|
|
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
  
| Bigfoot - 2013-12-19 4:31 PM.... While rereading this thread I got excited. Someone used therm "sola scriptura". It got me thinking perhaps someone else had studied the ancient manuscripts. I see a few post later the same person toldme to phuk off. With contradictions like this, I doubt we will see any closure. Everyone's life experiences are not mine, and mine are not theirs. I just wanted to pass along some scriptures to the lost, or unconcerned. Perhaps my seeds will go somewhere else from now on. The message is strong, perhPs someone will listen else where.
You're right. That comment was somewhat out of character for me and for that I apologize. I'd argue it's not a contradiction in that all Christians are both saint and sinner making it more reflective that contradictory.
While I absolutely agree with much you say, I found frustration in your approach in trying to bring in lost sheep. That doesn't excuse my breech of ettiquette... For that humbly apologize.
| |
| | |
 Veteran
Posts: 142
| Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 5:07 PM So we're operating under the theory that the Council of Nicea was God inspired and not working to forward the interests of the organized Church? Because they threw out an awful lot of gospels that were probably a lot closer to the teachings of Jesus than the writings of Paul. Many of them were widely read and important to various church communities. Then the Church proceeded to kill people in the process of wiping out these other gospels, because many groups didn't give up their books willingly. Ok. Gotcha. Which gospels were closer to the teachings of Jesus that were thrown out? From what I understand the cannonized gospels are such because they focus on the incarnation death and resurection of Jesus. These are the most basic and important truths of Christian/apostolic doctine that existed from the day of pentecost and going back in time through the old Testament (which gnostics didnt read either) A lot of the other gnostic "gospels" deny these truths. Even some of the earliest Bishops commented on some of them that were circulating telling people NOT to read them because they were spurious and many did not come from the apostolic tradidion. Paul understood the old Testament in a new way in light of the risen Christ, and therefore said that anyone who said Christ has not come in the flesh (ie gnostics) were not of God.
ETA - the church existed before the gospels were even written and the church had DOCTRINE, the gospels came out of the tradition of the church and lead us back into it. They need to be understood from within that tradition, The Bishops didnt just decide at the coucil of nicea what that doctrine was. Councils were held because the church is a concilliar church, no one person gets to decide what the truth is, if someone came along teaching foreign doctrine (like arius!) and it started to spread, something had to be done about it to keep unity. Those who didnt agree with the whole were put outside the One Church.
Edited by angel123 2013-12-19 7:52 PM
| |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 464
| JRC - 2013-12-19 3:37 PM
Bigfoot - 2013-12-19 2:56 PM For someone like myself, that believes the bible is Infact the inspired word of God, and every verse in it is God's honest truth about everything from the plan of salvation, to how I should live my day to day life. Many things written here strike me as coming from 1. non believers, and 2. People proclaiming a faith, that they do not understand themselves. Yesterday I was asked to point out what I was talking about. In an hour, I only made it through 3 and 1/2 pages. Things that jumped out at me. Comments about: Reincarnation Religion turns people off Bible is proven wrong Mistakes in the bible People supporting atheism Agnostic beliefs People proclaiming a belief, when they admittedly don't read the scriptures, and attend no organized worship service. It is clearly written in the bible: Romans 14:11 says it is written “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God. The day will come, when we all either express a faith in Jesus, or regret that we did not when the chance was there. Many here have said that I am too pointed with my beliefs. That is true, and thank you for the complement. Because there is only "one truth".
I am one that can honestly say that I don't know what to believe. I'm stuck between wanting to and the factual evidence that supports it. How do you reach that type of belief? How do trust what you read in something that has been written so many times? I get frustrated when listening to 101 different ways the bible gets interpreted and just give up on trying to understand. People tell me, "you need to go to church" but why, why can't I have a relationship with God and not go. Why do I need to go somewhere and listen to someone that I may not agree 100% with on their interpretation. Then theirs the forever saying "everything happens for a reason", I can't wrap my head around that one.
I posted this verse for you. In no way am I implying that you are not wise. To seek understanding in the bible without going to church would be like homeschooling a 1st grader, but not assisting them with their lessons. just a suggestion. Assuming you belive in the power of prayer. Read this verse with an open mind. Pray for understanding, and then read Mathew, mark, Luke, and John.
The fact that there is a church on every corner (of a different denomination), and umpteen different translations of the bible is very confusing for some people. If you view it as all Christians work for the same man (God), we just cash our check at a different bank, it makes more sense.
Religion can be, and is confusing. Thankfully God made the plan of salvation easy.
James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.
| |
| | |
 Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | angel123 - 2013-12-19 7:14 PM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 5:07 PM So we're operating under the theory that the Council of Nicea was God inspired and not working to forward the interests of the organized Church? Because they threw out an awful lot of gospels that were probably a lot closer to the teachings of Jesus than the writings of Paul. Many of them were widely read and important to various church communities. Then the Church proceeded to kill people in the process of wiping out these other gospels, because many groups didn't give up their books willingly. Ok. Gotcha. Which gospels were closer to the teachings of Jesus that were thrown out? From what I understand the cannonized gospels are such because they focus on the incarnation death and resurection of Jesus. These are the most basic and important truths of Christian/apostolic doctine that existed from the day of pentecost and going back in time through the old Testament (which gnostics didnt read either) A lot of the other gnostic "gospels" deny these truths. Even some of the earliest Bishops commented on some of them that were circulating telling people NOT to read them because they were spurious and many did not come from the apostolic tradidion. Paul understood the old Testament in a new way in light of the risen Christ, and therefore said that anyone who said Christ has not come in the flesh (ie gnostics) were not of God.
Not going to say ALL the discarded ones were valid, but there were hundreds of them My Faith in God is immeasurable. My faith in Man has its limits. | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 142
| Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 7:48 PM angel123 - 2013-12-19 7:14 PM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 5:07 PM So we're operating under the theory that the Council of Nicea was God inspired and not working to forward the interests of the organized Church? Because they threw out an awful lot of gospels that were probably a lot closer to the teachings of Jesus than the writings of Paul. Many of them were widely read and important to various church communities. Then the Church proceeded to kill people in the process of wiping out these other gospels, because many groups didn't give up their books willingly. Ok. Gotcha. Which gospels were closer to the teachings of Jesus that were thrown out? From what I understand the cannonized gospels are such because they focus on the incarnation death and resurection of Jesus. These are the most basic and important truths of Christian/apostolic doctine that existed from the day of pentecost and going back in time through the old Testament (which gnostics didnt read either) A lot of the other gnostic "gospels" deny these truths. Even some of the earliest Bishops commented on some of them that were circulating telling people NOT to read them because they were spurious and many did not come from the apostolic tradidion. Paul understood the old Testament in a new way in light of the risen Christ, and therefore said that anyone who said Christ has not come in the flesh (ie gnostics) were not of God.
Quotes from Ireneus below: - notice he speaks of the gnostic gospels coming "much later" and emphasises the unity of the Church in both apostolic sucession and doctinal preaching-
"Thus, the tradition of the apostles, manifest in the whole world, is present in every church to be perceived by all who wish to see the truth. We can enumerate those who were appointed by the apostles as bishops in the churches as their successors even to our time…. "
"And there is Polycarp, who not only was taught by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen the Lord, but also was established by apostles in Asia in the church at Smyrna. …. He always taught the doctrine he had learned from the apostles, which he delivered to the church, and it alone is true. (AH 3.4; Grant p. 126; italics added)"
To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (AH 3.3.4; ANF Vol. I p. 416; italics added)
…Clement received the lot of the episcopate; he had seen the apostles and met with them and still had the apostolic preaching in his ears and the tradition before his eyes. He was not alone, for many were then still alive who had been taught by the apostles. (AH 3.3, Grant p. 125)
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith…. (AH 1.10; (ANF) Vol. 1 p. 330; italics added)
Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrine different from these (for no one is greater than the Master…. (AH 1.12; ANF Vol. 1 p. 331; italics added)
Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth. (AH 1.10.2; Richardson 1970:360; cf. ANF Vol. 1 p. 331; italics added)
…if the apostles had not left us the scriptures, would it not be best to follow the sequence of the tradition which they transmitted to those whom they entrusted the churches?
It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their (Gnostics) doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.
All the others who are called Gnostics originated from Menander the disciple of Simon, as we have shown, and each of them appeared as the father and mystagogue of the opinion he adopted. All these arose in their apostasy much later, in the middle of the times of the church. (AH 3.4.3; Grant p. 128; italics added) All these are much later than the bishops to whom the apostles entrusted the churches, and we have set this forth with all due diligence in the third book. All the aforementioned heretics, since they are blind to the truth, have to go to one side or the other off the road and therefore the traces of their doctrine are scattered without agreement or logic
Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrine different from these (for no one is greater than the Master…. (AH 1.12; ANF Vol. 1 p. 331; italics added) This is a complete proof that the life-giving faith is one and the same, preserved and transmitted in truth in the church from the apostles up till now. (AH 3.3.2; Grant p. 125; italics added)
Edited by angel123 2013-12-19 8:27 PM
| |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | Thank you for that. I can understand the teachings being preserved through a careful oral tradition until they were written. And can even make the leap of faith that God was working through them in that way. To me tho, Paul's writings don't jive with the rest of it. And the fact that he didn't know Jesus and yet is given so much credence has always bugged me. I wrote a paper about it in my honors comp class in college for a professor that was catholic. He loved me. Seriously.  | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 142
| Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 9:15 PM Thank you for that. I can understand the teachings being preserved through a careful oral tradition until they were written. And can even make the leap of faith that God was working through them in that way. To me tho, Paul's writings don't jive with the rest of it. And the fact that he didn't know Jesus and yet is given so much credence has always bugged me. I wrote a paper about it in my honors comp class in college for a professor that was catholic. He loved me. Seriously.
Oh ah I see. I guess that is a lot of the reason I like Orthodoxy (I'm not actually Orthodox though btw) is they dont believe in proof texting because scriptures were written TO a specific people for a specific reason and that is the only way they should be read. They shouldnt be taken out of context and used to justify ones own beliefs because even heresies can be "proven" by proof texting. Paul should be read keeping in mind who he was talking to in his letters (aka his emphasis on faith over works speaking to Jews who were probably very carnal minded and having a hard time leaving the Law behind and turning to Christ) Could he write a letter to a church today, he might start speaking about things like charity, love, helping others. Orthodox doctrines about sin and salvation arent based on Pauls teaching as so many Prodestant churches are. They also arent based on any human ideas of Crime and punishment/ or penal substitiution, though legal language about salvation is Biblical and useful, sin and salvation are also spoken of in other ways as sin being a sickness and salvation being a cure. Thats for those of us who are hard headed - Spiritual Milk lol The reality of Salvation I believe in the Orthodox mind is experiential! | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | angel123 - 2013-12-19 10:04 PM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 9:15 PM Thank you for that. I can understand the teachings being preserved through a careful oral tradition until they were written. And can even make the leap of faith that God was working through them in that way. To me tho, Paul's writings don't jive with the rest of it. And the fact that he didn't know Jesus and yet is given so much credence has always bugged me. I wrote a paper about it in my honors comp class in college for a professor that was catholic. He loved me. Seriously.
That makes a lot more sense to me!!!! | |
| | |
 
| Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 11:16 PM angel123 - 2013-12-19 10:04 PM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 9:15 PM Thank you for that. I can understand the teachings being preserved through a careful oral tradition until they were written. And can even make the leap of faith that God was working through them in that way. To me tho, Paul's writings don't jive with the rest of it. And the fact that he didn't know Jesus and yet is given so much credence has always bugged me. I wrote a paper about it in my honors comp class in college for a professor that was catholic. He loved me. Seriously.
Billy Graham didn't know Jesus either but he's given a lot of credence, too. He didn't KNOW Jesus in a physical sense but he certainly KNOWS him in his heart. I digress from the OP's question as to what makes us believe but that thought just came in my mind and I thought I'd throw it out there. | |
| | |
 Don't Need Sugar Coating
Posts: 1183
Location: AR & OK | Della&bubba - 2013-12-17 10:18 AM I just want to preface this with, this is not meant to be antagonistic post but instead an opening for casual debate and trying to understand. What makes you believe in the Bible and everything in it when so much has been found that proves a lot of it to be false? What keeps you believing there is a God? Do you take the Bible literally (like Noah's Flood, Genesis, etc) or a loose interpretation? I just got done taking a class that we discussed the evolution of religion and science and it makes me wonder. I was going to ask some of my religious friends but its finals week, everyone is studying and stressed, so not exactly the best time to have deep in depth conversations about faith and religion haha. Again, not meant to be antagonistic so please no fighting just pleasant conversation/debate.
I believe for several reasons but to answer your question there is no other book (Bible) to have so much evidence to back it up.
Israel has tons of evidence of the validity.
I do not have time at this moment (will have to come back later) to list a whole bunch of evidence.
Here is a small list of things found that confirm the people in the Bible.
finding that proved King David lived and was king.
Walls of Jericho
Tombs that have been proven to be so many people named in the Bible.
Scrolls that have been found.
This historians of that day their writings have been found and back up the Bible.
I have got to get to work so I will have to come back to this thread.
 | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 9:15 PM Thank you for that. I can understand the teachings being preserved through a careful oral tradition until they were written. And can even make the leap of faith that God was working through them in that way. To me tho, Paul's writings don't jive with the rest of it. And the fact that he didn't know Jesus and yet is given so much credence has always bugged me. I wrote a paper about it in my honors comp class in college for a professor that was catholic. He loved me. Seriously.
But Paul did know Jesus. He just met him in a very different way. This is what Jesus said to Ananius (a disciple) about Paul.
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” (Acts 9:15, 16 ESV) | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 7:48 PM angel123 - 2013-12-19 7:14 PM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 5:07 PM So we're operating under the theory that the Council of Nicea was God inspired and not working to forward the interests of the organized Church? Because they threw out an awful lot of gospels that were probably a lot closer to the teachings of Jesus than the writings of Paul. Many of them were widely read and important to various church communities. Then the Church proceeded to kill people in the process of wiping out these other gospels, because many groups didn't give up their books willingly. Ok. Gotcha. Which gospels were closer to the teachings of Jesus that were thrown out? From what I understand the cannonized gospels are such because they focus on the incarnation death and resurection of Jesus. These are the most basic and important truths of Christian/apostolic doctine that existed from the day of pentecost and going back in time through the old Testament (which gnostics didnt read either) A lot of the other gnostic "gospels" deny these truths. Even some of the earliest Bishops commented on some of them that were circulating telling people NOT to read them because they were spurious and many did not come from the apostolic tradidion. Paul understood the old Testament in a new way in light of the risen Christ, and therefore said that anyone who said Christ has not come in the flesh (ie gnostics) were not of God.
They weren't really discarded, they just weren't canonized. To be canonized, they had to be able to authenticate that they came from a direct witness. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | TXBO - 2013-12-20 8:00 AM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 9:15 PM Thank you for that. I can understand the teachings being preserved through a careful oral tradition until they were written. And can even make the leap of faith that God was working through them in that way. To me tho, Paul's writings don't jive with the rest of it. And the fact that he didn't know Jesus and yet is given so much credence has always bugged me. I wrote a paper about it in my honors comp class in college for a professor that was catholic. He loved me. Seriously.
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” (Acts 9:15, 16 ESV )
But Paul's writings were so different from those who witnessed the teachings of Jesus, that was always a sticking point to me. Angel123 addressed it for me much better than anyone has before, saying that you have to take into account *who* he was writing to. But that is not how those things are being taught in most of our churches. And when people quote things from the Bible to justify a viewpoint I don't agree with, they are inevitably quoting Paul. Someone quoted him the other day to justify telling women to stop discussing religion on the internet, to go home and talk to their husbands about it. Screw that. | |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | TXBO - 2013-12-20 8:06 AM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 7:48 PM angel123 - 2013-12-19 7:14 PM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 5:07 PM So we're operating under the theory that the Council of Nicea was God inspired and not working to forward the interests of the organized Church? Because they threw out an awful lot of gospels that were probably a lot closer to the teachings of Jesus than the writings of Paul. Many of them were widely read and important to various church communities. Then the Church proceeded to kill people in the process of wiping out these other gospels, because many groups didn't give up their books willingly. Ok. Gotcha. Which gospels were closer to the teachings of Jesus that were thrown out? From what I understand the cannonized gospels are such because they focus on the incarnation death and resurection of Jesus. These are the most basic and important truths of Christian/apostolic doctine that existed from the day of pentecost and going back in time through the old Testament (which gnostics didnt read either) A lot of the other gnostic "gospels" deny these truths. Even some of the earliest Bishops commented on some of them that were circulating telling people NOT to read them because they were spurious and many did not come from the apostolic tradidion. Paul understood the old Testament in a new way in light of the risen Christ, and therefore said that anyone who said Christ has not come in the flesh (ie gnostics) were not of God.
They were not only discarded, but systematically destroyed. Where are they now, other than the ones that were hidden to escape destruction and then dug up accidentally in modern times? | |
| | |
 Midget Lover
Location: Kentucky | Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-20 9:08 AM TXBO - 2013-12-20 8:00 AM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 9:15 PM Thank you for that. I can understand the teachings being preserved through a careful oral tradition until they were written. And can even make the leap of faith that God was working through them in that way. To me tho, Paul's writings don't jive with the rest of it. And the fact that he didn't know Jesus and yet is given so much credence has always bugged me. I wrote a paper about it in my honors comp class in college for a professor that was catholic. He loved me. Seriously.
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” (Acts 9:15, 16 ESV )
Wasn't Paul a misogynist? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-20 8:08 AM TXBO - 2013-12-20 8:00 AM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 9:15 PM Thank you for that. I can understand the teachings being preserved through a careful oral tradition until they were written. And can even make the leap of faith that God was working through them in that way. To me tho, Paul's writings don't jive with the rest of it. And the fact that he didn't know Jesus and yet is given so much credence has always bugged me. I wrote a paper about it in my honors comp class in college for a professor that was catholic. He loved me. Seriously.
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” (Acts 9:15, 16 ESV )
It's good to realize who Paul was talking to and the traditions of the time he was talking but also realize he was talking to us.
Paul's letter the Romans is considered the constitution of Christianity by many. St Augustine's conversion was a result of opening the Bible to Romans and starting to read.
| |
| | |
Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | IMO, yes he was! | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Murphy - 2013-12-20 8:13 AM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-20 9:08 AM TXBO - 2013-12-20 8:00 AM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 9:15 PM Thank you for that. I can understand the teachings being preserved through a careful oral tradition until they were written. And can even make the leap of faith that God was working through them in that way. To me tho, Paul's writings don't jive with the rest of it. And the fact that he didn't know Jesus and yet is given so much credence has always bugged me. I wrote a paper about it in my honors comp class in college for a professor that was catholic. He loved me. Seriously.
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” (Acts 9:15, 16 ESV )
Lol! No Paul wasn't. Paul's one job was to spread the word of salvation through Jesus. He didn't want to start controversies that would detract from that goal by revolutionizing traditions of the day. | |
| | |
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | This is OT, but I think you all would enjoy the music of Mumford & Sons.
Interesting lyrics and many songs have a God-related theme, Specifically "Sigh No More" which also quotes The Bard in a very cool way...plus the music is awesome (as I like the acoustic/folk type sound).
anyway, carry on. | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 142
| TXBO - 2013-12-20 8:25 AM Murphy - 2013-12-20 8:13 AM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-20 9:08 AM TXBO - 2013-12-20 8:00 AM Three 4 Luck - 2013-12-19 9:15 PM Thank you for that. I can understand the teachings being preserved through a careful oral tradition until they were written. And can even make the leap of faith that God was working through them in that way. To me tho, Paul's writings don't jive with the rest of it. And the fact that he didn't know Jesus and yet is given so much credence has always bugged me. I wrote a paper about it in my honors comp class in college for a professor that was catholic. He loved me. Seriously.
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” (Acts 9:15, 16 ESV )
Good point TXBO. I copied a bit of the interview from the podcast link I posted earlier below explaining how the Church views "inspiration". The Bible shouldnt be read as if it were a Koran fallen from heaven, or somehow dictated word for word.
Mr. Allen: Interesting. We’ll come back to the development of doctrine in a bit. You know, we hear, and most professing Christians believe, that the holy Scriptures are “inspired.” How does the Orthodox Church understand divine inspiration? Was it considered something that came down direct from God without human filters, like the Koran is supposed to have done, or was it received through fallible human beings, etc., etc.?
Dr. Constantinou: inspiration is understood in the Church as a kind of enlightenment of the individual. The Holy Spirit enlightens their mind. So it’s not that it was filtered. It’s that the expression of the truths which are in the Scriptures, the human author was enlightened toward an understanding and toward an expression of those truths. Basically the Holy Spirit enlightens the person. It doesn’t dictate word-for-word if that’s what you’re getting at…
Mr. Allen: That’s what I was getting at.
Dr. Constantinou: ...word-for-word what was to be written. Now, there were some early Christian writers like Origen who really believed it was a very mechanical thing: the Holy Spirit dictated word-for-word. Most of the Fathers didn’t seem to express it that way. Instead, they recognized that there’s a human component in the Scriptures. So the Holy Spirit enlightens the human author, but they never lose consciousness. They’re not possessed by the Spirit. They’re not like a conduit for the Spirit. They retain all of their human concepts. They remain part of their culture. They retain a lot of their ideas, but their thinking is enlightened by the Spirit.
There is a synergy. There is a cooperation between God the Holy Spirit and the human author, who expresses it in their own particular way, and they have to do that, because they’re speaking, first of all, to the people of their times. If they don’t maintain their own identity as a person of their age, then how can they possibly convey that to the audience that they’re trying to reach? | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line