul, or Peter, or Luke, or John, or James, Or Jude. IT IS ALL EQUALLY AUTHORITATIVE SCRIPTURE!!!

I point you again to 2Tim 3:16 in many versions:

KJV:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

NKJV:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


NIV:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

NASB:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


Does the verse mean ALL SCRIPTURE...or not? That's all I need to know.

 

[candle glow]

None of that is the point!!!!

This is whats called a "cheap shot", ebed. I could just as easily say the same thing about your arguments. "None of what you've said is the point; only what I've said". But, in the end such arguments are point-less, unless you real aim is to point-score.

It would be nice if, instead of dismissing my point of view as "not the point", you could actually address them.

I feel I've already addressed your point about all scripture being inspired, in my previous posts, indirectly, but in the spirit of practicing what I preach, I'll address it directly here.

Does the verse mean ALL SCRIPTURE...or not? That's all I need to know.

There are two points I think need to be addressed here. One is, what does it mean to be "inspired" and two, what is "scripture"?

ONE: Okay, So Paul, Peter, James, and John were all inspired by God. Does that make them the word of God? Does it make them infallible? Does it mean that we can pray to them just as easily as we'd pray to Jesus? If not, why not? Do we pray "in John's name"? Why not? Is he some how not equal to Jesus? Is there any reason why we pray "in Jesus' name" and not in Jame's name, even though James was definitely inspired by God?

Is there any particular reason why Peter was never referred to as "the word of God?" while Jesus was, several times over again? Was Peter not "inspired" enough?

Can you see how your question completely disregards the points I've been making about Jesus' authority?

Or, will you simply brush these questions aside as irrelevant and make your own point again, as though I've not rebutted your point many times over again already? If so, then there's not much point in continuing this.

TWO: What is "scripture"? Can you give us the original meaning of the word like you did for "logos" and "rehema"? Does the word "scripture" include ANY writings outside of what is included in the Bible as we know it?

If so, what are those others writings which may fall under the definition of "scripture" as it is used in the letter to Timothy? OR are you saying that scripture is ONLY limited to what we find in the Bible, and if so, can you explain how Paul was able to understand that his definition would include ONLY those specific letters well before those letters were ever collated into the Bible?

You ask ME what is "all scripture", but since you are the one making the point, I don't think it's fair to ask me to explain your point for you. Tell us what "all" scripture is, and if it's not too much to ask, can you explain it in a way that is consitent with the way Paul was using it in his letter to Timothy, long before "the bible" was ever put together? Thanks.

 

[ebedmelech]

This is whats called a "cheap shot", ebed. I could just as easily say the same thing about your arguments. "None of what you've said is the point; only what I've said". But, in the end such arguments are point-less, unless you real aim is to point-score.

It would be nice if, instead of dismissing my point of view as "not the point", you could actually address them.

I feel I've already addressed your point about all scripture being inspired, in my previous posts, indirectly, but in the spirit of practicing what I preach, I'll address it directly here.

First there's no "point scoring" going on! The point I make is ALL SCRIPTURE is AUTHORITATIVE PERIOD. One cannot say because "Paul wrote it, it's not as important as what Jesus said." It is all from God.

There are two points I think need to be addressed here. One is, what does it mean to be "inspired" and two, what is "scripture"?

Inspired means "God breathed". It comes from the Greek word "theopnuestos" that literally means "divinely breathed" to the writer from God. Peter equally said so in another way:

"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God". 2Pet 1:20,21 (NASB)

In the passage "moved" is the Greek word "phero" which means to carry. That literally means the Holy Spirit carried the writer.

ONE: Okay, So Paul, Peter, James, and John were all inspired by God. Does that make them the word of God? Does it make them infallible? Does it mean that we can pray to them just as easily as we'd pray to Jesus? If not, why not? Do we pray "in John's name"? Why not? Is he some how not equal to Jesus? Is there any reason why we pray "in Jesus' name" and not in Jame's name, even though James was definitely inspired by God?

Is there any particular reason why Peter was never referred to as "the word of God?" while Jesus was, several times over again? Was Peter not "inspired" enough?

Can you see how your question completely disregards the points I've been making about Jesus' authority?

Or, will you simply brush these questions aside as irrelevant and make your own point again, as though I've not rebutted your point many times over again already? If so, then there's not much point in continuing this.

This is what is fruitless in your argument. Jesus IS the "divine expression" of God (logos)...that is Him in His essence. To try to make the words He spoke divine expression is not proper. His words are "authoritative" because He is God the "divine expression".

TWO: What is "scripture"? Can you give us the original meaning of the word like you did for "logos" and "rehema"? Does the word "scripture" include ANY writings outside of what is included in the Bible as we know it?

The word I offer for "scripture" is the Greek word "graphe" and it basically means "holy writ" or the writings from the Apostles like Peter, James, John, and Jude that were circulating to the churches.

Now when it comes to writings outside scripture...there are many. Writngs of the Church Fathers like Clement, Marcion, Iranaeus, Athanasius, Tertullian and Polycarp.

If so, what are those others writings which may fall under the definition of "scripture" as it is used in the letter to Timothy? OR are you saying that scripture is ONLY limited to what we find in the Bible, and if so, can you explain how Paul was able to understand that his definition would include ONLY those specific letters well before those letters were ever collated into the Bible?

You ask ME what is "all scripture", but since you are the one making the point, I don't think it's fair to ask me to explain your point for you. Tell us what "all" scripture is, and if it's not too much to ask, can you explain it in a way that is consitent with the way Paul was using it in his letter to Timothy, long before "the bible" was ever put together? Thanks.

The writings of scripture are the 66 books of the bible. Those books have been deemed canonical throughout church history by Church Fathers such as Marcion, Irenaeus, Origen, and Athanasius. Perhaps before you dismiss them you should do research about it. It's very compelling. A resource I have in my library is the book "The Cannon Of Scripture" by F F Bruce.

There is an issue that remains about "The Books of The Apocrypha" which the Roman Catholic Church deemed canonical but the protestant churches only believe have historical value. One of the main reasons is because throughout scripture they're not referred to.

Lastly I will say if you cannot accept the writings of Paul or Peter (for instance), what makes you think you can accept the 4 Gospels???

Scripiture was not complete when Paul wrote 2Timothy but the fact that Peter speaks of Paul's writings in 2Peter tells you that the scriptures were already in circulation:

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I would encourage you to accept ALL of scripture as EQUALLY authoritative and not act as if Jesus teachings are superior to any of scripture...IT IS ALL FROM GOD and it's a cohesive whole. There is much history to justify it too.

 

[candle glow]

This is what is fruitless in your argument. Jesus IS the "divine expression" of God (logos)...that is Him in His essence. To try to make the words He spoke divine expression is not proper. His words are "authoritative" because He is God the "divine expression".

My argument is that Jesus is the boss, even over Paul, Peter, John or whomever else you may choose to champion. Are you really saying that my argument if fruitless. Are you really saying Jesus MUST share his authority as the word of God with anyone else as their equals simply because God gave them the inspiration to promote his teachings?

John the baptist said "I must decrease so that he may increase" but here you are saying, "Jesus must decrease so that anyone who speaks in his name may increase".

No amount of grammatical nit picking will change the fact that Jesus is the boss, ebed. Jesus makes the rules. He is the one we must obey. If an angel from God or Paul himself preach contrary to what Jesus preached, then they must be ignored (Galations 1).

Why would Paul make such a statement if he was as sure as your are of his own personal divinity in his teachings? Obviously, Paul realized that being inspired is NOT the same thing as being infallible.

That is why Jesus is the only cornerstone and we all MUST line up with his teachings. A "cornerstone" is a tool of measurement. It was the tool used to make 90degree angles when building walls.

Jesus is referred to as the corner stone because HE is the tool we use to measure EVERYTHING else. Paul, Peter, John, James, or whomever may be inspired, but they are NOT the cornerstone. They only speak ABOUT the cornerstone.

Jesus is better than them all. He is the best; the superlative of superlatives.

But hey, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. Are you saying we cannot be saved without John, Peter, Paul or James?

The word I offer for "scripture" is the Greek word "graphe" and it basically means "holy writ" or the writings from the Apostles like Peter, James, John, and Jude that were circulating to the churches.

Now when it comes to writings outside scripture...there are many. Writngs of the Church Fathers like Clement, Marcion, Iranaeus, Athanasius, Tertullian and Polycarp.

You avoided my question, ebed; why is that? I asked you if "holy writ" or "scripture" includes anything OUTSIDE of what is included in the Bible. You did not answer that question. I think that speaks volumes, don't you?

OR, are you saying that "fathers" like Clement, Marcion, blah blah blah ARE included in the meaning of "holy write"? If so, WHY are they included while people like myself, who boldly proclaim the authority of Jesus over all others are not included in "holy writ"?

Are you, perhaps, promoting the "good ole boys" club? Are you building the tombs of the prophets of the past while stoning those of the present?

Haha you sound so wrapped up in your understanding of "holy grammar" that you can't see the forest through the trees.

My oh my but how you put the spirit in a box and proclaim to one and all that you've managed to capture the wind through the use of words and their "ancient meanings". lol

Jesus is the word of God. The point is obvious. Listen to him and obey him. So simple a child could understand.