God's word: Christ or the bible ?

[noshellswill]

Gents:

God's word: Christ or the bible? Seems pretty basic to me, and I got into
the discussion this way.

A few weeks back I was discussing a point of behavior ( the
need Christians to preach the gospel ... ) with a "bible" Christian. She
quoted St Paul ( not my fav ), and when I objected she said: "Well, St
Paul said it, and you DO believe, don't you that the bible is the
word-of-God?"

I said: "No, Jesus Christ is the Word-of-God".

Well, she and I agree(d) that God speaks to man through scripture. But
a halting imitation of Christs' manifest behavior is far from a repetition
of St Pauls obscure blathering(what else, ofcourse could he do?). That
difference kinda shut-down the discussion, and we both got another bottle
of Pepsi.
As I thought about it later, I felt the difference is really that between
the Catholic and Protestant viewpoints of Christian faith. Is my
conclusion a prudent one?

nss
*****

---

[No, even Protestants use the term both ways. --clh]

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by noshellswill
God's word: Christ or the bible? Seems pretty basic to me, and I got into
the discussion this way.
A few weeks back I was discussing a point of behavior ( the
need Christians to preach the gospel ... ) with a "bible" Christian. She
quoted St Paul ( not my fav ), and when I objected she said: "Well, St
Paul said it, and you DO believe, don't you that the bible is the
word-of-God?"
I said: "No, Jesus Christ is the Word-of-God".
Well, she and I agree(d) that God speaks to man through scripture. But
a halting imitation of Christs' manifest behavior is far from a repetition
of St Pauls obscure blathering(what else, ofcourse could he do?). That
difference kinda shut-down the discussion, and we both got another bottle
of Pepsi.
As I thought about it later, I felt the difference is really that between
the Catholic and Protestant viewpoints of Christian faith. Is my
conclusion a prudent one?
nss
*****
---
[No, even Protestants use the term both ways. --clh]

We've had several versions of this before: do you worship God or the
bible?

Obviously Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to
the father except through him.
Jesus is called the word of God in John 1, the greek term logos being
the word.

But when we talk about the bible being the word of God, we are talking
about the revelation of who God is.
Romans 1 says we can know certain things about God through creation
alone, but the fuller revelation comes through him telling us about
himself or through what he does in time. The bible is a record of
those revelations.

If you discount the bible, then you don't have any revelation left of
Jesus. You can say you believe in Jesus without believing in the
bible, but what exactly is it you are claiming to believe? There
doesn't seem to be any solid answer to that.
It is difficult enough at times sorting through it, even accepting the
bible. But without it, there is simply nothing firm to believe.
At the point one discards the bible, there is no foundation left to
root Jesus in fact. There is only an emotional attachment to the name
and individual attempts to construct some personally held beliefs
about him. But there is no reason to accept any of those as true.

Claiming that Jesus is the word of God, but the bible is not,
undercuts any revelation from Jesus/God.

dave

[Gordon]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:31:38 GMT, ***@yahoo.com wrote:

(snip)

Post by r***@yahoo.com
We've had several versions of this before: do you worship God or the
bible?
Obviously Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to
the father except through him.
Jesus is called the word of God in John 1, the greek term logos being
the word.

I've seen and read this before, and would like to take this
opportunity to ask for some further insights. Should this group
of passages in the Book of John have been translated, using the
term Wisdom or Knowledge instead of Word? Are these passages
referring to the physical body of Jesus, or to the infinite
wisdom...knowledge of God?

Is Jesus called The Word of God in these and similar passages
because all of God's wisdom...knowledge was/is present in the
human form of Jesus?

Post by r***@yahoo.com
But when we talk about the bible being the word of God, we are talking
about the revelation of who God is.
Romans 1 says we can know certain things about God through creation
alone, but the fuller revelation comes through him telling us about
himself or through what he does in time. The bible is a record of
those revelations.
If you discount the bible, then you don't have any revelation left of
Jesus. You can say you believe in Jesus without believing in the
bible, but what exactly is it you are claiming to believe? There
doesn't seem to be any solid answer to that.
It is difficult enough at times sorting through it, even accepting the
bible. But without it, there is simply nothing firm to believe.
At the point one discards the bible, there is no foundation left to
root Jesus in fact. There is only an emotional attachment to the name
and individual attempts to construct some personally held beliefs
about him. But there is no reason to accept any of those as true.

Interpreting the Bible is probably beyond the fundamental level
of human intelligence. That is, without the lead of the Holy
Spirit we really can't get much beyond a very simplistic literal
interpretation. I'm not saying this level of understanding is
wrong. In fact a simplistic literal interpretation may be all
that is needed for those who are content with this level of
understanding, but for those who have a more inquiring mind,
simplistic literal interpretations just won't bring much
satisfaction. This is where the Holy Spirit comes in, and lifts
our understanding beyond the superficial.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Claiming that Jesus is the word of God, but the bible is not,
undercuts any revelation from Jesus/God.
dave

[noshellswill]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
We've had several versions of this before: do you worship God or the
bible?
Obviously Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to
the father except through him.
Jesus is called the word of God in John 1, the greek term logos being
the word.
But when we talk about the bible being the word of God, we are talking
about the revelation of who God is.
Romans 1 says we can know certain things about God through creation
alone, but the fuller revelation comes through him telling us about
himself or through what he does in time. The bible is a record of
those revelations.
If you discount the bible, then you don't have any revelation left of
Jesus. You can say you believe in Jesus without believing in the
bible, but what exactly is it you are claiming to believe? There
doesn't seem to be any solid answer to that.

...

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Claiming that Jesus is the word of God, but the bible is not,
undercuts any revelation from Jesus/God.
dave

Dave:

Yes, a Christian worships Jesus Christ -- not the Bible and not Christian
churches.

No, the Christian church taught Jesus life and gospel prior to any
(surviving) written testament. I see the church gospel teaching
as a consistent, continuous, oral historical fact.

Yes, the writing got done quickly. At point(s) prior to ~150AD stuff got
written down and passed on as consistent with the churchs'
belief/oral-gospel taught by those taught directly by Christ. Sometime
~300AD anybody who was Anybody had a complete text, later 'codified' and
accepted by Christians thereafter .

No, I believe that without the bible -- and imagined certainty
provided by it -- Christians would still seek to imitate Christs
life and still preach the gospel: Christ, Christ crucified and Christs'
grace.

nss
*****

[b***@dodo.com.au]

Post by noshellswill
God's word: Christ or the bible? Seems pretty basic to me, and I got into
the discussion this way.

...

I've been a Christian for some time, but I've often wondered what we
meant by "the Word".

So tonight I looked up a concordance, and there were two "word"
categories. The first type, the most common, referred to the normal
use of the term "word" whether spoken by Man or God, or on God's
behalf by a man (eg. a prophet) or scripture. The second was spelt
with a capital letter (in the Good News Bible anyway) and referred to
Christ as the "Word of God".

Of the second type, there were only six references. Four of them were
in the Gospel of John in the first paragraph, one in 1 John (1.1) and
one in Revelation (19.13).

So it would appear that "Word" in the divine sense can have several
meanings -

1. It can specifically refer to Christ. In this context there are
only 6 specific references in the New Testament.

2. It can be a word spoken by a prophet on God's behalf, when God
speaks through someone for a specific purpose eg. Jeremiah 1.9
"...'Listen, I am giving you the words you must speak'", Luke 3.2 "At
that time the word of God came to John ....".

3. In the broader sense, it can mean Scripture as a whole, but a
definition in that line is a bit harder to define.

----

[Word in Greek is Logos. It has a long history of use in philosophy,
including Jewish philosophy. One proposed background for John is
Philo, a Jewish philosopher. He used Logos as God's reason and
creative power (a gross simplification). [If you look in Google for
"logos philo" you'll see a number of articles on the topic.] While
it's no longer so clear that John actually knew Philo, at least it
suggests the kinds of thought that was going around at the time.

Other background includes God creating the universe by speaking the
Word (Gen 1, which John 1 alludes to), and the personification of
Wisdom in Proverbs and later Jewish writings.

However like any word with highly metaphorical or symbolic uses, it
also has more literal uses. E.g. the prophets said that they were
delivering God's word, i.e. his message. Also passages such as Mat
15:6, Luk 8:11, etc. Luke 1:2 is interesting in that it could have
either meaning, and possibly is intended that way.

I agree with you that multiple senses exist.

--clh]

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <F3cZh.1178$***@trnddc02>, ***@dodo.com.au says...
[snip]

Post by b***@dodo.com.au
[Word in Greek is Logos.

English 'word' also translates to Greek RHMA. And Greek LOGOS translates to many
other English words other than 'word'.

Post by b***@dodo.com.au
It has a long history of use in philosophy,
including Jewish philosophy. One proposed background for John is
Philo, a Jewish philosopher.

And it has long amazed me how many people accept this 'proposed background' as
the final answer without due attention to the other 'proposed background':
Aramaic 'memra'.

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by noshellswill
No, the Christian church taught Jesus life and gospel prior to any
(surviving) written testament. I see the church gospel teaching
as a consistent, continuous, oral historical fact.
No, I believe that without the bible -- and imagined certainty
provided by it -- Christians would still seek to imitate Christs
life and still preach the gospel: Christ, Christ crucified and Christs'
grace.
*****- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Some would undoubtedly seek to imitate Jesus' life.
But what specific thing X would they be doing to imitate Jesus?
Then no matter what you come up with, explain to me how you know doing
X is imitating Jesus.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Claiming that Jesus is the word of God, but the bible is not,
undercuts any revelation from Jesus/God.
dave

B - The Nag Hammadi.

Bren

[Helmut Richter]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Obviously Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to
the father except through him.
Jesus is called the word of God in John 1, the greek term logos being
the word.

On the relationship of the different words God has spoken, and the
incarnate word which is Jesus, the first verses of Hebrews are very
enlightening:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many
times and in various ways, 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. (Hebr.1:1-2, NIV)

In the light of this scripture, I would be reluctant to regard the
prophesised and written-down scripture to be on the same level as the
definite word of God which he spoke "in these last days".

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Claiming that Jesus is the word of God, but the bible is not,
undercuts any revelation from Jesus/God.

Yes, the Bible is the trustworthy witness of the word of God that has come
into the flesh, but I do not see any necessity to use the same term for
the two.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Claiming that Jesus is the word of God, but the bible is not,
undercuts any revelation from Jesus/God.
dave

B - The Nag Hammadi.

What _about_ the Nag Hammadi? Even most non-christian scholars studying those
texts agree that they are late forgeries, having no historical value, and
doctrinal value ONLY for testifying to what Gnostics believe. NOT to what early
Christians believed or to what Christ Himself really taught.

Post by B.G. Kent
Bren

[noshellswill]

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by noshellswill
No, the Christian church taught Jesus life and gospel prior to any
(surviving) written testament. I see the church gospel teaching
as a consistent, continuous, oral historical fact.
No, I believe that without the bible -- and imagined certainty
provided by it -- Christians would still seek to imitate Christs
life and still preach the gospel: Christ, Christ crucified and Christs'
grace.
*****- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Some would undoubtedly seek to imitate Jesus' life.
But what specific thing X would they be doing to imitate Jesus?
Then no matter what you come up with, explain to me how you know doing
X is imitating Jesus.

rtd:

It's funny ... in the Erasmus sense ... what modest "hardcopy" we have
concerning Christs' life, and yet the certainty we have about the man?
Modestly, I am aware of no significant dispute -- excepting the 'real
presence'(?) -- among Christians concerning Christs' actual behavior nor
what he taught to be imitated.

THAT Christ_like behavior is taught by the "fathers", the
CHURCH-of-ROME ( even at its' worst) and the Bible. It is truly taught by
the church and is/has_been recognized by all Christians.

nss
******

[image26]

The majority of christians in the world have in fact two "poles" in their
piety

The preaching from the bible and the liturgy ( Hymns and words ) AND the
eucharist or holy communion

All of this is a sense of God for the world, a word of God if you want

( NB I think in french and write in english ...)

maurice, valence france

www.artbible.net

Post by noshellswill
God's word: Christ or the bible? Seems pretty basic to me, and I got into
the discussion this way.
A few weeks back I was discussing a point of behavior ( the
need Christians to preach the gospel ... ) with a "bible" Christian. She
quoted St Paul ( not my fav ), and when I objected she said: "Well, St
Paul said it, and you DO believe, don't you that the bible is the
word-of-God?"
I said: "No, Jesus Christ is the Word-of-God".

...

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by noshellswill
"Well, St
Paul said it, and you DO believe, don't you that the bible is the
word-of-God?"
I said: "No, Jesus Christ is the Word-of-God".

Obviously Saul's experience on the Damascus road and the
following acceptance of the other apostles in Jerusalem, place
Paul as one of the chosen disciples. The operative word there
is "chosen." Christ chose Paul to be His mouth piece to the
heathen nations. Therefore, under the in-the-Spirit-ation, what
Paul penned was the "exegesis of God." In that the written
word of God is "alive", it has a special relationship to the
Godhead. Peter recognized that what Paul was writting
was the equivalent to the OT scriptures.

You set up a false either/or situation. It is both/and. If you
reject or make little of the Pauline epistles, you belittle the
appointment of Christ. "ALL scripture is inspired...."

[noshellswill]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by noshellswill
"Well, St
Paul said it, and you DO believe, don't you that the bible is the
word-of-God?"
I said: "No, Jesus Christ is the Word-of-God".

Obviously Saul's experience on the Damascus road and the
following acceptance of the other apostles in Jerusalem, place
Paul as one of the chosen disciples. The operative word there
is "chosen." Christ chose Paul to be His mouth piece to the
heathen nations. Therefore, under the in-the-Spirit-ation, what
Paul penned was the "exegesis of God." In that the written
word of God is "alive", it has a special relationship to the
Godhead. Peter recognized that what Paul was writting
was the equivalent to the OT scriptures.
You set up a false either/or situation. It is both/and. If you
reject or make little of the Pauline epistles, you belittle the
appointment of Christ. "ALL scripture is inspired...."

LS:

Commonly spoken I'd agree with what you say. OTOH St Peter says
he hasn't the faintest idea what Paul is talking about, but ...
is certain that others have poorly interpreted. That to me is a
note-of-caution to 'pride-full' Scripture interpretation.

St Peter had lived Christs' life, while St Paul was struck-down
for having not. Ofcourse that difference did not stop Peter and
Paul from preaching Christs' gospel together

I tried to point at this in my original question -- and I'm sure I did a
lousy job, phrased vis' a Catholic/Protestant difference.


nss
******