UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> So is the bible God?


2/28/10 12:22 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1163
 
is the Word that became flesh still God today? After approx 400ad we had the whole bible. Is it perfect.. is it still "God" today?


1 Cor 13:10
"but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away"

or do we just have Christ, the holy spirit and the father?

Is all scripture infallible in its pure form?

or is it fallible because the human counsel was fallible who chose which letters where to go into the canon?

The reason i bring these question up is in my church we have had discussion and they came to the conclusion which i disagree with that they DON'T look at the bible as God because we have the holy spirit. So it is like "Jesus: "Grace" and "love" only type thing. They are saying the bible is not God because it is imperfect for some of the reasons mentioned above and more.



i am hoping to hear any pro and con arguements.
2/28/10 12:45 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
15 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 15928
 Only in the last 200 years or so have a few fundamentalist types attempted to deify the scriptures.  Traditionally the scriptures were never viewed as divine although they were viewed as divinely inspired.  The Logos that became flesh is a reference to Jesus.  

Your verse from 1 Cor. is not making a reference to scripture.

Jesus founded a Church.  The Church is his body.  The Church is the "ground and pillar of the truth" as attested to by the scriptures.  The scriptures represent the written portion of the traditions of the Church.  They are held in very high regard and are of great benefit to the Christian walk, but of course they aren't God.  That would be idolatry.  Not to mention the fact that sola scriptura has given birth to over 30,000 different sects of Christianity.
2/28/10 9:44 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02/28/10 12:53 PM
Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1164
So you are saying we should only be subordinate to the church?

or to anyone who has the holy spirit?

even if it does not line up with scripture or harmonize? 


At what point can we argue from if scripture if its innerant authority is not governing all that is said, thought or done? 
2/28/10 3:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
15 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 15929
colubrid1 - So you are saying we should only be subordinate to the church?

or to anyone who has the holy spirit?

even if it does not line up with scripture or harmonize? 


At what point can we argue from if scripture if its innerant authority is not governing all that is said, thought or done? 

I think that when the Holy Spirit guides the whole Church then the interpretation of scripture is right.  The thing about scripture is that almost any teaching can harmonize with it.  All of the early heresies started with people reading scripture and isolating certain texts.  

The issue really isn't the authority of scripture, but the authority of interpretation.  St. Peter tells his readers to be careful about the writings of St. Paul because they are complex and easy to misunderstand.  The Ethiopian in the chariot reading Isaiah states that it would be impossible to understand the meaning of scripture unless someone showed him.  The Bereans went to the scriptures to see if what St. Paul preached was true.  The whole point of that story is that they never saw Jesus in the scriptures until someone actually showed them.  Finally, on the road to Emmaus the disciples who were walking with the resurrected Jesus had the scriptures opened to them.  These were two men who had heard the Jewish scriptures their wholes lives, but it was Jesus who actually opened their meaning.  So again and again the issue is an interpretive authority one can trust.  

When you reach that point there are actually only a few choices.  You can go with a collegiate consensus of councils and the whole Church over many years (Orthodoxy), the declarations of popes and councils over many years (Catholicism), the teachings of individual men (traditional Protestantism), or individual interpretation (modern revivalist congregationalism).  All of these types are reading the same books more or less, but they come to some very different conclusions.
 
3/1/10 3:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1232
The Bible isn't G-d that would be blasphamy.  Is the Thailand travel guide Thailand?  Is the instruction manual to your computer your computer? 

Jesus founded no church, but an ideology from where in he came from that spoke to Pagens. 
3/1/10 3:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
IBI
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 11655
770mdm -

Jesus founded no church, but an ideology from where in he came from that spoke to Pagens. 

Well, Catholics would of course disagree.
3/1/10 5:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
15 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 15950
770mdm - The Bible isn't G-d that would be blasphamy.  Is the Thailand travel guide Thailand?  Is the instruction manual to your computer your computer? 

Jesus founded no church, but an ideology from where in he came from that spoke to Pagens. 
What text do you base that on?  I am working with the New Testament, the books that were accepted by the early church, and the simple fact that the first Christians organized as an ecclesia. 
3/1/10 5:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
87 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 5139
 They are saying the bible is not God because it is imperfect for some of the reasons mentioned above and more.



G-D never wrote a book.....nutcases like Pat Robertson will tell you it is the word of G-D...but if you believe him...i got some swamp land for sale... but anyways, I commend your church on this bold, intelligent move.
3/2/10 9:57 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1235

IBI, yeah, I understand they'd disagree but there is a language being spoken that is wierd I need clarifying.  "Is the Bible G-d?"  Are they talking about the man Jesus?  Saying Jesus is the Bible and therefore he is G-d?  That I disagree with.  Are they saying Jesus founded the first church?  That I disagree with.  Are they saying their Biblical Cannon is G-d, that I disagree with, not because I'm Jewish but because any physical thing cannot be G-d all inclusive.  Which is it?  Would they say Jesus is G-d and their Biblical cannon is G-d?  Where does G-d become incorporeal in this line of reasoning? 

3/2/10 10:08 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1236
The prophet Ezekiel was one of those who shaped a vision of return and restoration, and it is to him we owe the first oblique reference to a radically new institution that eventually became known as the Bet Knesset, the synagogue: 'This is what the sovereign Lord says: although I sent them far away among the nations and scattered them among the countries, yet I have become to them a small sanctuary [mikdash me'at] in the countries where they have gone' (Ezek. 11: 16). The central sanctuary had been destroyed, but a small echo, a miniature, remained.
 
The synagogue is one of the most remarkable examples of an itaruta de-letata, 'an awakening from below'. It came into being not through words spoken by G-d to Israel but by words spoken by Israel to G-d. There is no synagogue in Tenakh, no command to build local houses of prayer. To the contrary, insofar as the Torah speaks of a 'house of G-d' it refers to a central sanctuary, a collective focus for the worship of the people as a whole.
 
We tend to forget how profound the concept of a synagogue was. Professor M. Stern has written that 'in establishing the synagogue, Judaism created one of the greatest revolutions in the history of religion and society, for the synagogue was an entirely new environment for divine service, of a type unknown anywhere before'. It became, according to Salo Baron, the institution through which the exilic community 'completely shifted the emphasis from the place of worship, the sanctuary, to the gathering of worshippers, the congregation, assembled at any time and any place in G-d's wide world'. The synagogue became Jerusalem in exile, the home of the Jewish heart. It is the ultimate expression of monotheism - that wherever we gather to turn our hearts towards heaven, there the Divine presence can be found, for G-d is everywhere.
Where did it come from, this world-changing idea? It did not come from the Temple, but rather from the much earlier institution described in this week's sedra: the Tabernacle. Its essence was that it was portable, made up of beams and hangings that could be dismantled and carried by the Levites as the Israelites journeyed through the wilderness. The Tabernacle, a temporary structure, turned out to have permanent influence, whereas the Temple, intended to be permanent, proved to be temporary - until, as we pray daily, it is rebuilt.
 
More significant than the physical structure of the tabernacle was its metaphysical structure. The very idea that one can build a home for G-d seems absurd. It was all too easy to understand the concept of sacred space in a polytheistic worldview. The gods were half- human. They had places where they could be encountered. Monotheism tore up this idea at its roots, nowhere more eloquently than in Psalm 139:
 
Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Where can I flee from Your presence?
If I go up to the heavens, You are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, You are there.
 
Hence the question asked by Israel's wisest King, Solomon:
 
But will G-d really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! (I Kings 8: 27)
 
The same question is posed in the name of G-d by one of Israel's greatest prophets, Isaiah:
 
Heaven is My throne,
and the earth is My footstool.
Where is the house you will build for Me?
Where will My resting place be? (Is. 66: 1)
 
The very concept of making a home in finite space for an infinite presence seems a contradiction in terms.
 
The answer, still astonishing in its profundity, is contained at the beginning of this week's sedra:
 
They shall make a sanctuary for Me, and I will dwell in them [betocham]".
 
The Jewish mystics pointed out the linguistic strangeness of this sentence. It should have said, 'I will dwell in it', not 'I will dwell in them'. The answer is that the Divine presence lives not in a building but in its builders; not in a physical place but in the human heart. The sanctuary was not a place in which the objective existence of G-d was somehow more concentrated than elsewhere. Rather, it was a place whose holiness had the effect of opening the hearts of those who stood there to the One worshipped there. G-d exists everywhere, but not everywhere do we feel the presence of G-d in the same way. The essence of 'the holy' is that it is a place where we set aside all human 'devices and desires' and enter a domain wholly set aside to G-d.
 
If the concept of the mishkan, the Tabernacle, is that G-d lives in the human heart whenever it opens itself unreservedly to heaven, then its physical location is irrelevant. Thus the way was open, seven centuries later, to the synagogue: the supreme statement of the idea that if G-d is everywhere, He can be reached anywhere. I find it moving that the frail structure described in this week's sedra became the inspiration of an institution that, more than any other, kept the Jewish people alive through almost 2000 years of dispersion - the longest of all journeys through the wilderness.
3/3/10 12:36 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17712
Yes, the bible is God's word. The bible is not "God" (the paper is not divine) but the thoughts are God's thoughts written down.

It is not God's only words. We know that God has audibly spoken to people, He speaks to us through His creation, through the Holy Spirit in impression but ultimately He speaks to man through His Holy Scriptures.
3/3/10 7:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
87 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 5154
 but the thoughts are God's thoughts written down

reaches down, slides on boots...rooster  it's getting a bit deep now...you wouldn't mind proving that would you?
3/3/10 10:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/03/10 11:02 PM
Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1165
Lots of good pointers here.

I agree with Rooster for the most part. I know that the bible is not God but they are his words and thoughts on how he reaches out to man and has a relationship with us. So same thing and I guess we agree.

Ridgeback - Jesus could have chosen other words to describe his church. he could have chose sunagoge, thisasos, eranos. But he chose ekklesia and at that time that word was used to describe a political assembly.

theyer's lexicon describes it as:

"an assembly of people governed at the public place of council for the purpose of deliberation".

So in a local gathering we are to have discussions,decide things together, make joint decisions and experience the consensus process. The church's decision making role should be judicial rather than legislative. The churches job is not to create law, our job , our resonsibility is to correctly apply and enforce the law of Christ within "Christs ekklesia" as contained in the new covenant.
3/3/10 10:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
colubrid1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/03/10 11:03 PM
Member Since: 10/6/02
Posts: 1166
Ridegback<br /><br />

using the descriptions of ekklesia which would i fall under. Would it be a modern revivalist congregationalism?
3/4/10 3:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
15 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 15994
colubrid1 - Lots of good pointers here.

I agree with Rooster for the most part. I know that the bible is not God but they are his words and thoughts on how he reaches out to man and has a relationship with us. So same thing and I guess we agree.

Ridgeback - Jesus could have chosen other words to describe his church. he could have chose sunagoge, thisasos, eranos. But he chose ekklesia and at that time that word was used to describe a political assembly.

theyer's lexicon describes it as:

"an assembly of people governed at the public place of council for the purpose of deliberation".

So in a local gathering we are to have discussions,decide things together, make joint decisions and experience the consensus process. The church's decision making role should be judicial rather than legislative. The churches job is not to create law, our job , our resonsibility is to correctly apply and enforce the law of Christ within "Christs ekklesia" as contained in the new covenant.

 I don't understand your point about the church.  Do you understand what was meant by Jesus and the Apostles better than say St. Ignatius or St. James?  The Church, which was also described as the body of Christ, the ground and pillar of the truth, and the Bride of Christ, has always been the interpretive body.  It starts with the meeting in Jerusalem to deal with the Judaizers and continues through the seven great ecumenical councils.  These are the people who wrote your New Testament and put all the books of the Bible together into the authoritative collection you are now taking for granted.  All I see in your post is that even a mountain of biblical evidence for both an interpretive authority and the prominence of the Church has no effect because you have submitted to the authority of American revivalist teachers who submitted to the authority of the Protestant Reformers before you.  

To answer your second question I don't know enough about your church, but you certainly use the language of revivalism.  It isn't that hard to see the issue here.  Why are there some 30,000 different Protestant sects all claiming to have the Bible as their sole authority and source of doctrine?  Wouldn't they be perfectly united if that actually worked?
3/4/10 8:53 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1244

I guess the idea that the Synagogue coming before the ekklaisia has no barring here :-(

3/4/10 9:20 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 3075
IBI - 
770mdm -

Jesus founded no church, but an ideology from where in he came from that spoke to Pagens. 

Well, Catholics would of course disagree.<br type="_moz" />

pretty sad when a 'jew' knows more about Christianity than a Christian...aint it.
3/4/10 9:29 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 3076
'church' as a word is pagan in origin, and adopted by that catholic church(ex.easter, Christmas, mary worship), and is a FALSE doctrine, that by the gift of God 'chruch' means 'circle'(kind uh), and 'circle' as a matter of fact a biblical term for God(see eze./dan.).

the word is 'ecclesia' or 'called out ones'.


i know this isn't op's deal, but just thought i'd throw it in here...
3/4/10 9:56 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 3077
the rooster - Yes, the bible is God's word. The bible is not "God" (the paper is not divine) but the thoughts are God's thoughts written down.

It is not God's only words. We know that God has audibly spoken to people, He speaks to us through His creation, through the Holy Spirit in impression but ultimately He speaks to man through His Holy Scriptures.

wow...have to eat my own words...hate when that happens.

only thing is what you mean by 'impression' may be incorrect as i know your denomination.

other than that i'd add to the op is listen less to unwise opinions and more to scriptures using your God given mind...

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, *************and God was the word.*********** "
Joh 1:2 This was in the beginning toward God.


'and God was being the Logos' is the "better" translation.

believe your own eyes, not opinions.



3/4/10 10:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 3078
770mdm - <p>I guess the idea that the Synagogue coming before the ekklaisia has no barring here :-(</p>

the Lord your God 770 says the Temple in Zion is the place YOUR supposed to worship...show me this prescription of God for the 'synagogue' concept in scripture.

and please don't c&p someone elses opinion, how bout yours.
3/4/10 10:44 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03/04/10 10:49 AM
Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1245
Are you asking me to justify praying to G-d outside of Israel? 
3/4/10 11:06 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 3080
this was about your comparison of the synagogue to the church, and my point was your concept of the synagogue being a God ordained prescription for worship is not scriptural unless you can show me, if you can i'd listen.

both 'the chruch' and synagogue are very similar outwardly but was not germane to the subject. both concepts are FALSE DOCTRINES, that was my point.

btw i would challenge your assertion...


Psa 99:9 Exalt the LORD our God, and worship at his holy hill; for the LORD our God is holy.

Psa 76:2 In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.


Psa 132:13 For the LORD hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation.

Psa 135:21 Blessed be the LORD out of Zion, which dwelleth at Jerusalem. Praise ye the LORD.

Psa 99:5 Exalt ye the LORD our God, and ************worship at his footstool;********* for he is holy.

these verse are not requests but COMMANDS...

you MUST worship at his 'footstool'(jerusalem), thats what it says.
3/4/10 11:22 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1246

Wow man you rock.  I don't have an answer at the tip of my finger but I promise not to cut and paste...

3/4/10 11:31 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1247
Psa 76:2 In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.
Better translated as: In Judah is G-d known: His name is great in Israel.

Salem isn't phonetically sounded out it's Yehudah and it doesn't say Zion it say B'Yisrael not Zion...

Psa 132:13 For the LORD hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation.
Here it does say Zion, it phonetically sounds like Tzion...

Anyway, you certainly can recall more of my scriptures then I can. 
3/4/10 12:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 3081
let me give you a big tip...get E-SWORD its a Christian software package but as i'm sure you know 'we' believe the OT is just as much the WORD OF GOD as the new, both are required for understanding.

you cant understand who Jesus(God with us) is unless you understand the OT, and why its 'old'.

i know your not a beliver, and a gentile from my perspective but i'm reminded of this scriptue...

Luk 7:6 Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
Luk 7:7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.
Luk 7:8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
Luk 7:9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.


iow...its a 'smack in the face' to ME for MY lack of faith, as its 'those who are without'(you) who have the greatest faith 'in Israel'(the elect of God of which you WILL be part of). There's much much more to that understanding, but i think you get my meaning.



Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.