• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is all scripture (Presumably of the Bible) the word of God or Jesus?

firedragon

Veteran Member
I think you are now trolling but hey ho, Maybe he lived in the Mojave Dessert with Zappa and Beefheart

So you make a comment, with no knowledge or any research on the subject, or the topic at hand, making just a general statement typical of an arrogant denier of everything "by hook or crook", without research, without knowledge, without even reading, and when questioned about your statement you call the other "a troll"!

Cheap.

Bye bye.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
A recent statement triggered a new topic. One gentleman said that "all scripture is his word" referring to Jesus, obviously meaning the whole Bible is the words of Jesus...

I think it would be more correct to say, it is written in guidance of God and Jesus. But, Bible itself says for example:

Since many have undertaken to set in order a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus; that you might know the certainty concerning the things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:1-4

So, clearly that was written by a man. And because it tells “many have undertaken”, there has been many people who have wrote down things the heard or witnessed.
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
These "dessert" dwellers.... were they living in pies, cupcakes, cookies, ice cream sundaes or what?

Sounds like whichever it was, it was probably better than living in a desert, although a lot more fattening.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
A recent statement triggered a new topic. One gentleman said that "all scripture is his word" referring to Jesus, obviously meaning the whole Bible is the words of Jesus.

Now lets say a book like the first epistle of Timothy. It was written by an author who called himself Paul but he actually was not. Was this also the word of Jesus?
Great question. More than a few people have wondered about that particular epistle. As I consider it, it's not much to worry about -- God doesn't try to prevent all humans from making mistakes, but instead made sure the crucial things we would need to know were communicated. If a person won't believe what is in the Gospel accounts, the 4 gospels, then it won't matter at all what is in any epistle then.... (And, if a person will believe in Jesus's words in the 4 gospels, then the epistles will be correctly gauged in so many ways.)

The goal God has set for us is to have faith. Faith won't require we interpret something in an epistle correctly even.... Faith would lead us to listen to the repeated, clear messages that Christ says in many ways. And with that, then details in epistles won't be life or death for us at all. We could have whatever wrong doctrines, bad preaching, mistaken churches, and all of that won't matter for the individual that believes in Christ enough to listen to His words in the gospels, in which the same messages are repeated in so many ways they become unmistakeable in the end, once you read fully through a couple of gospels accounts.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Now lets say a book like the first epistle of Timothy. It was written by an author who called himself Paul but he actually was not. Was this also the word of Jesus?

You asked if the bible was written by Jesus or God.

Jesus was the human vessel (a type of monkey, like us) for the Christ spirit. Jesus (the vessel) was dead and buried (as were all of his apostles) by the time the bible was written (100 years later). Jesus (the dead monkey) had nothing to do with the bible.

The Christ spirit that dwelt within Jesus is what people should pray to (not the dead body of Jesus). We should not say "praise Jesus" we should say "praise Christ."

The bible was written by a human. That human had no input from any live apostles (because they were all dead).

It is presumed, by theists, that the bible was written by divine prophecy (psychic communication from God to the author of the bible).

The bible also supports the notion of psychic knowledge of the future in Revelation, which is a chapter of the bible that deals with God's punishment of the whole world if two demons who occupy leaders of the most powerful country in the world (according to Revelation 17:18) attack Iraq (which they already did). According to the bible, the United States (called the Whore of Babylon for occupying and corrupting it) will suffer from diseases (Revelation 15 (7 plagues, such as COVID)), economic downfall (debt, lack of trade, unemployment), etc.

So, we can see that the COVID plague came true, and so did the two wars with Iraq. Therefore, we could conclude that psychic prophecy could (and did) happen.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that the bible was written by psychic insight.

This, of course, begs the question that you asked "how can the bible be of divine prophecy (perfect) and yet have flaws (such as Tim being called Paul)?"

Once the bible was written, it was subject to a series of revisions by kings and popes who didn't like certain passages. King Henry VIII didn't like the church to wield more power than he did, and it really annoyed him that the Church blocked his divorce to Catherine of Aragon. Henry VIII argued that the bible forbade his marriage because Catherine had previously been married to his brother (but they never had kids, because his brother was only 16 years old at the time). So, Henry VIII started his own religion (Anglican....church of England). Such royal acts of power tend to alter the meaning or power of the bible and its protectors (popes).

As a result, many passages of the bible contain errors today.

Furthermore, the fact that there are so many versions of the same bible, and all of the versions are slightly different, shows that the translations were not exact (despite the orders from the church to believe that everything had been translated perfectly by God).

One could try to fool the public by saying that Paul may have been Tim's name.....or vice versa (like TimPaul)....as in the Tempaul of Solomon. But such flimsy attempts to gloss over the errors would be easily detected.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
These "dessert" dwellers.... were they living in pies, cupcakes, cookies, ice cream sundaes or what?

Sounds like whichever it was, it was probably better than living in a desert, although a lot more fattening.
I don't know about you, but if I could find a giant marshmallow covered chocolate cream snowball, I'd make a snowball mine and live off of it. Vitamin M (marshmallow).
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I think it would be more correct to say, it is written in guidance of God and Jesus. But, Bible itself says for example:

Since many have undertaken to set in order a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus; that you might know the certainty concerning the things in which you were instructed.
Luke 1:1-4

So, clearly that was written by a man. And because it tells “many have undertaken”, there has been many people who have wrote down things the heard or witnessed.

You should read the whole post, and respond in context of it.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science is first origin a human who speaks a human language

Humans agreed on a science language as origin science dialect. Word use. No matter what human dialect was spoken.

Science is for science as words.

Words about God chosen by science humans.

So when assessed mutation into genetic human as genesis to exodus that left by desert once a garden body that became a wilderness.

By numbered factoring reactions caused it.

God body earth not a number.
God also not words.

God O presence was God owning no argument. God body owned by mother God space womb.

Mass removed is body gone sacrificed. What science causes.

First assesment said it was Moses why God changed body God removed sacrificed life..... several times law God stone broken.

Jesus occurred twice also one thousand years after first event 33AD.

Assessment.

Done on body mass gone.

Bahai informed was in a no science occult mass converting practice only as gases spirit by asteroid star returned. Heavens increased. Human consciousness evolved. Lesson.

Said to Muslims reminder sons and daughters equal. Their updated advice.

Then science took body mass away again. As new nuclear occult causes.

Might as well claim all previous events anulled by mass removal itself. I am inventing a new world order to name an upcoming event. Nuclear and occult says everyone aware.

Mother space womb.
UFO mass burning.
Spatial return of science causes. UFO itself.

UFO earth heart core changed its UFO radiation mass release. In power plant body of God removal. Not previously factored as removed.

What is ignored...the holy God body owned more mass.

Gases accrued gone. Reason life is living sacrificed badly mutated vacuum effect. Notification life being lost. Gas support gone as is conscious healing.

UFO in space used up star asteroid released gas spirits. As other removal system.

Science already gave our saviour stars to machine UFO.

Why the sciences discuss it as relative communicated back the advice. About taking the saviour for science machine conditions. UFO effect.

God heart core constant keeps removing cold gas. Proof ice melted to contradict gas heating.

Yet the reaction is inside a machine when all thesis today is about heavenly body plus unnatural experimenter. As the thesis answer to a hole theory.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Now lets say a book like the first epistle of Timothy. It was written by an author who called himself Paul but he actually was not. Was this also the word of Jesus?

At the time the epistle was included in the canon it was considered inspired. Because later biblical historians have questioned the authorship, whether Paul or another community leader following Paul, actually wrote, what was written was the belief and practice of the church which preceded it.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
At the time the epistle was included in the canon it was considered inspired. Because later biblical historians have questioned the authorship, whether Paul or another community leader following Paul, actually wrote, what was written was the belief and practice of the church which preceded it.

I am intrigued. Which scholar thought that it was a community leader following Paul?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I am intrigued. Which scholar thought that it was a community leader following Paul?

Many, here is but a few;

  1. Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press. 2003. p. 393 ISBN 0-19-515462-2
    "when we come to the Pastoral epistles, there is greater scholarly unanimity. These three letters are widely regarded by scholars as non-Pauline."
  2. ^ Collins, Raymond F. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. 2004. p. 4 ISBN 0-664-22247-1
    "By the end of the twentieth century New Testament scholarship was virtually unanimous in affirming that the Pastoral Epistles were written some time after Paul's death. ... As always some scholars dissent from the consensus view."
  3. ^ David E. Aune, ed., The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 9: "While seven of the letters attributed to Paul are almost universally accepted as authentic (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon), four are just as widely judged to be pseudepigraphal, i.e., written by unknown authors under Paul's name: Ephesians and the Pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus)."
  4. ^ Stephen L. Harris, The New Testament: A Student's Introduction, 4th ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2002), 366: "In the opinion of most scholars, the case against Paul's connection with the pastorals is overwhelming. Besides the fact that they do not appear in early lists of Paul's canonical works, the pastorals seem to reflect conditions that prevailed long after Paul's day, perhaps as late as the first half of the second century C.E. Lacking Paul's characteristic ideas about faith and the Spirit, they are also un-Pauline in their flat style and different vocabulary (containing 306 words not found in Paul's unquestioned letters). Furthermore, the pastorals assume a church organization far more developed than that current in the apostle's time."
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Many, here is but a few;

  1. Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press. 2003. p. 393 ISBN 0-19-515462-2
    "when we come to the Pastoral epistles, there is greater scholarly unanimity. These three letters are widely regarded by scholars as non-Pauline."
  2. ^ Collins, Raymond F. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. 2004. p. 4 ISBN 0-664-22247-1
    "By the end of the twentieth century New Testament scholarship was virtually unanimous in affirming that the Pastoral Epistles were written some time after Paul's death. ... As always some scholars dissent from the consensus view."
  3. ^ David E. Aune, ed., The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 9: "While seven of the letters attributed to Paul are almost universally accepted as authentic (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon), four are just as widely judged to be pseudepigraphal, i.e., written by unknown authors under Paul's name: Ephesians and the Pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus)."
  4. ^ Stephen L. Harris, The New Testament: A Student's Introduction, 4th ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2002), 366: "In the opinion of most scholars, the case against Paul's connection with the pastorals is overwhelming. Besides the fact that they do not appear in early lists of Paul's canonical works, the pastorals seem to reflect conditions that prevailed long after Paul's day, perhaps as late as the first half of the second century C.E. Lacking Paul's characteristic ideas about faith and the Spirit, they are also un-Pauline in their flat style and different vocabulary (containing 306 words not found in Paul's unquestioned letters). Furthermore, the pastorals assume a church organization far more developed than that current in the apostle's time."

You seem to have not understood the question. You missed the last part of it.

I am intrigued. Which scholar thought that it was a community leader following Paul?
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
firedragon said in the O.P. One gentleman said that "all scripture is his word" referring to Jesus, obviously meaning the whole Bible is the words of Jesus.

Now lets say a book like the first epistle of Timothy. It was written by an author who called himself Paul but he actually was not. Was this also the word of Jesus?



Hi @firedragon

I don’t know what the gentleman meant when he claimed “the whole bible is the words of Jesus”. This claim makes no sense to me.



INSPIRATION IS NOT THE SAME AS DICTATION
If Tertius wrote the letter to the romans, then Romans represents are the words of Tertius. Tertius may have written them under the influence of inspiration, but still, they are Tertius' words.
Similarly, If Matthew wrote Matthew, then the book of Matthew represents the words of Matthew. Matthew may have been inspired, but still, they are, in a literal sense, Matthews words rather than Jesus’ words.

I can understand if the gentleman was trying to make the point that Tertius and Matthew and the others were teaching what they knew about history and what they saw and their understanding of the gospel. I don't understand the statement that the statements or writings of others are "the words of Jesus".


At any rate firedragon, good luck in coming up with your own models as the what is going on with these writings and I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful.


Clear
δρσενεω
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
firedragon said in the O.P. One gentleman said that "all scripture is his word" referring to Jesus, obviously meaning the whole Bible is the words of Jesus.

Now lets say a book like the first epistle of Timothy. It was written by an author who called himself Paul but he actually was not. Was this also the word of Jesus?



Hi @firedragon

I don’t know what the gentleman meant when he claimed “the whole bible is the words of Jesus”. This claim makes no sense to me.



INSPIRATION IS NOT THE SAME AS DICTATION
If Tertius wrote the letter to the romans, then Romans represents are the words of Tertius. Tertius may have written them under the influence of inspiration, but still, they are Tertius' words.
Similarly, If Matthew wrote Matthew, then the book of Matthew represents the words of Matthew. Matthew may have been inspired, but still, they are, in a literal sense, Matthews words rather than Jesus’ words.

I can understand if the gentleman was trying to make the point that Tertius and Matthew and the others were teaching what they knew about history and what they saw and their understanding of the gospel. I don't understand the statement that the statements or writings of others are "the words of Jesus".


At any rate firedragon, good luck in coming up with your own models as the what is going on with these writings and I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful.


Clear
δρσενεω

I appreciate your response.

But you did not respond to the the OP!

Maybe if you read again carefully you would understand. If not, you could clarify what I am speaking about directly. Alles Gut.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @firedragon

Maybe my response wasn't clear. Unless Jesus himself is speaking, then none of the words spoken by another person are the literal words of Jesus.

Ich hofe das was ich jetze gesagte habe, clar ist. (oder am wenigsten, es clar macht...)


clear
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
A recent statement triggered a new topic. One gentleman said that "all scripture is his word" referring to Jesus, obviously meaning the whole Bible is the words of Jesus.

Now lets say a book like the first epistle of Timothy. It was written by an author who called himself Paul but he actually was not. Was this also the word of Jesus?
As a Jew, the New Testament is no more the Word of God than the Quran or the Vedas. For you Christians, imagine how the Latter Day Saints accept your Bible, but add to it the Book of Mormon, and claim that the sum total is the word of God. That is how Jews feel about the Christian Bible.

In descending order, the Torah is the most authoritative, having come from the figurative lips of God himself to Moses. The prophets come next in authority, who get their revelation in dreams and visions. Then there are the writings, such as teh Psalms, Esther, Proverbs, and the like, who are simply inspired, and are not really used for doctrine. We also have the Oral Torah, the Talmud, which various denominations ascribe differing levels of authority on halakha aka Jewish law.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
A recent statement triggered a new topic. One gentleman said that "all scripture is his word" referring to Jesus, obviously meaning the whole Bible is the words of Jesus.

Now lets say a book like the first epistle of Timothy. It was written by an author who called himself Paul but he actually was not. Was this also the word of Jesus?

All books known to mankind are the words of men and women.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
If you mean is Paul a dessert dweller, yes?
But it is now doubted that Paul wrote the these documents and instead they were written a couple of centuries later.

It speaks in Isaiah, Ezekiel about the return of the Jews to Israel a 'second time'
(first being Babylon) and Jesus hinted at that too. Perhaps these books were
written in the 20th Century?
 
Top