John 1:1

[Peter29]

I think the watchtower society is a response to the criticisms of the Christian concept of God made by nontrinitarian Jews or Muslims.

I almost fell for it. I thank God I did not.

 

[Dan_Parker]

That’s what the Mormons say about the Book of Mormon and the Muslems say about the Koran. Do you follow those as well? You follow a book because it says it’s inspired? Well then I’m here to tell you that the Caholic faith is the true faith and you need do nothing else but believe me since I said so…

You really showed everyone here your lack of knowledge regarding the canon of Scripture. It is because it says so is absolutely ridiculous and holds nothing. The Catholic Church settled the canon through councils that were guided by the Holy Spirit and maintained those books throughout the centuries of time. Sorry Dan but your forced fed theology falls apart here…teachccd

You did not ask me why I believe the bible is inspired. That might be a good topic for Sacred Scripture as long as the rhetoric and name-calling can eliminated. The fact that we do not agree about the canon should not surprise you, and when you start name-calling about “force fed” theology, etc, it makes we wonder if you it is a wise choice to continue discussion with you.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

That’s what the Mormons say about the Book of Mormon and the Muslems say about the Koran. Do you follow those as well? You follow a book because it says it’s inspired? Well then I’m here to tell you that the Caholic faith is the true faith and you need do nothing else but believe me since I said so…

You really showed everyone here your lack of knowledge regarding the canon of Scripture. It is because it says so is absolutely ridiculous and holds nothing. The Catholic Church settled the canon through councils that were guided by the Holy Spirit and maintained those books throughout the centuries of time. Sorry Dan but your forced fed theology falls apart here…teachccd

You put the Catholic Church above God with your claim. There is a rhyme and reasoning associated with the canonization process, which is why the 2nd canon is not of inspiration because all the rules used to settle the first canon were tossed out the door when the reformers came a knockin’ .

Of course to get a little more off topic for just a post; you neglect to look at history, which shows the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in form or substance as it does today; it was the Catholic or universal church at Rome that existed. Not until we get to Emperor Constantine do we see the emergence of what we call the Roman Catholic Church.

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

You did not ask me why I believe the bible is inspired. That might be a good topic for Sacred Scripture as long as the rhetoric and name-calling can eliminated. The fact that we do not agree about the canon should not surprise you, and when you start name-calling about “force fed” theology, etc, it makes we wonder if you it is a wise choice to continue discussion with you.

I asked before but you did not answer; is Jesus God?

 

[Dan_Parker]

I asked before but you did not answer; is Jesus God?

Dan:
I thought I did, but don’t want to search for it. The answer is that QEOS (theos) is predicated on the Word who is the Son. (Jn 1:1). He is God in the sense that he is the representative of God fulfilling a function like Moses (Ex 7:1; Jn 1:1) but on a grander scale (Jn 1:17).

The problem with your statement “Is Jesus God” is that the word God is never used in Scripture as to refer to all three persons at the same time, and never for a divine substance. In addition, the word God is used almost exclusively as a title for the Father. Some might misunderstand that you identify the person of the Father with the person of the Son. I understand what you mean, but it is not a very elegant way to express what you really believe.

So the short answer is yes, Jesus is God when qualified the same way bible writers qualify it. However he is never called the one God or only God of Jewish Christian monotheism. Only the Father is identified as that God.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are MonoPersonalTheists, Catholics and other Trinitarians are PolyPersonalTheists.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Dan:
I thought I did, but don’t want to search for it. The answer is that QEOS (theos) is predicated on the Word who is the Son. (Jn 1:1). He is God in the sense that he is the representative of God fulfilling a function like Moses (Ex 7:1; Jn 1:1) but on a grander scale (Jn 1:17).

The problem with your statement “Is Jesus God” is that the word God is never used in Scripture as to refer to all three persons at the same time, and never for a divine substance. In addition, the word God is used almost exclusively as a title for the Father. Some might misunderstand that you identify the person of the Father with the person of the Son. I understand what you mean, but it is not a very elegant way to express what you really believe.

So the short answer is yes, Jesus is God when qualified the same way bible writers qualify it. However he is never called the one God or only God of Jewish Christian monotheism. Only the Father is identified as that God.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are MonoPersonalTheists, Catholics and other Trinitarians are PolyPersonalTheists.

So you deny the deity of Jesus; putting Him on a larger scale to that of a mere man of Moses.

This makes the word of God inaccurate for Jesus was going to be stoned twice for making the claim to be God.

John 10:22-38 -
30 “I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out {to be} God. (Theos)" 34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS (Theos)’? 35 "If he called them gods (Theos), to whom the word of God (Theos) came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”

John 14:4-11
4 “And you know the way where I am going.” 5 Thomas *said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” 6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. 7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” 8 Philip *said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus *said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and {yet} you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how {can} you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?

What you have not seen is the God-man character of Jesus as both human and God. The Father is spirit and Jesus is that very spirit revealed in the flesh; this is what is meant by Jesus statement repeated several times “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me”.
You will never see the Christ until you see the God-man.

Amazing that you can overlook these explicit reference and even more hard to believe if Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Him and they are ONE with each other, then by logic they must be one in the same.
There can only be one God that is infinite in knowledge and understanding because if you had two such entities, by nature they would be the same because infinite is infinite and they would have the same knowledge, understanding and existence…

 

[Dan_Parker]

GottaGo12345678:
So you deny the deity of Jesus; putting Him on a larger scale to that of a mere man of Moses.

Dan:
That is how I interpret John 1:1 which is the closest passage I could find to your statement, Jesus is God.

However I interpret John 1:18 where the Son is MONOGENHS QEOS as definitely signifying a divine origin as the only begotten God:
NAS John 1:18 )No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Therefore while I view QEOS in John 1:1 as depicting the role of the Son as spokesman or the Word of God like Moses, I would not say that Moses was QEOS in the sense that the Son is said to be QEOS in 1:18.

GottaGo12345678
This makes the word of God inaccurate for Jesus was going to be stoned twice for making the claim to be God.

John 10:22-38 -
30 “I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out {to be} God. (Theos)" 34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS (Theos)’? 35 "If he called them gods (Theos), to whom the word of God (Theos) came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,’ because** I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?** 37 “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”

Dan:
I focus in on what Jesus said, not on his detractors. If you read John 19:7 you can see that saying he was the Son of God when they did not believe him to be such was sufficient cause for their reaction: DRA John 19:7 The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

John 14:4-11
4 “And you know the way where I am going.” 5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. 7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him**." 8 Philip *said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus *said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and {yet} you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how {can} you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?

What you have not seen is the God-man character of Jesus as both human and God. The Father is spirit and Jesus is that very spirit revealed in the flesh; this is what is meant by Jesus statement repeated several times “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me”.
You will never see the Christ until you see the God-man.

Dan:
I am not sure how you apply John 14, but if you are Catholic I know you do not identify the person of the Son with the person of the Father.

GottaGo12345678
Amazing that you can overlook these explicit reference and even more hard to believe if Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Him and they are ONE with each other, then by logic they must be one in the same.

Dan:
If your criteria is that Jesus is God because the Father is in him and he is in the Father, then you must also believe that Christians are God as well, for the same thing can be said of them:
NJB 1 John 3:24 Whoever keeps his commandments remains in God, and God in him. And this is the proof that he remains in us: the Spirit that he has given us.

As for what it means for Jesus and his Father to be one, he explains that this is the same kind of oneness that his disciples have with each other:
DRA John 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one. 23 I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. 24 Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me: that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world.

We know the disciples are neither one person or one being. They are one in purpose. And Jesus said the disciples are one “as we also are one.”

GottaGo12345678
There can only be one God that is infinite in knowledge and understanding because if you had two such entities, by nature they would be the same because infinite is infinite and they would have the same knowledge, understanding and existence…

Dan:
I would say that there can only be one person who is infinite in knowledge. Bible writers from the OT to the NT articulate their monotheism with the words “one-God” (Ma 2:10; 1Co 8:6) and only-God (Jn 17:3) while identifying that one God as the Father.

Jesus said that his Father had showed him things and that he would show him more. That is not a claim to omniscience, it is a claim that his Father knows more than he does.

DRA John 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things which himself doth: and greater works than these will he shew him, that you may wonder.

 

[Danno2281]

**
Dan:**
Thanks for joining me here where discussion of Scripture should be given priority over other forms of debate.

Dan:
I can’t represent the entire corpus of NT Greek, but I did take the liberty of doing some searches this morning:

Here is the New Jerusalem bible which used hO ESTIN followed by the participle which means “translated.”
NJB Matthew 1:23 Look! the virgin is with child and will give birth to a son whom they will call Immanuel, a name **which means hO ESTIN **‘God-is-with-us’.

The word ESTIN is the third person form of EINAI (to be) and the same word as in our target verse. Note that BDAG says this would literally be "which means (hO ESTIN) when translated (MEQERMHNEUO)

BDAG MEQERMNEUW - Mostly in the formula** hO ESTIN MEQERMHNEUO which means (when translated)** (Theophilus: 296 fgm. 3 Jac.)Mt 1:23; Mk 5:41; 15:22, 34; J 1:41; Ac 4:36.

Let’s look at another where there is no participle to cloud the interpretation. :
NJB Matthew 9:13 Go and learn the meaning = TI ESTIN of the words: Mercy is what pleases me, not sacrifice. And indeed I came to call not the upright, but sinners.’

Note what BDAG says on this form:** BDAG ESTIN **- a. to show how someth. is to be understood is a representation of, is the equivalent of; eivmi, here, too, serves as copula; we usually translate mean, so in the formula TOUT ESTIN this or that means, that is to say

This is very similar:
NAB Matthew 127: with the particile TI = 7 If you knew what this meant TI ESTIN, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned these innocent men.

Here is one with no particle:
NJB Luke 20:17 But he looked hard at them and said, 'Then what does this text in the scriptures mean = ESTIN: The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone?

This one uses the infinitive form:
NAB Acts 17:20 For you bring some strange notions to our ears; we should like to know what these things mean. = EINAI"

Another with just ESTIN:
NJB Luke 8:11 'This, then, is what the parable** means = ESTIN**: the seed is the word of God.

Dan:
I would suspect that Greek being a very advanced and flexible language would have multiple ways to represent that something “means” something else, including the simple EINAI in the examples we have seen.

Dan:
Glad to do it. No, I don’t have a website.

Sadly, you are simply playing word games. S-c-r-e-e-n means a screen. What you are looking at IS a screen. Each of those translations can be validly made without using the word “to mean”, because the idiom “mean” in each of these cases above denotes the underlying reality of that which is meant, or indicated. In the case of the Eucharist, you deny the underlying reality, and so your usage of the word “to mean” is not at all the same as in the proferred examples.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Sadly, you are simply playing word games. S-c-r-e-e-n means a screen. What you are looking at IS a screen. Each of those translations can be validly made without using the word “to mean”, because the idiom “mean” in each of these cases above denotes the underlying reality of that which is meant, or indicated. In the case of the Eucharist, you deny the underlying reality, and so your usage of the word “to mean” is not at all the same as in the proferred examples.

Dan:
I am replying to a very polite Catholic in this post who asked me a question. I suggest you go back and read this from the beginning and read my reply in context.

 

[teachccd]

You did not ask me why I believe the bible is inspired. That might be a good topic for Sacred Scripture as long as the rhetoric and name-calling can eliminated. The fact that we do not agree about the canon should not surprise you, and when you start name-calling about “force fed” theology, etc, it makes we wonder if you it is a wise choice to continue discussion with you.

That was in poor taste and for that I apologize. I hope that you accept my apology.If you still wish to discuss can I ask you why you think that the bible is inspired?

 

[teachccd]

You put the Catholic Church above God with your claim. There is a rhyme and reasoning associated with the canonization process, which is why the 2nd canon is not of inspiration because all the rules used to settle the first canon were tossed out the door when the reformers came a knockin’ .

Of course to get a little more off topic for just a post; you neglect to look at history, which shows the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in form or substance as it does today; it was the Catholic or universal church at Rome that existed. Not until we get to Emperor Constantine do we see the emergence of what we call the Roman Catholic Church.

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.

I never put the Catholic Church above God. How did I do that? It is His Church and is guided by the Holy Spirit. Yes the Catholic Church is both human and divine as when she speaks it is God who speaks on those dogmatic issues of divine revelation.

I have Early Church Fathers who totally disagree with your history opinions. The Catholic Church did evolve over the centuries but the essentials, the liturgical worship and the sacraments were in place long before Constantine.

Please do some research before posting ficticious stories.Also, check out the Council of Trent. This was the counter reformation council whereby the Church upheld the canon that was used since her inception.And it was at this council that the canon of Scripture was closed. You got that right!

 

[Dan_Parker]

That was in poor taste and for that I apologize. I hope that you accept my apology.If you still wish to discuss can I ask you why you think that the bible is inspired?

Dan:
I will accept your apology and only mildly penalize you by asking you to answer the question first yourself

 

[Danno2281]

Dan:
I am replying to a very polite Catholic in this post who asked me a question. I suggest you go back and read this from the beginning and read my reply in context.

I was and am quite familiar with Mr. Schneider’s post, and, as usual, you nicely evade my point.

to designate

 

[Danno2281]

Dan:
I will accept your apology and only mildly penalize you by asking you to answer the question first yourself

Augustine’s reason is mine as well: Because the Church, the pillar of Truth, says so. If I did not believe in the Church, I should not believe in the scriptures.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

**GottaGo12345678:**Therefore while I view QEOS in John 1:1 as depicting the role of the Son as spokesman or the Word of God like Moses, I would not say that Moses was QEOS in the sense that the Son is said to be QEOS in 1:18.

GottaGo12345678
This makes the word of God inaccurate for Jesus was going to be stoned twice for making the claim to be God.

John 10:22-38 -
30 “I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out {to be} God. (Theos)" 34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS (Theos)’? 35 "If he called them gods (Theos), to whom the word of God (Theos) came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

B]John 14:4-11
4 “And you know the way where I am going.” 5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. 7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him**." 8 Philip *said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus *said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and {yet} you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how {can} you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?

What you have not seen is the God-man character of Jesus as both human and God. The Father is spirit and Jesus is that very spirit revealed in the flesh; this is what is meant by Jesus statement repeated several times “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me”.
You will never see the Christ until you see the God-man.

Dan:
I am not sure how you apply John 14, but if you are Catholic I know you do not identify the person of the Son with the person of the Father.

GottaGo12345678
Amazing that you can overlook these explicit reference and even more hard to believe if Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Him and they are ONE with each other, then by logic they must be one in the same.

Dan:
If your criteria is that Jesus is God because the Father is in him and he is in the Father, then you must also believe that Christians are God as well, for the same thing can be said of them:

NJB 1 John 3:24 Whoever keeps his commandments remains in God, and God in him. And this is the proof that he remains in us: the Spirit that he has given us.

As for what it means for Jesus and his Father to be one, he explains that this is the same kind of oneness that his disciples have with each other:
DRA John 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one. 23 I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. 24 Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me: that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world.

We know the disciples are neither one person or one being. They are one in purpose. And Jesus said the disciples are one “as we also are one.”

GottaGo12345678
There can only be one God that is infinite in knowledge and understanding because if you had two such entities, by nature they would be the same because infinite is infinite and they would have the same knowledge, understanding and existence…

Dan:
I would say that there can only be one person who is infinite in knowledge. Bible writers from the OT to the NT articulate their monotheism with the words “one-God” (Ma 2:10; 1Co 8:6) and only-God (Jn 17:3) while identifying that one God as the Father.

Jesus said that his Father had showed him things and that he would show him more. That is not a claim to omniscience, it is a claim that his Father knows more than he does.

DRA John 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things which himself doth: and greater works than these will he shew him, that you may wonder.

Dan you said and I agree “If your criteria is that Jesus is God because the Father is in him and he is in the Father, then you must also believe that Christians are God as well, for the same thing can be said of them:” It is not in the here while we are in the flesh nature; but the Bible says the following:

1 John 3:1-3
1 See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and {such} we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. 2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope {fixed} on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

Psalm 82:5-8
5 They do not know nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6** I said, "You are gods,
And all of you are sons of the Most High.**
7 “Nevertheless you will die like men
And fall like any one of the princes.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth!
For it is You who possesses all the nations.

The psalmist says the son of God are “Gods”; how much more is the Son of God, God?
It is in the judicial sense, the lower form, but nonetheless Gods.

Isaiah 41:23 Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together.

John 10 “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out {to be} God.” 34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? 35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

See Psalm 82 above.

Dan; if you do not see the deity of Jesus and come before Him as He is; you will not see His Kingdom and i nor anyone else want this for you.

God bless you.​

 

[teachccd]

Dan:
I will accept your apology and only mildly penalize you by asking you to answer the question first yourself

Thank you for going easy on me. I know that scripture is inspired because when Jesus ascended to the Father He left behind a Church. It was a Church granted authority by Jesus (cf. Matt18:18, John 20:19-23 and others). The apostles preached the good news (gospel) of Jesus Christ and then a bit later Paul joined them as the apostle to the Gentiles. As these men continued to preach they began to write things down. Many did and many claimed their writings as apostolic and inspired.

These writings were read in the many liturgies of the early Church. Some were gnostic in nature and many did not coincide with the early Christian community and so they were not considered as inspired. Since Christ founded a Church and the Church is inspired by the same Holy Spirit that inspired the authors of Scripture, we know that the Church established the books of the New Testament. The books are divine rather than human in origin all while being written in the author’s character and personality. What is inspired is the truth in the messages of these writings.

So, I know these books are inspired because they were written by the Church, acknowledged by the Church and maintained throughout the centuries by the Church. This Church is the Church founded by Christ and she is the Church that represents Christ today. We encounter Christ in this Church through the sacraments and so I know that scripture is inspired because it comes directly from Jesus through the authoritative Church that He founded on Peter. The councils established which books were to be the complete canon by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and then the canon was closed in the 16th century at the Council of Trent.

That is how I know that my Bible is indeed the word of God. I do not believe that it fell from the sky. Jesus took on flesh (became human) as the Word of God and He left a Church of flesh (humans) to carry on His mission until He comes again. All this is from God who is all in all.

Now, why do you consider the bible to be the inspired word of God?

 

[Dan_Parker]

Thank you for going easy on me. I know that scripture is inspired because when Jesus ascended to the Father He left behind a Church. It was a Church granted authority by Jesus (cf. Matt18:18, John 20:19-23 and others). The apostles preached the good news (gospel) of Jesus Christ and then a bit later Paul joined them as the apostle to the Gentiles. As these men continued to preach they began to write things down. Many did and many claimed their writings as apostolic and inspired.

These writings were read in the many liturgies of the early Church. Some were gnostic in nature and many did not coincide with the early Christian community and so they were not considered as inspired. Since Christ founded a Church and the Church is inspired by the same Holy Spirit that inspired the authors of Scripture, we know that the Church established the books of the New Testament. The books are divine rather than human in origin all while being written in the author’s character and personality. What is inspired is the truth in the messages of these writings.

So, I know these books are inspired because they were written by the Church, acknowledged by the Church and maintained throughout the centuries by the Church. This Church is the Church founded by Christ and she is the Church that represents Christ today. We encounter Christ in this Church through the sacraments and so I know that scripture is inspired because it comes directly from Jesus through the authoritative Church that He founded on Peter. The councils established which books were to be the complete canon by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and then the canon was closed in the 16th century at the Council of Trent.

That is how I know that my Bible is indeed the word of God. I do not believe that it fell from the sky. Jesus took on flesh (became human) as the Word of God and He left a Church of flesh (humans) to carry on His mission until He comes again. All this is from God who is all in all.

Now, why do you consider the bible to be the inspired word of God?

Not so fast I get to cross-examine you first! This all started because someone asked me about Revelation. We both accept Revelation now. John wrote it. According to your tradition the apostles taught people who you consider Orthodox and communicated which books were inspired. But Revelation was questioned later on by some who you consider Orthodox. Why is that?

I have not checked this for authenticity but maybe you know the answer:
“To this day, Orthodox churches do not use Revelation for scripture readings during worship.”

Here is another from wikipedia:
In the fourth century, Gregory of Nazianzus and other bishops argued against including this book in the New Testament canon, chiefly because of the difficulties of interpreting it and the danger for abuse. Christians in Syria also reject it because of the Montanism’s heavy reliance on it. Ultimately it was included in the canon. It remains the only book of the New Testament that is not read within the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The rosy picture you paint is not so clear after all. Why do you believe the book of Revelation is inspired?

 

[teachccd]

Not so fast I get to cross-examine you first! This all started because someone asked me about Revelation. We both accept Revelation now. John wrote it. According to your tradition the apostles taught people who you consider Orthodox and communicated which books were inspired. But Revelation was questioned later on by some who you consider Orthodox. Why is that?

I have not checked this for authenticity but maybe you know the answer:
“To this day, Orthodox churches do not use Revelation for scripture readings during worship.”

Here is another from wikipedia:
In the fourth century, Gregory of Nazianzus and other bishops argued against including this book in the New Testament canon, chiefly because of the difficulties of interpreting it and the danger for abuse. Christians in Syria also reject it because of the Montanism’s heavy reliance on it. Ultimately it was included in the canon. It remains the only book of the New Testament that is not read within the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The rosy picture you paint is not so clear after all. Why do you believe the book of Revelation is inspired?

First of all. I hardly consider being "cross examined" when you have yet to give me your view after my last post.

But anyway, I belong to the Catholic Church and the Book of Revelation is read at our liturgies and the Divine Office (which is the public prayer of the Church). Let me share what I found in the Orthodox Study Bible:
:
{The liturgical use of Revelation in the Church: While seen as canonical and inspired by God, Revelation is the only New Testament book not publicly read in the services of the Orthodox Church. This is partly because the book was only gradually accepted as canonical in many parts of Christendom. In addition, in the second and third centuries Revelation was widely twisted and sensationally misinterpreted, and the resulting teachings brought troublesome confusion to Christians. These issues, coupled with the presence of admittedly obscure and difficult passages, caused the Church to adopt a cautious approach to the interpretation of Revelation.}

I would add that the book continues to be misinterpreted by many to this day! I’m no expert on Orthodoxy, but despite the fact that it is not used in the readings it still features prominently in the Divine Liturgy as it does at Holy Mass. For example, the Holy, Holy, Holy hymn is common to both liturgies (it also occurs Isaiah), but this might not mean much to a JW. Nevertheless, whatever debate might have occurred has long been settled. Here is a random note from the same Orthodox Study Bible:
{Rev. 1:10 “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day”: Many scholars believe John saw his vision of Christ during the Sunday liturgy, as the Lord appeared to him “in the midst of the seven lampstands” (Rev.1:13). Lampstands would be found in the Christian sanctuary just as they were in the Hebrew temple.}

This is hardly a statement expressing doubt or uncertainty about the book of Revelation, but rather it places the book squarely in the midst of the Christian tradition. Hope this helps.

Now, can you answer my question? Why do you consider the Bible inspired?

 

[Dan_Parker]

First of all. I hardly consider being "cross examined" when you have yet to give me your view after my last post.

But anyway, I belong to the Catholic Church and the Book of Revelation is read at our liturgies and the Divine Office (which is the public prayer of the Church). Let me share what I found in the Orthodox Study Bible:
:
{The liturgical use of Revelation in the Church: While seen as canonical and inspired by God, Revelation is the only New Testament book not publicly read in the services of the Orthodox Church. This is partly because the book was only gradually accepted as canonical in many parts of Christendom. In addition, in the second and third centuries Revelation was widely twisted and sensationally misinterpreted, and the resulting teachings brought troublesome confusion to Christians. These issues, coupled with the presence of admittedly obscure and difficult passages, caused the Church to adopt a cautious approach to the interpretation of Revelation.}

I would add that the book continues to be misinterpreted by many to this day! I’m no expert on Orthodoxy, but despite the fact that it is not used in the readings it still features prominently in the Divine Liturgy as it does at Holy Mass. For example, the Holy, Holy, Holy hymn is common to both liturgies (it also occurs Isaiah), but this might not mean much to a JW. Nevertheless, whatever debate might have occurred has long been settled. Here is a random note from the same Orthodox Study Bible:
{Rev. 1:10 “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day”: Many scholars believe John saw his vision of Christ during the Sunday liturgy, as the Lord appeared to him “in the midst of the seven lampstands” (Rev.1:13). Lampstands would be found in the Christian sanctuary just as they were in the Hebrew temple.}

This is hardly a statement expressing doubt or uncertainty about the book of Revelation, but rather it places the book squarely in the midst of the Christian tradition. Hope this helps.

Now, can you answer my question? Why do you consider the Bible inspired?

That answers part of it but not all. The book of Revelation was not considered by all ECF. I think I was originally responding to someone else on this (or maybe it was you) who appealed to a consistent knowledge and representation of books handed down from the apostles until the councils. That does not explain why Revelation was not included in all the lists.

As for the bible being inspired, I believe you still owe me that explanation. You have only clarified the acceptance of Revelation in some quarters. Certainly you don’t consider it inspired just because the Fathers said it was, do you?

I will start on my answer, the short version: I believe it is inspired for a variety of reasons which include both internal and external evidence. The bible does not contradict itself and is accurate when it does describe history and science, even though it is not a scientific book. There are things in the bible that bible writers would have had no way of knowing, which were not discovered for centuries. How would Moses know to record the order of things created which would not be known by science for thousands of years?

The bible is also a book of prophecy unlike any other. The prophecy of Babylon’s destruction was given centuries in advance and with details that are astounding. The fact that the book of Isaiah was found in the dead sea scrolls proves these prophecies were not written down after the fact, because Babylon was not completely destroyed until after the dating of the scrolls. There are many, many more manuscripts of the bible than any other ancient document, and because of this the science of textual criticism is able to re-created very, very close to the original text. That is consistent with a God who protects what he inspires. The internal agreement between the 66 books written over a large span of time and penned by different individuals could not have happened by chance.

I have written this from memory and in a hurried fashion. It may be incomplete and it may have errors… I will Submit Reply anyway.

 

[teachccd]

After replying to your post, I thought about it some more and dug a little deeper. As to why we accept Revelation as inspired, you know, probably better than I, the history of how the different books were determined to be canonical in the Catholic (Western) Church. I’m not sure that the papal decrees, synods, and councils of the 4th century will mean anything to a Jehovah’s Witness but I would have to mention it. Regarding Revelation itself, I found this quote in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, compiled by David Bercot, an Anglican priest and scholar:

{With regard to the inspiration of the book (Revelation), we deem it unnecessary to add another word. For blessed Gregory Theologus and Cyril, and even men of still older date- Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus- bore entirely satisfactory testimony to it.}

This is attributed to the bishop and historian Eusebius, circa 324.

This same quote was used by Andrew of Caesarea, a bishop from the 6th century (approx.) in his commentary on the Apocalypse. I found this version in the Ancient Christian Writers #6:

{Regarding, however, the divine inspiration of the book (the Apocalypse of John), we think it a waste of time to spin out the discussion any further, since those blessed men, Gregory the Theologian, I mean, and Cyril, and in addition Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus- all of them men of the older generation- bear additional testimony to its trustworthiness.}

I’m sure that you would like to know about Papias. The same Ancient Christian Writers volume says he was the bishop of Hierapolis in Phygia, Asia Minor, and was most likely born before the year 80. Eusebius says that Papias was, “a hearer of John, a friend of Polycarp, a man of the primitive age.”
I’ll take the word of 1st century Papias over anyone starting an organization in the 19th century.

O.K. I’ve been truly crossed examined. Your turn…teachccd