Jesus Is the Scripture?

[ahs]

I’ve been having a discussion and I keep noticing a particular statement the person is making, over and over and over, and I’m a bit confused.

At one point, when giving evidence for sola scriptura (my words, not his) he said that because Eph 5:24 says, “As the Church is subordinate to Christ…” and Col 2:10, “…And you share in this fullness in him **who is the head **of every principality and power…” (along with a few other verses) and Jn 1:1, “…and the Word was God…” that this proves the Church is subject to the Scriptures…because Jesus is the Word, thus Jesus is the Scriptures. The point being that the word “Scripture” can accurately and correctly be substituted for “Christ” in the Bible, and that “Jesus” and “Scripture” are one in the same.

I gave my point of view that this was limiting Christ to what is written, because the Scriptures are only the written Truth, and we know that not all Truth is recorded. But in our discussion it keeps coming up, many times now…“Jesus is Scripture”, “God is the Bible”, “any verse in the Bible that mentions Christ is speaking of the Scripture, because that is who Jesus is”.

I’m really trying to understand this position and drawing a blank. Am I missing something here?

 

[Ophelia23]

I’ve been having a discussion and I keep noticing a particular statement the person is making, over and over and over, and I’m a bit confused.

At one point, when giving evidence for sola scriptura (my words, not his) he said that because Eph 5:24 says, “As the Church is subordinate to Christ…” and Col 2:10, “…And you share in this fullness in him **who is the head **of every principality and power…” (along with a few other verses) and Jn 1:1, “…and the Word was God…” that this proves the Church is subject to the Scriptures…because Jesus is the Word, thus Jesus is the Scriptures. The point being that the word “Scripture” can accurately and correctly be substituted for “Christ” in the Bible, and that “Jesus” and “Scripture” are one in the same.

I gave my point of view that this was limiting Christ to what is written, because the Scriptures are only the written Truth, and we know that not all Truth is recorded. But in our discussion it keeps coming up, many times now…“Jesus is Scripture”, “God is the Bible”, “any verse in the Bible that mentions Christ is speaking of the Scripture, because that is who Jesus is”.

I’m really trying to understand this position and drawing a blank. Am I missing something here?

You are on the right track. The word ‘Scripture’ comes from the word scriptus or scribere, which means ‘to write’. Gospel says that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. It does not say that in the beginning was the writing, and the writing was with God… you get the picture. Actually, in the biblical usage of the word ‘Word’, it stemmed from the word meaning ‘Promise’.

It’s not a question of whether Christ is the head of the Church; we all believe He is. It is definitely a question of etymology and, in this case, your friend is not on target. It’s a nice thought, but not on target.

 

[Rich_C]

I’ve seen this kind of bibliodolatry before. You’re on the right track.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The Catholic Church did not come out of the Bible, the Bible came out of the Catholic Church. The Church is the mother, not the daughter, of the Bible.

When the Catholic Church was 364 years old, she selected and canonized 27 of her own writings and named them the New Testament. At the same time, she canonized 46 writings from the Greek Septuagint that she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of sacred Scripture she named tá Biblia - the Books - in English, the Bible.

Yes, Jesus is the Word, the Logos. The term Logos comes from Greek philosophy and means the rational principle which governs the universe. Logos doesn’t mean the “written word,” that is, the Scriptures. It was St. John’s name for the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. It literally means word, reason, speech.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The Catholic Church did not come out of the Bible, the Bible came out of the Catholic Church. The Church is the mother, not the daughter, of the Bible.

When the Catholic Church was 364 years old, she selected and canonized 27 of her own writings and named them the New Testament. At the same time, she canonized 46 writings from the Greek Septuagint that she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of sacred Scripture she named tá Biblia - the Books - in English, the Bible.

Yes, Jesus is the Word, the Logos. The term Logos comes from Greek philosophy and means the rational principle which governs the universe. Logos doesn’t mean the “written word,” that is, the Scriptures. It was St. John’s name for the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. It literally means word, reason, speech.

God is outside the universe. Jesus is outside the Scripture. To say that He is the Scripture is ludicrous.

 

[Trebor135]

I’ve seen this kind of bibliodolatry before. You’re on the right track.

Same here.

To the OP: ask your interlocutor to read up to v. 16 inclusive–the additional context should clear up that the “word” referred to by John in v. 1 is definitely not the Bible.

 

[po18guy]

First problem is that, being a ‘bible-only’ person, he is forced to violate the bible (2 Peter 1:20) by privately interpreting scripture. Thus, he is leading himself and, as we see with the blind leading the blind, both fall into a pit. He has lead himself away from the truth as doctrine and into his opinion as doctrine.

Another problem is that being oriented solely to the written word, he can only conceive of a written word. Jesus is the Eternal Word and existed eons before there was a hand or quill to put written word to papyrus.

As to Jesus being the scriptures (or vice versa), look at how silly this sounds: “… and the scripture was made flesh” Nonsense!

You are dealing with a person that may be searching only for validation of his opinions, and not necessarily for the Truth - which is Jesus Christ.

 

[ahs]

Thanks for all the responses. I’m starting to understand what he is saying, and impying…as well as realizing he indeed cares nothing for any explanation of Truth…if it’s “catholic”, it’s “false”. Well, you can lead a horse to water…and then pray for him that he’ll drink.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I wouldnt waste too much time with that arguement, its not logical and definately not correct. Jesus is not Scripture.

 

[patrick457]

I never knew Jesus was a book!

This idea falls flat on a number of counts, but I’ll name only one: Jews and generations of early Christians did not have a Bible, both in the sense of a fixed, closed canon of authoritative writings or a complete collection of said writings under one cover.

We can say that the Scriptures in some way symbolizes or is an icon of Christ the Word (look at how the Gospel Book is venerated at church - especially in the Eastern Churches), but to say that the written Scripture literally is Jesus is just…wrong.

 

[Trebor135]

I never knew Jesus was a book!

Me neither!

We can say that the Scriptures in some way symbolizes or is an icon of Christ the Word (look at how the Gospel Book is venerated at church - especially in the Eastern Churches), but to say that the written Scripture literally is Jesus is just…wrong.

Indeed. The great irony of the situation is that… a noisy subset of Protestants, who would be prone to falling into the bibliolatry displayed by the OP’s interlocutor, are the ones constantly accusing Catholics of worshipping statues. Double standard much?

 

[COPLAND_3]

Me neither!

Indeed. The great irony of the situation is that… a noisy subset of Protestants, who would be prone to falling into the bibliolatry displayed by the OP’s interlocutor, are the ones constantly accusing Catholics of worshipping statues. Double standard much?

well said!

 

[po18guy]

Here is an excerpt from the introductory pages of The Open Bible, ®1975, a KJV translation which is/was published by Thomas Nelson Publishers in the 1970s. According to a certain Dr. Wilbur M. Smith (bolding mine),

1. The Bible discovers and convicts us of sin.
2. The Bible helps us cleanse us from the pollutions of sin.
3. The Bible imparts strength.
4. The Bible instructs us in what we are to do.
5. The Bible provides us with a sword for victory over sin.
6. The Bible makes our lives fruitful.
7. The Bible gives us power to pray.

The good Doctor seems to assign human, or even divine and providential qualities to the scriptures.

 

[Trebor135]

Here is an excerpt from the introductory pages of The Open Bible, ®1975, a KJV translation which is/was published by Thomas Nelson Publishers in the 1970s. According to a certain Dr. Wilbur M. Smith (bolding mine),

1. The Bible discovers and convicts us of sin.
2. The Bible helps us cleanse us from the pollutions of sin.
3. The Bible imparts strength.
4. The Bible instructs us in what we are to do.
5. The Bible provides us with a sword for victory over sin.
6. The Bible makes our lives fruitful.
7. The Bible gives us power to pray.

The good Doctor seems to assign human, or even divine and providential qualities to the scriptures.

For the sake of charity, I would wish to posit that Dr. Smith actually meant that the Bible would be used by the Holy Spirit for all of these good ends. But in that case, he should have no problem accepting that the waters of baptism are employed by the Holy Spirit for other good ends, too. Somehow, though, I have my doubts that the good Evangelical would see the connection, and find it depressingly plausible that he was in fact holding to a view of the Bible as quasi-divine when he was writing the passage you cited.

 

[po18guy]

For the sake of charity, I would wish to posit that Dr. Smith actually meant that the Bible would be used by the Holy Spirit for all of these good ends.

Except that he did not say so. There are seven pages of small type at the beginning which allegedly teach one how to read, study and interpret scripture. The word “bible” is mentioned 33 times on just the first page. The Name of the Holy Spirit does not appear on any of those pages. Not once. The author suggests a prayer before reading, and references Psalm 119 (regarding the Mosaic law) and John 16, in which Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit - yet no appeal is made directly to the Spirit for guidance. I see this as problematic. This thinking focuses like a laser beam on Jesus, which is good, yet risks overlooking or bypassing the Holy Spirit - not good. There seems to be a dangerous assumption that the Holy Spirit is the only spirit willing to lead.

On the inside cover of my 1914 Douay-Rheims as well as my 1953 Confraternity bible is the prayer to the Holy Spirit before reading scripture. An additional prayer is inside the back cover of both bibles, to be prayed at the conclusion of reading scripture. Sadly, this prayer has been deleted from the New American Bible. As well, there is no such invocation in “The Open Bible” at either end.

 

[patrick457]

Indeed. The great irony of the situation is that… a noisy subset of Protestants, who would be prone to falling into the bibliolatry displayed by the OP’s interlocutor, are the ones constantly accusing Catholics of worshipping statues. Double standard much?

The ironic thing is, the Bible apparently isn’t a very well-read book, even among many self-proclaimed ‘Bible-believing’ Christians. The sad part? A number of these same folks would lash out against Catholics for supposedly not being ‘Biblical’ or trying to suppress the Bible or whatever. Double standard indeed.

(Fun fact: according to one survey, more than 80 percent of evangelicals or ‘born-again’ Christians think that “God helps those who help themselves” is a Bible verse. Another estimate shows that almost two-thirds of Americans can’t name at least five of the Ten Commandments, which ironically includes some outspoken promoters of them.)

 

[po18guy]

The ironic thing is, the Bible apparently isn’t a very well-read book, even among many self-proclaimed ‘Bible-believing’ Christians. The sad part? A number of these same folks would lash out against Catholics for supposedly not being ‘Biblical’ or trying to suppress the Bible or whatever. Double standard indeed.

(Fun fact: according to one survey, more than 80 percent of evangelicals or ‘born-again’ Christians think that “God helps those who help themselves” is a Bible verse. Another estimate shows that almost two-thirds of Americans can’t name at least five of the Ten Commandments, which ironically includes some outspoken promoters of them.)

We see here at CAF, that some bible Christians rely on selected verses which, taken out of context, can be twisted to support their opinion. However, they seem unaware of many other verses which oppose their opinion. When they realize that, we will often receive a frustrated or even angry response, or their simple disappearance. On Marcus Grodi’s “The Journey Home” program, he and his guests frequently mention the scriptures that simply were not touched upon in their former denominations. The first-time examination of those scriptures has lead to many a conversion.

 

[PJM]

=ahs;9375188]I’ve been having a discussion and I keep noticing a particular statement the person is making, over and over and over, and I’m a bit confused.

At one point, when giving evidence for sola scriptura (my words, not his) he said that because Eph 5:24 says, “As the Church is subordinate to Christ…” and Col 2:10, “…And you share in this fullness in him **who is the head **of every principality and power…” (along with a few other verses) and Jn 1:1, “…and the Word was God…” that this proves the Church is subject to the Scriptures…because Jesus is the Word, thus Jesus is the Scriptures. The point being that the word “Scripture” can accurately and correctly be substituted for “Christ” in the Bible, and that “Jesus” and “Scripture” are one in the same.

I gave my point of view that this was limiting Christ to what is written, because the Scriptures are only the written Truth, and we know that not all Truth is recorded. But in our discussion it keeps coming up, many times now…“Jesus is Scripture”, “God is the Bible”, “any verse in the Bible that mentions Christ is speaking of the Scripture, because that is who Jesus is”.

I’m really trying to understand this position and drawing a blank. Am I missing something here?

A+ for effort
D- for results

#1. Let’s first assume this person “is correct”
They could ONLY be correct in regards to the NT What about the rest of the Bible:shrug:

#2. The ONE “Infallible” Rule is THAT NEVER-EVER CAN OR MAY ONE VERSE VOID OR CANCEL OUT ANOTHER.

Eph.3: 9 to 12 “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [SINGULAR: meaning THE CATHOLIC Church …no other “church“ existed when this was written] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him

John.14: 26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

Acts.20: 28 “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God [SINGULAR] which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”

Romans 13: 2 “Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”

There is a lot more but alas; space is limited.

Hope this si helpful?

God Bless,
pat /PJM

 

[patrick457]

We see here at CAF, that some bible Christians rely on selected verses which, taken out of context, can be twisted to support their opinion. However, they seem unaware of many other verses which oppose their opinion. When they realize that, we will often receive a frustrated or even angry response, or their simple disappearance. On Marcus Grodi’s “The Journey Home” program, he and his guests frequently mention the scriptures that simply were not touched upon in their former denominations. The first-time examination of those scriptures has lead to many a conversion.

I’ve already said this in another thread, but it bears repeating. IMHO this phenomenon of biblical cherry-picking has its roots with the popular (believe it or not, this is how much of the public - not just Protestants - views the Bible) image of the Bible as a black-and-white with no shades of grey divine manual of solutions to every want and need, a collection of prooftexts serving ‘real answers, real fast’. Kind of like the Rapture, this isn’t a very old idea: this mentality comes from 18th-19th century evangelicalism and is ultimately derived from classic sola scriptura combined with a highly-idealized image of 16th century Puritanism. These ‘Puritanic Biblicists’ touted the idea of the Bible as the cure to every social ill burgeoning industrial America was suffering from at the time: to this end, they made it their goal to get the Word - “without note or comment,” believing that Scripture is its own interpreter anyway - into the hands of every man, believing that doing so would save society.

A more extreme legacy of this mentality is the idea of treating the Bible as a quasi-divination tool, a kind of Magic 8-Ball to ascertain God’s will - you know, the kind some folks call ‘prooftexting’, where you flip open a Bible and look at the very first verse you can land your eyes on. In its most elaborate version it involves closing your eyes, flipping to a random page, and pointing your finger at a random verse: as per this idea, the passage your finger lands on is God’s answer. Not that it works all of the time (remember that joke about a guy getting “Judas went and hanged himself” and “Go thou and do likewise”? )

 

[po18guy]

I’ve already said this in another thread, but it bears repeating. IMHO this phenomenon of biblical cherry-picking has its roots with the popular (believe it or not, this is how much of the public - not just Protestants - views the Bible) image of the Bible as a black-and-white with no shades of grey divine manual of solutions to every want and need, a collection of prooftexts serving ‘real answers, real fast’. Kind of like the Rapture, this isn’t a very old idea: this mentality comes from 18th-19th century evangelicalism and is ultimately derived from classic sola scriptura combined with a highly-idealized image of 16th century Puritanism. These ‘Puritanic Biblicists’ touted the idea of the Bible as the cure to every social ill burgeoning industrial America was suffering from at the time: to this end, they made it their goal to get the Word - “without note or comment,” believing that Scripture is its own interpreter anyway - into the hands of every man, believing that doing so would save society.

A more extreme legacy of this mentality is the idea of treating the Bible as a quasi-divination tool, a kind of Magic 8-Ball to ascertain God’s will - you know, the kind some folks call ‘prooftexting’, where you flip open a Bible and look at the very first verse you can land your eyes on. In its most elaborate version it involves closing your eyes, flipping to a random page, and pointing your finger at a random verse: as per this idea, the passage your finger lands on is God’s answer. Not that it works all of the time (remember that joke about a guy getting “Judas went and hanged himself” and “Go thou and do likewise”? )

Along with the anthropomorphic view of scripture given in the The Open Bible, here is an introductory sampling:

“It offers comfort in sorrow, guidance in perplexity, advice for our problems, rebuke for our sins, and daily inspiration for our every need”

It is viewed as the consummate self-help book and, combined with the private interpretation which it counsels us to do, it essentially offers a clay Savior which we form according to our need, then fire in the kiln of our consciences. What we arrive at (so far) is 30,000 differently shaped and sized clay pots.