Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
The Scriptures
i know in the Bible, people often refer to "the Scriptures"
but what exactly are the Scriptures? are they certain books in the Bible? the Old Testament?
???
but what exactly are the Scriptures? are they certain books in the Bible? the Old Testament?
???
Comments
i know in the Bible, people often refer to "the Scriptures"
but what exactly are the Scriptures? are they certain books in the Bible? the Old Testament?
???
The scriptures is refering to the bible most of the time the old testament
GBU
sandra
I'm rather glad I stumbled across this because I have been thinking about this very thing lately. Now in the following quote:
[quote author=sandrahanna link=topic=4953.msg67123#msg67123 date=1170727836]
the bible(the word of God).
the claim is that the Bible is the word of God. Now my question is, is this really the case. Is the Bible the infallible word of God?
Please pray for me.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
I'm rather glad I stumbled across this because I have been thinking about this very thing lately. Now in the following quote:
[quote author=sandrahanna link=topic=4953.msg67123#msg67123 date=1170727836]
the bible(the word of God).
the claim is that the Bible is the word of God. Now my question is, is this really the case. Is the Bible the infallible word of God?
Please pray for me.
The bible was written by the men of God guided by the Holy Spirit. Most of the Old testement books are prophecies about the new testement till the end of the world. now today, there is poeple who review all of these prophecies and find out that mopst of them have come true and some will. of course all most all the prophecies are about Christ's coming and all of the story which happend allready.
my ponit is that, who else would know the future except God who basically made it. if it was written by men, would them ever have the mind to first think of all these words and than write them and in some cases explain them. i really don't think that there is any humens who can do this.
(this is only my own easy logical explanation, there is a lot more that proves that It is the word of God that is mostly leaving in us)
[quote author=minagir link=topic=4953.msg68341#msg68341 date=1173374316]
The bible was written by the men of God guided by the Holy Spirit.
I agree with what you said here 100%. However, I think there is a big difference between saying that Scripture is the writings of men inspired by the Holy Spirit and saying that God wrote it. There are discrepancies that can be found in the Bible and whenever topics such as geology, astronomy, anatomy and such are discussed, based on what we know now, there are some discrepancies as well. That is why, it is vital to read these texts in the context of the time they were written. So, in matters of prophecy and moral teachings, there are no problems because the source of all of that, as you say, is from God. However, it is not like God has hijacked the individual and the individual becomes merely a tool that God uses to pass on a message (as is the case in Islam with Mohammed and the Qur'an). We can see emotion, bias, varying points of view and the like in the writings of these texts. That is why I have always been wary of considering the Bible to be the word of God. In my opinion, Christ is the infallible Word of God, not the Bible.
Please pray for me.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
[quote author=minagir link=topic=4953.msg68341#msg68341 date=1173374316]
The bible was written by the men of God guided by the Holy Spirit.
I agree with what you said here 100%. However, I think there is a big difference between saying that Scripture is the writings of men inspired by the Holy Spirit and saying that God wrote it.
Well first, you'll never resist a book that is written by the hand of God. Moses was hidding behind a mountin as God told him so He can pass through and may be see a very little part of His glory. Moses did that and after he went back to the tribes, the ppl couldn't look at his face becasue of all the light.
So what would happend for us if we have an actual book written by God the allmighty. No one on this earth can comprehand the wisdom of God and His ways. even the teacher Origin who discribed the bible in enough ways that every explantion out there is some how part of his. even though, he said that our highest knowledge is nothign compared to God's. No one knows the future except God. he knows what goes on and what will go even though we, as in our corrupt nature wouldn't understand it. Christ Himself preached about the bible and spoke of the scripture that you're saying is not the word of God.
the term the Word of God or more liklly the Loghos of God that refares to Jesus Chirst, mean that He is the human version of God (as we all know) who says the words of God and who have the voice of God. If He, the Loghos of God, uses the Scriptures in His word, doesn't that make it is the word of God!!!
Κηφᾶς,
i think your quesion is more like why did this bad thing happend, or why is this happening which is a very popular qustion these days. and the answer to that quesion is with God, not us.
Mina,
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say, 'you'll never resist a book that is written by the hand of God'. However, I at no point said we should reject the Bible simply because God didn't write it (if I gave that impression, I apologize). What I object to, is the calling of the Bible the 'Word of God'. God does not possess emotion, nor bias which are apparent in the texts. These are entirely human emotions and God is not subjected to them.
Now again, I'm not arguing about the wisdom of God either. I am aware that His wisdom is infinite and that we will never begin to fully understand it or Him. We understand as much as He reveals to us. And part of that revelation is found in the Scriptures. Again, I'm not arguing that either. The purpose of the text, as inspired text, is to teach. This teaching comes from God, but is conveyed by man. As such, because of man's fallibility, the resulting text reflects that. Once again I emphasize: on matters of prophecy and moral teachings, there is no problem. However, the texts do contain much more than moral teachings and prophecy. They record history as well. And, as with any book on history, there are inherent biases which crop up. That is all I'm saying.
The fact that Christ refers back to the Scriptures is, of course, expected. How else was He going to teach to the people. It is what they were raised on, so it makes sense that He would use these texts in His teachings. Let's not forget that He also taught some new things not found in the OT (as is apparent from the Pharisees' reactions). The fact that Christ uses the OT does not mean that it is the word of God. Again, the purpose of the OT was to instruct the Jews.
Now, as for the Logos referring to Christ's humanity, I would have to disagree. I would say that the Logos refers to Christ's divinity and His eternal existence before His incarnation.
Finally, I'm not sure how my question can be equated to 'why do bad things happen' (which is, in and of itself, a perfectly valid question). Perhaps you could explain that further. I have never been one to just 'accept things' without questioning, and I personally feel that it has helped me grow.
Please pray for me.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say, 'you'll never resist a book that is written by the hand of God'. However, I at no point said we should reject the Bible simply because God didn't write it (if I gave that impression, I apologize). What I object to, is the calling of the Bible the 'Word of God'. God does not possess emotion, nor bias which are apparent in the texts. These are entirely human emotions and God is not subjected to them.
He doesn't. but for us to understand, he included it. it's the same as some of the parables that Christ said. the decsiple couldn't understand some of them. so He said:
John 3:12
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? how about you list some teachings that ur talking about. Also that's not the only reason. the OT still have prophacies that are still happening that will happened. also it's not only for the jaws but for all of us. don't forget that the NT, which is of Chirst times, is hidden in the OT.
i don't understand. the term that is used for Christ's divinity and eternal existence is more like the Ancient of the ancients. i don't think the word "Loghos", or "Word" reflects anything on Christ divinity as a hypostasis. may be as part of the Trinity but not a sole hypostasis. the reason i said that is because you're kind of questioning the things that we can't understand in the bible.
i agree with you. i never just accept things but some you can't just understand that easily.
I think you have to put the verse you quoted in context. At that time, Christ was talking about the sacrament of baptism to Nicodemus, a sacrament that wasn't fully established or understood at that time. Paul, in his letters some 20 years later, began explaining the meaning of what baptism was (by inspiration from the Holy Spirit, of course).
One of the main teachings that comes to mind is the 10 commandments that God gave on Mount Sinai. While those teachings were meant to be taken on a far more spiritual level (as is evident by Christ's Sermon on the Mount), the beginnings were there. Those are the prime example of moral teachings.
While there are still many OT prophecies yet to be fulfilled, many of them have been already because, i think, a lot of them had to do with the coming Messiah. I realize that the OT is applicable to all now and not only the Jews. I guess I should have been more specific and said that the OT instructed the Jews, at that time.
About the Logos. The concept of the Logos is borrowed from Greek philosophy and in Greek philosophy, the Logos is personified in the same way that Wisdom, in the OT is nearly personified. St. John used this concept, which was very familiar to the people at that time, to explain who Christ is. If we take a look at the first chapter of John, where he is writing what appears to be an ancient doxology, it is apparent that when he talks about the Logos, he is talking about the pre-incarnate Christ.
'In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God and the Word (Logos) was God...'
That, to me, is a testament of the divinity of the Logos, the Second person of the Trinity: Christ.
I don't agree here actually. I think it is possible to understand what the Bible is. And that is what I'm questioning. I hope I'm a little clearer.
Please pray for me.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
I think you have to put the verse you quoted in context. At that time, Christ was talking about the sacrament of baptism to Nicodemus, a sacrament that wasn't fully established or understood at that time. Paul, in his letters some 20 years later, began explaining the meaning of what baptism was (by inspiration from the Holy Spirit, of course).).
What's the diffrence. Nicodemus didn't understand it at the time, and again liek Christ said, it was and earthly thing. You wanna tell me that you will understand it if it was of the heavenly!!! you're right and as you said Christ said explained to. but they were also meant to be a commend for the Isrealites.
who at the time, as God said, worshiped Him with their mouths not their hearts. i agree with you, but why would st John use the word Loghos??!! yes it is possible and that's one reason we have our faith in it until today. but still not everything..
All I'm trying to say here is that the development (or perhaps i should say revelation and understanding) of the faith is ongoing. At the time this dialogue was going on, the NT was not in existence (in the sense that the texts had not been written yet). We have the benefit of understanding what was meant because we have 2000 years of Church History and Tradition to back us up. I thought i addressed this here: Please pray for me.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
All I'm trying to say here is that the development (or perhaps i should say revelation and understanding) of the faith is ongoing. At the time this dialogue was going on, the NT was not in existence (in the sense that the texts had not been written yet). We have the benefit of understanding what was meant because we have 2000 years of Church History and Tradition to back us up.
even tho, u wont fully understand everything. i don't know if you can read arabic or not, but i found this for Fr. Tadros Yacoub in his book explaining theGospe of St. John:
[right]
تُستخدم كلمة "لوغوس" بمعنيين:
الكلمة التي يُحبل بها أي الفكر الذي تحبل به النفس، خلاله تتحقق كل الأعمال، وهي واحدة مع النفس. لذلك لاق بالأقنوم الثاني أن يُحسب كلمة اللَّه، مولودًا من الآب بكونه الحكمة الأساسي الأزلي؛ ليس شيء أكثر يقينًا من أننا نفكر، وليس شيء أكثر غموضًا من معرفة كيف نفكر.
الكلمة المنطوق بها التي هي الكلام، وهو الإشارة الطبيعية لما في الذهن. هكذا المسيح هو الكلمة التي تحدث به الآب في آخر الأيام (عب 2:1)، ويوجهنا لكي نسمع له (مت 5:17). خبرنا عن ذهن الآب كما يخبرنا الكلام عما في فكر الإنسان. إنه الكلمة الذي يحدثنا بما للآب، إذ هو الحق والآمين، والشاهد الصادق للذهن الإلهي. [/right]
Excuse my translation:
The word "Loghos" is used in two meanings:
+ (Logos endiathetas) The word that is carried by, which is the thinking of the soul through which actions are taken. And it is one with the soul. Therefore it is appropriate for the second Hypostasis to be the Word of God, begotten of the Father with His Original eternal wisdom.
+ (Logos prophorika) The word that is spoken by. Those are the words. And it is the natural sign to what's in the mind. This is as Christ being the Word that the Father spoke by on the last days (Hebrews 1:2 "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.")
He told us what's on the Father's mind through the man's mind. He is the Word that God speaks with; therefore it is the truth and the trustable, and the true witness to the divine mind.
My point goes with the second point of Fr. Tadros. As I said before:
The term the Word of God refers to Jesus Christ, mean that He is the human version of God (as we all know) who says the words of God and who have the voice of God. If He, the Loghos of God, uses the Scriptures in His word, doesn't that make it, the word of God!!!
Unfortunately, no, I do not read arabic. Thank you very much for the translation. I'll be sure to try and get my hands on a translation of Abouna Tadros' book. I realize that there are two different uses for the word 'Logos' and I'm really glad you defined them here.
[quote author=minagir link=topic=4953.msg68356#msg68356 date=1173390190]
The word "Loghos" is used in two meanings:
+ (Logos endiathetas) The word that is carried by, which is the thinking of the soul through which actions are taken. And it is one with the soul. Therefore it is appropriate for the second Hypostasis to be the Word of God, begotten of the Father with His Original eternal wisdom.
I agree with you here. This is also the form of the word Logos that John was referring to in his Gospel in the first chapter.
[quote author=minagir link=topic=4953.msg68356#msg68356 date=1173390190]
+ (Logos prophorika) The word that is spoken by. Those are the words. And it is the natural sign to what's in the mind. This is as Christ being the Word that the Father spoke by on the last days (Hebrews 1:2 "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.")
He told us what's on the Father's mind through the man's mind. He is the Word that God speaks with; therefore it is the truth and the trustable, and the true witness to the divine mind.
I also agree with you here. I think that whenever the word logos is used in Greek without referring to Christ, it is talking about the standard written and spoken word.
[quote author=minagir link=topic=4953.msg68356#msg68356 date=1173390190]
The term the Word of God refers to Jesus Christ, mean that He is the human version of God (as we all know) who says the words of God and who have the voice of God. If He, the Loghos of God, uses the Scriptures in His word, doesn't that make it, the word of God!!!
Now here you make an interesting point. Whenever we have God speaking in the OT and when Christ is speaking in the NT, then yes, we can speak of that as being the 'word of God'. My issue is with calling the entire Bible the word of God however. For instance, in the OT, we are very familiar with the Mosaic Law that talks about 'an eye for an eye'. This was abolished in the NT by Christ Himself. Now, if that portion in the OT is the word of God, and then what Christ says in the NT is also the word of God, and Christ is pretty much abolishing the concept of 'an eye for an eye', we would have a situation where God is contradicting Himself. Do you see what I mean here? The writings in the Bible must be taken in the context of which they were written, because there are many things that are written which no longer apply to our present time, society, culture, what have you. There are a couple of instances when Christ uses the formula, 'You have heard it said x, but I say to you, y'. Is God changing His own word? Does that make sense? Of course not. Thus, I still hold that the Scripture is inspired text and is for the benefit of teaching, but it is not the word of God.
Please pray for me.
Now here you make an interesting point. Whenever we have God speaking in the OT and when Christ is speaking in the NT, then yes, we can speak of that as being the 'word of God'. My issue is with calling the entire Bible the word of God however. For instance, in the OT, we are very familiar with the Mosaic Law that talks about 'an eye for an eye'. This was abolished in the NT by Christ Himself. Now, if that portion in the OT is the word of God, and then what Christ says in the NT is also the word of God, and Christ is pretty much abolishing the concept of 'an eye for an eye', we would have a situation where God is contradicting Himself. Do you see what I mean here? The writings in the Bible must be taken in the context of which they were written, because there are many things that are written which no longer apply to our present time, society, culture, what have you. There are a couple of instances when Christ uses the formula, 'You have heard it said x, but I say to you, y'. Is God changing His own word? Does that make sense? Of course not. Thus, I still hold that the Scripture is inspired text and is for the benefit of teaching, but it is not the word of God.
first, yo can't take part of the bible and leave the rest just there. don't be protestant who just take what they want from there and make there own.
second, the OT is totally differnt than the New testement. God gave all the laws before Christ incarnates and those times were diffrent. even us today there is two major eras, before Christ and after Christ. you can't compare the two periods togather. they are totally diffrent. and that goes back to what i said before, we can't understand the whole poeple in it's full meaning.
right now the only reason that you hold for not calling the Holy Bible the word of God is your limited understanding of the bible. which cannot be used as a real statement.
Ya habibi,
You said:
[quote author=minagir link=topic=4953.msg68366#msg68366 date=1173407888]
first, yo can't take part of the bible and leave the rest just there. don't be protestant who just take what they want from there and make there own.
I am doing no such thing. I'm merely presenting examples from the Bible to illustrate my point. Furthermore, God is not speaking continuously throughout either the OT or the NT, and so we are presented with the words of man that convey their respective points of views on matters of the time, whether it be historical, political or what have you (something which God does not interfere with, nor really care about). God's interest is in our salvation, not our politics or history.
Next, you state: Perhaps you didn't read what I had written before, let me post it again and highlight a couple of things:
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=4953.msg68365#msg68365 date=1173405559]
Now here you make an interesting point. Whenever we have God speaking in the OT and when Christ is speaking in the NT, then yes, we can speak of that as being the 'word of God'. My issue is with calling the entire Bible the word of God however. For instance, in the OT, we are very familiar with the Mosaic Law that talks about 'an eye for an eye'. This was abolished in the NT by Christ Himself. Now, if that portion in the OT is the word of God, and then what Christ says in the NT is also the word of God, and Christ is pretty much abolishing the concept of 'an eye for an eye', we would have a situation where God is contradicting Himself. Do you see what I mean here? The writings in the Bible must be taken in the context of which they were written, because there are many things that are written which no longer apply to our present time, society, culture, what have you. There are a couple of instances when Christ uses the formula, 'You have heard it said x, but I say to you, y'. Is God changing His own word? Does that make sense? Of course not. Thus, I still hold that the Scripture is inspired text and is for the benefit of teaching, but it is not the word of God.
I have made it clear, that I feel it is important to read the Scripture in context and you will find I say that throughout my posts. So, I'm not arguing this at all. I am merely presenting a case as to why I feel the Bible is inspired text but not the word of God. I know that my understanding of the Bible is limited, and that is why I posed the question that I did. I find that when I carry on a dialogue with others, it helps me better understand things. I'm sorry you don't seem to hold the same view. In Greek, 'inspired by God' is θεοπνευστος (theopneustos, literally, "God-breathed"). Thus, God is fully involved, and I do not deny it. But to go so far as to call it the word of God, in my opinion, is too much. Again, only Christ is the infallible, inerrant, Word of God.
Please pray for me.
[quote author=minagir link=topic=4953.msg68366#msg68366 date=1173407888]
first, yo can't take part of the bible and leave the rest just there. don't be protestant who just take what they want from there and make there own.
I am doing no such thing.
As you have said before: I also agree with you here. I think that whenever the word logos is used in Greek without referring to Christ, it is talking about the standard written and spoken word.
That means you agree with my statement here:
The term the Word of God refers to Jesus Christ, mean that He is the human version of God (as we all know) who says the words of God and who have the voice of God. If He, the Loghos of God, uses the Scriptures in His word, doesn't that make it, the word of God!!!
Now by still denying the fact that the bible is Not the Word of God, and by agree with my statement, that only means that you only accept the word that Christ used as Words of God, but not the rest of the bible.
May be this is confusing but may be you can clear it.
I stated that Christ is the spoken Word of God, who spoke from the bible, and for that reason it can be called the Word of God. (that's not the only reason am sure, but rit now we're looking at that.) you said it. what else do you want. God is infinite. if is fully involved as you said, where is the place for man to come and put his own words. and please, just don't use the word opinion here becasue this is really serios.
yes He is, but He is also the Spoken Word of God as u agreed with my statement above and from the last 2 posts.
I guess I haven't been clear, because it seems we are going in circles. :)
Okay, let me answer your question: I'm going to say, no. When Christ quotes the Scriptures, He is quoting what men who have preceded Him (and bear in mind, when I say preceded, I'm talking about the fact that Christ was incarnate, became man, stepped into time after the Prophets and the Kings of the OT) had written about the history and prophecies of the children of Israel (even before they were the children of Israel seeing as how we have stories that precede the birth of Jacob (Israel)). These texts had been considered inspired texts by the Jews, and it was what they based their faith, teachings and culture around. I distinguish between what Christ says in the NT as well as such phrases as, "Thus says the Lord" in the OT from the remaining texts.
If we turn now to the NT, we are looking at the Gospels and letters of men, who were again, inspired by God. You say: I find this to be a dangerous way of thinking. Just because God is involved in the writing process by inspiring the writers (i.e. helping them recall events, sayings, teachings and the like), He does not possess them and they do not become merely pens in His hand. Again, I mentioned this before when comparing the Islamic view of the Qur'an. A Muslim has no problem saying that Mohammed was 'possessed' when he was writing the Qur'an and was completely unaware of what he was writing or doing. That is not the case with the Evangelists, St. Paul or the writers of the Catholic Epistles. These men were fully aware of what they were writing, and were actively participating (if you will) in the writings of their books and letters. This is apparent, again, because we can see inherent biases they had, as well as flickers of emotions (particularly in Paul's letters, where we find him to be very angry at times).
If we take a look at the 4 Gospels, we find 4 different renditions of the same story. We have four different points of view, four different styles and four different 'audiences' (if you will). The harmony of the Gospels is not up for dispute however. They all contain the same message, and have the same purpose: to convey to those who read them that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, that He came to earth, was crucified, suffered, buried and rose from the dead on the third day; that salvation is offered through Him and Him alone. That is the universal message of the Gospels (and God's message to us). The way this message is conveyed, however, is unique to each writer, and that is where the human element comes in.
I hope I've clarified myself somewhat.
Please pray for me.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem ehmot>[/coptic]
I guess I haven't been clear, because it seems we are going in circles. :)
Okay, let me answer your question: I'm going to say, no. When Christ quotes the Scriptures, He is quoting what men who have preceded Him (and bear in mind, when I say preceded, I'm talking about the fact that Christ was incarnate, became man, stepped into time after the Prophets and the Kings of the OT) had written about the history and prophecies of the children of Israel (even before they were the children of Israel seeing as how we have stories that precede the birth of Jacob (Israel)). These texts had been considered inspired texts by the Jews, and it was what they based their faith, teachings and culture around. I distinguish between what Christ says in the NT as well as such phrases as, "Thus says the Lord" in the OT from the remaining texts.
why would the infinit Loghos of God, His begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ quote words from men. Also to answer what you have in the ( ... ), you're kind of changing Christ's divinty if I am nto mistakin. Christ was fully Divine fully Human. if you start talking about how He didn't say that until than, than ur changing His divinty because from the beginig of time He been Divine, but than He untied in humanity only when He incarnated. may be put that on the side now.........
if the Spoken Word of God qoutes somthing from anywhere, woulodn't still go back to God the Father since, i said tons of time before "He is the Word that God speaks with".
can you please stop bring up other topics that wont do anything and just answer or prove my statment wrong. i wont reply for anything in this topic again, until u prove my statment wrong. untill than, there is nothing for me to say.......................
Mina,
I still don't think you fully grasp what I am saying and what I have been saying. As such, to relieve any undue frustration you may be feeling, I will wait and see what others have to say on the topic and then post my thoughts later. If I have upset you in anyway, please accept my humblest apologies.
Please pray for me.
Jeremiah 1:9-13
9 Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "Now, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant."
11 The word of the Lord came to me: "What do you see, Jeremiah?" "I see the branch of an almond tree," I replied. 12 The Lord said to me, "You have seen correctly, for I am watching to see that my word is fulfilled." 13 The word of the Lord came to me again: "What do you see?" "I see a boiling pot, tilting away from the north," I answered.
If God, put His words in Jeremiah's mouth, and Jeremiah spoke of His words in the bible, doesn't that make the bible the word of God!!!
Putting those verses in context, we see that the 'word of God' is the prophecies the Jeremiah spoke to the children of Israel, not the book which Jeremiah wrote which contained these prophecies among other things.
Please pray for me.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
Putting those verses in context, we see that the 'word of God' is the prophecies the Jeremiah spoke to the children of Israel, not the book which Jeremiah wrote which contained these prophecies among other things.
you put the verses in context to understand them and than learn from them.if not, than the bible and all what's in the old testement is worthless because than it's just a history book. also again i say this. It's one Holy Bible not only 67 books.
and you still didn't answer my question from two posts above.
While the Bible is not exclusively a history book, it does contain the history of the Hebrews and the reality is, we can learn from that history. In this day and age, we continue to learn from the past to improve the future. But this is not the issue at hand. The Bible contains 66 books (well, 72 if you include the OT apocrypha, which the Church does). They were written by various authors throughout various times in history. What unites them is the message of Salvation that God has been offering mankind throughout history, and which came to a climax when Christ was incarnate, suffered, was crucified and then resurrected. That is where the Holy Spirit comes in, in uniting these otherwise distinct texts with this one message.
Now, about your question from two posts ago, I guess I must have missed it. Scrolling back, i'm assuming this is your question: Well, my question to you is, why wouldn't He? It seems you do not hold mankind in very high regard, and I don't know why that is. Thankfully God holds us in a higher regard, and this is apparent in the fact that He willing took flesh and became one of us.
As I've said before, and i'll reiterate again here: When Christ speaks, those are the words of God. In the OT, whenever we read, 'Thus says the Lord', those are also the words of God. Otherwise, anything else, are the words of the men writing the text.
Please pray for me.
Now, about your question from two posts ago, I guess I must have missed it. Scrolling back, i'm assuming this is your question:
Actually my question was your disagreement with this statement:
The term the Word of God refers to Jesus Christ, mean that He is the human version of God (as we all know) who says the words of God and who have the voice of God. If He, the Loghos of God, uses the Scriptures in His word, doesn't that make it, the word of God!!!
After agreeing with this:
+ (Logos prophorika) The word that is spoken by. Those are the words. And it is the natural sign to what's in the mind. This is as Christ being the Word that the Father spoke by on the last days (Hebrews 1:2 "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.")
He told us what's on the Father's mind through the man's mind. He is the Word that God speaks with; therefore it is the truth and the trustable, and the true witness to the divine mind.
But anyway I’ll answer this Because He is the Son of God, One of the Holy Trinity. Why would He use men’s words except if He Himself spoke of it? And yes I don’t put mankind on a high regard. On the other hand God does and that’s why He was incarnate without to save us because of His love for us. Also He only have the right to think highly of us because we are His creation. We don't have anything in our nature to be proud of. I don’t think that He took our nature just because it’s highly regarded. We are sinners and corrupt until we actually get into Paradise after our death.
For instance, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration was he writing his words or the words of John Locke?
The bible is the word of God because the writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit God Himself. Call them just merely people's own writings, and you prove to me that you have not yet read these passages. Read them with God in your mind and with your wisdom in growth, and then tell me who wrote it.
I believe I've already addressed this issue before and said that when we speak of Christ as the Word of God, this is a reference to His divinity. I do not share your negative view of humanity. If God sees fit to hold us in high regard, why shouldn't I view myself in some regard as well? I am in no way saying that I should take pride in my nature, which, as you have pointed out, is flawed, fallen and corrupt. However, you seem to forget that Christ took on our nature, and as a result, He sanctified it once again. As long as we cling to Him, we are saved. We are the children of God, and heirs to His kingdom, and so that is something we should take pride in. We are the children of the King. And so, if Christ chooses to refer back to any of the prophets, He does so by saying 'The prophecy of Isaiah' or 'of Jeremiah' because of His great love and high regard for us. That is definitely something to hold your head up high about.
Please pray for me.
Let me give you an example. If I were to read a poem and then to write a commentary on it, is the commentary my work or the work of the poet who wrote the original poem? Clearly the commentary is my work and my words. That is the case with the OT and NT. Many of the books were 'commentaries' (if you will) about events that happened, either in the author's life, or oral traditions that were written down at a later date. I am by no means trying to reduce the level of the Bible to be the works or 'mere' men. The Bible is the works of men of God, inspired by the Spirit of God, to write down events that are pertinent to the story of the Salvation of man.
Please pray for me.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
I believe I've already addressed this issue before and said that when we speak of Christ as the Word of God, this is a reference to His divinity.
you did..but that was before i posted the part from Fr. Tadros book which you agreed to. but than didn't say anything. correct me if i am wrong. am not denying what you're saying, just adding to it. well if you take the prophecies in context as you said before, the prophets of the old testements were not there when humanity was santified by Christ.
and you are right when you said we are the Children of God but i say again,
We are sinners and corrupt until we actually get into Paradise after our death.
which where you'll really take pride of what you did on earth.
I agree that we are corrupt, and that we will not cease from corruption until we finally make it home to God. I just don't think so negatively about mankind, that's all. We have been made in the image and likeness of God. What an honour!
Please pray for me.