Thread: Thanks be to God for his word? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030709
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I am ahead of myself. Lectionary for this coming Sunday includes Ps 137. I shall preach on it and read vv 1-6 viz:
By the rivers of Babylon—
there we sat down and there we wept
when we remembered Zion.
On the willows there
we hung up our harps.
For there our captors
asked us for songs,
and our tormentors asked for mirth, saying,
‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion!’
How could we sing the Lord’s song
in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand wither!
Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth,
if I do not remember you,
if I do not set Jerusalem
above my highest joy.
But if I read the whole Psalm there is no way in 1000 years that I could end with the traditional thanks be to God for his word.
Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites
the day of Jerusalem’s fall,
how they said, ‘Tear it down! Tear it down!
Down to its foundations!’
O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!
Shipmates agree?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Someone'll doubtless be along with a black=white proof that 1=0 and that therefore this is the Word of God but yes, I agree with you.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I'd say it's not the word of God, but of hurting human beings who believe in God. The psalms are expressions of human feeling--praise of God, appeals for help, desire for vengeance, etc. Many people value the psalms precisely because they are so human.
There is a thread in Limbo about the cursing psalms.
Moo
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
One could preach a whole sermon on how nationalism and revenge is outdated by Christ. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
You would have to take the angle of progressive biblical revelation tho (which is fraught in its own way if you go the chronological route).
As to the response (thanks be to God for his word is a response I'm assuming?) : the word is Jesus, not the bible.
[ 30. September 2013, 13:11: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites
the day of Jerusalem’s fall,
how they said, ‘Tear it down! Tear it down!
Down to its foundations!’
O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!
Perhaps those old words accuse us of our desire for revenge. Perhaps they stick in our throats because we'd rather not admit that desire, and perhaps we should say "thanks be to God" because these words force us to admit it.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I'm a bit puzzled by Shamwari's and Karl's POV's. They only seem to make sense in a rather literalist understanding of "The Word of God", which is only held by relatively few people at the more extreme end of the protestant spectrum.
I suppose on a practical level, if you think your listeners may view things that way, then you could replace "This is the word of the Lord" by the older "Here ends the Xth lesson".
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
It's the greatest flaw of the lectionary IMO that it goes around censoring anything that suggests that being anything more than a little miffed is a normal response to suffering. It reflects poorly upon our ability to minister to people who've known suffering.
Everything in those last three verses has connections to the literary-prophetic books, 2 Kings, and Lamentations. It's most worthwhile chasing cross-references there.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
If I had been taken into captivity, and been forced to watch as our little ones were dashed against the rocks, I would want revenge too. Acceptance of our feelings is important imv, as is what we do with them. Sometimes we can't work out the latter until we're able to grasp the former.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Amen, Raptor Eye.
I would take a look at this Psalm through a grief model. Grief has several stages
1. Shock
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
Obviously, the writer is in the middle of the anger stage, but if you read through Lamentations, you will find Jeremiah eventually telling the people to accept their fate for the time being. If you read through Second Isaiah you will find hope building in a new Messiah (Cyrus the Great) coming to release them from captivity. Third Isaiah ends up with a lot of rejoicing.
Now, applying this to the modern reader will be interesting. I am sure many in your congregation have experienced severe grief. The good news is that there will be a new day coming. Get beyond the anger.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I have no issue with the comments made. Clearly the Psalmist is angry and even traumatised by what has happened and gives vent to his feelings.
As with Job I am sure God honours such honesty. But let us not confuse it with God's word to us.
When the whole Psalm is read in the context of worship and the reader ends with the liturgical response This is the word of the Lord /followed by a congregational response /R Thanks be to God then we are being guilty of unthinking blasphemy.
Congregations everywhere assume and participate in the response as a matter of rote. At one level no problem. Its an unthinking response.
But any thinking 'outsider' hearing the reading and the response would be forgiven for writing off Christians and the Christian God.
And I am concerned for the 'thinking' outsider.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
When the whole Psalm is read in the context of worship and the reader ends with the liturgical response This is the word of the Lord /followed by a congregational response /R Thanks be to God then we are being guilty of unthinking blasphemy.
Congregations everywhere assume and participate in the response as a matter of rote. At one level no problem. Its an unthinking response.
In the TEC we do not say 'This is the word of the Lord' after a psalm.
Moo
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I'm a bit puzzled by Shamwari's and Karl's POV's. They only seem to make sense in a rather literalist understanding of "The Word of God", which is only held by relatively few people at the more extreme end of the protestant spectrum.
I suppose on a practical level, if you think your listeners may view things that way, then you could replace "This is the word of the Lord" by the older "Here ends the Xth lesson".
The obvious meaning of "this is the word of God" is "God said this". It's understanding the Bible as being "the Word of God" where the literalism comes in, to my understanding of the words.
It's quite possible that I have the same view of Scripture as other people who are comfortable with the phrase "Word of God" to describe it, but I am puzzled by what they mean by the phrase if they don't mean "God said this". Seems a silly phrase to use if that's not what it means.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
For years the CofI liturgy had the response: 'This is the word of the Lord, R: Thanks be to God' at the end of every reading (bar the Gospel). It's a stupid phrase, made utterly meaningless and banal when you read about dashing babies heads against rocks, or Judas hanging himself or Peter's denial...or anything to be honest. It is scripture though, but I just don't see the sense in having this mindless response after it is read just for the sake of sounding a response among the people. It's one of my pet liturgical hates. Thankfully the vast majority of shacks now have silence after the reading or a variation of the old rite BCP; 'Here ends the first reading' etc. I'm not too gone on the old rite variations, I think they are a bit clumsy, so I'd side with Kierkegaard, 'Be silent, for that is the absolute'.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
When the whole Psalm is read in the context of worship and the reader ends with the liturgical response This is the word of the Lord /followed by a congregational response /R Thanks be to God then we are being guilty of unthinking blasphemy.
Congregations everywhere assume and participate in the response as a matter of rote. At one level no problem. Its an unthinking response.
In the TEC we do not say 'This is the word of the Lord' after a psalm.
Moo
Nor in the C of E. Public reading of scripture has always, quite naturally, been selective.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The Bible allows for the expression of every human emotion. In doing that it sanctifies our humaness. Counter that with the prevailing attitude of today where human emotions are to be repressed as ungodly.
When I read through the Psalms I find many of them allowing for emotional release followed by comforting words and even expressions of hope.
This psalm apparently does not end that way. However, it is the word of God in that the psalmist is not afraid to lay it all out (not repress it). It is the word of God in that God allows for the expression of this raw emotion. It is the word of God when it is taken into context with other passages that do offer comfort and hope.
One of the beauties of using the lectionary is that we are forced to struggle with such hard passages.
In my tradition, we do not end the reading of the psalm with "This is the Word of the Lord/Thanks be to God" either, but if your tradition does, I would simply challenge the response in the sermon too. I think my first line in the sermon would be something like: We normally conclude our readings with this is the word of God; but, frankly, when it comes to the psalm we just read, I have to ask is it? Is it the word of the Lord?
Get your people to think about their response. While it would be difficult to fund Gospel in the Psalm itself, I think taking it into context with other exilic literature where the Hebrews had to reconsider what their faith was all about, I think Gospel can be found.
Historically, when the church read a lesson it would pause for just a moment so people could ponder for themselves what they just heard and then there would be the conclusion: This is the Word of the Lord/Thanks be to God. We still do this when we do the daily offices. We have gotten away from it when it comes to the Mass. Maybe we should reintroduce it so the response does not become automatic.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Unless I'm mistaken, the psalms appear in the lectionary in order to be sung. They don't form part of the readings, using that word in a technical rather than a colloquial sense, i.e. you could still say them if you are not up to singing them without turning them into readings. If they have to be followed with anything at all, the traditional way would be to add the Gloria Patri (Glory be to the Father etc.).
Perhaps in a sense Shamwari's problem arises from taking a Psalm as a reading - e.g. you may want to do that if you intend to preach on it.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Yep. I amj taking the Psalm as a reading and will preach from it.
I shall not ignore the moral problem which we have been debating here and will raise it at some point during the service.
However, I have settled on preaching from the text "How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?"
That is relevant to today.
[ 01. October 2013, 16:13: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Best wishes for that one, shamwari.
Karl: Liberal Backslider wrote: quote:
It's quite possible that I have the same view of Scripture as other people who are comfortable with the phrase "Word of God" to describe it, but I am puzzled by what they mean by the phrase if they don't mean "God said this". Seems a silly phrase to use if that's not what it means.
I can only answer for the moment for myself (because I haven't asked anyone else directly what they think these words mean). But at the end of the reading, whoever is reading will pick up the bible and say those words.
I'm not suggesting that act is essential but I think it is indicative. We believe that God has interacted with his people in history, and that interaction is captured in the writings called The Bible. That interaction includes rebellion as well as faithfulness, and bad behaviour as well as good. And more than a bit of puzzlement. He has mostly chosen to work through his people (and his creation which he has declared good - and which act surely speaks of His continuing confidence in his creation). These are the writings we - over the centuries - have understood carry his message. This is the word of God. And it was written by humans.
There are bits of the OT which claim to report what God actually says. Psalm 137 makes no such claim.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Occasionally, in various churches the Psalm reads, and is shown to us, quite differently from singing the Psalm. And in the church I'm in now, the choir sing the psalms and we only sing one in verse in between the choir singing it all.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Best wishes for that one, shamwari.
Karl: Liberal Backslider wrote: quote:
It's quite possible that I have the same view of Scripture as other people who are comfortable with the phrase "Word of God" to describe it, but I am puzzled by what they mean by the phrase if they don't mean "God said this". Seems a silly phrase to use if that's not what it means.
I can only answer for the moment for myself (because I haven't asked anyone else directly what they think these words mean). But at the end of the reading, whoever is reading will pick up the bible and say those words.
I'm not suggesting that act is essential but I think it is indicative. We believe that God has interacted with his people in history, and that interaction is captured in the writings called The Bible. That interaction includes rebellion as well as faithfulness, and bad behaviour as well as good. And more than a bit of puzzlement. He has mostly chosen to work through his people (and his creation which he has declared good - and which act surely speaks of His continuing confidence in his creation). These are the writings we - over the centuries - have understood carry his message. This is the word of God. And it was written by humans.
There are bits of the OT which claim to report what God actually says. Psalm 137 makes no such claim.
I know. But to me, "Word of God" implies something completely different to what you describe. Perhaps it's just my idiosyncratic processing of language, but I don't think so; I know lots of people outside the church who'd say of the Bible that if that's "The Word of God" then he says some pretty abominable and immoral things - they appear to understand the phrase the way I do.
I don't therefore think it's a particularly helpful or useful phrase to describe the Bible.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Perhaps I may have to recalibrate my understanding, Karl. I would need to go and ask some people who don't have a significant background in the church to get my own handle on that. As I said earlier I'm pretty confident that most people within churches I have attended wouldn't think of it that way - always subject to checking directly of course.
There's also the fact of our church backgrounds to consider too - if you have been a member of a church where that sort of view was present, you might be more sensitive to it than I am.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I suspect that most people in the churches simply respond to any liturgical / common phrase without any thought at all. In the same way as they belt out hymns, often with much arm waving, and never give a second thought to the words. Some of the inane nonsense sung with great enthusiasm is eye-watering.
I think that Karl is right in assuming that, if they stopped to think, people would take "This is the word of the Lord" to mean "God said"
Its the honest enquirer who is more likely to reflect on whether what we hear is what God said. And if we hear that God commands genocide then there are problems ahead.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
We don't say "This is the word of the Lord"; rather, we say "Hear the word of the Lord/Thanks be to God". But, like Moo, we don't say that after the Psalm.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
I, too, agree with Karl that any commonsense understanding of: “This is the word of the Lord” is “God said.” That is why I think the phrase should not be employed. If there has to be some sort of liturgical conclusion to a scripture reading, why not: “Those who have ears to hear let them hear”? Such a phrase would recognise the importance of scripture without excluding other sources of Christian authority and inspiration, (tradition, reason, experience and so on), and is sufficiently enigmatic and challenging as to invite a considered reaction on the part of the hearer.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
"The word of The Lord" is ambiguous between a subjective genitive ("the Lord's word") and an objective genitive ("the word about The Lord," cf. "news of the war"). It may lean toward the former but the latter is by no means outrageous.
And the last verse is, as noted above, a completely understandable reaction to grief and trauma, with an emphasis on "YOUR" because it had been done to the speaker.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
And we usually think that everything spoken by Jesus is accurate, even written by all sorts, and we often also think that is also what God's word is!
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We don't say "This is the word of the Lord"; rather, we say "Hear the word of the Lord/Thanks be to God". But, like Moo, we don't say that after the Psalm.
We have recently replaced 'This is the word of the Lord' with 'Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church/Thanks be to God'. Anyone else use this?
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
We have recently replaced 'This is the word of the Lord' with 'Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church/Thanks be to God'. Anyone else use this?
Yes. I'm also aware of (but have never seen used) "O Lord, may your word live in us" / "And bear much fruit in our lives".
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Preferable to the bald statement.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Seems a bit precious to my mind. I'd prefer the bald statement.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I am ahead of myself. Lectionary for this coming Sunday includes Ps 137. I shall preach on it and read vv 1-6 viz:
By the rivers of Babylon—
there we sat down and there we wept
when we remembered Zion.
On the willows there
we hung up our harps.
For there our captors
asked us for songs,
and our tormentors asked for mirth, saying,
‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion!’
How could we sing the Lord’s song
in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand wither!
Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth,
if I do not remember you,
if I do not set Jerusalem
above my highest joy.
But if I read the whole Psalm there is no way in 1000 years that I could end with the traditional thanks be to God for his word.
Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites
the day of Jerusalem’s fall,
how they said, ‘Tear it down! Tear it down!
Down to its foundations!’
O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!
Shipmates agree?
Can I suggest that this psalm was written by people in exile.A people who had seen atrocities
so what is more natural than to want revenge ? So their writtings in the last aprt of the psalm should not suprise us.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
Well, clearly that's the only context in which the psalm makes any sense -- it's the cry of people in exile, who have been the victims of atrocities and who feel in turn the very human desire to inflict atrocities on their oppressors. But its inclusion in the Bible can mean one of two things depending on your view of Scripture: it can mean that a) the text is here because it's part of the human experience that ancient people believed was worth recording and remembering as part of their spiritual experience, or it can mean that b) God has rubber-stamped and approved the sentiments in the psalm and would also like to see Babylonian children dashed against the rocks. Saying "The word of the Lord" after reading it seems to suggest option B.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Seems a bit precious to my mind. I'd prefer the bald statement.
Interesting that catholics might like to water down 'the word of the Lord' while being direct about 'the body of Christ.'
With protestants it is 'the body of Christ' that gets watered down with 'keep you in eternal life.'
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
So, how did the sermon come out?
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Gramps: if that was addressed to me then the answer is that the sermon came out very well indeed ( judging by after-service comments)
But the sermon avoided the problem of reading the whole Psalm as being " the word of the Lord".
I brought this problem up at the time of reading it. Read verses 1-6. Then asked people to read in their pew Bibles the rest of the Psalm and reflect on wy I cut it short at verse 6.
They seemed to get the point without me having to be explicit.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I know a pastor who tends to bookend problematic Gospel texts with inflected questions rather than proclamations: "This is the word of the Lord?" "Thanks be to God?"
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
I was at a funeral this past week and the second reading, rather than something from Scripture, was a poem by Rainer Maria Rilke. Nothing wrong with such a substitution. But (and I'm guessing this was an oversight on the part of the person putting together the service pamphlet) it was concluded with "The Word of the Lord / Thanks be to God." The reader dutifully said the first bit and the congregation dutifully responded. I dutifully kept my mouth shut.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Al Eluia quote:
I was at a funeral this past week and the second reading, rather than something from Scripture, was a poem by Rainer Maria Rilke. Nothing wrong with such a substitution. But (and I'm guessing this was an oversight on the part of the person putting together the service pamphlet) it was concluded with "The Word of the Lord / Thanks be to God." The reader dutifully said the first bit and the congregation dutifully responded. I dutifully kept my mouth shut.
The question which crosses my mind is whether (or in what way) the poem by Rainer Maria Rilke was any less the word of God than Psalm 137.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I never say "This is the word of the Lord - thanks be to God." Usually I would say, "May the Lord add his blessing to the reading of his word." or - and this would be a case in point - I would say, "May the Lord give us understanding as we look further into his word..."
It's what sermons and Bible study are for.
As far as the word of God simply meaning the word of God 'to us' or even the 'words of God' I think I would have to say that we need to broaden our view of Scripture. All Scripture may be 'God-breathed' but that doesn't mean that every word is his message to us; I believe that there are passages where God's voice is recorded - prophets and Gospels, for instance. Other passages would be 'true and accurate' whether God had anything to do with it or not, and some passages are just(?) the writings of inspired men through whose experiences God speaks to us.
The whole scripture together is the inspired word of God but it isn't merely one block of teaching from God to us. God has spoken through the words and circumstances of others - even using their failures and seemingly inappropriate words to say something important in the overall scheme of things.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I do not think that adding " May the Lord add his blessing ......" is in any way appropriate.
The reading of the word is itself a blessing. Or should be.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
And yet we would pray that the Spirit would teach us and revive us according to his word. I would have thought that it was entirely appropriate to pray that somehow God would himself come to us as his word was read and reveal his will and give us his blessing as we read. I certainly would want the Holy Spirit to come and be part of the reading.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Without verging into a "magical mystical" attitude towards the Scriptures, I do suggest that the Holy Spirit does meet with us as they are read. Call it quasi-sacramental if you like.
Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on
:
I think with respect to the Biblical canon it's important to understand what it is and what it is not. These are my own words, not any definition.
What it is, is the selection of the books that the early church agreed were the most accurate and the best to use for teaching, and the most helpful to understanding the nature of God, the incarnation of Christ, and the practical ramifications of this for us. The words are not to be tampered with, to maintain their integrity for this purpose. That purpose remains fully true today, when read, studied in context, and most importantly blessed by the insight of the Holy Spirit.
What it is not? The words are not divine in themselves. They were written by men, and now today they are read by men and women. It's very clear from the language that those who wrote them knew well that they were not putting God's words onto paper, but that they were writing their own thoughts, as sinful people, albeit touched by God's divine love. It is when we read the words in this context, that we are able to learn the most from them, and not lead ourselves astray down a path of literalism that is fraught with contradictions and less concerned with God's love and wisdom than pursuing a quest for a false certainty.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
What it is not? The words are not divine in themselves. They were written by men, and now today they are read by men and women. It's very clear from the language that those who wrote them knew well that they were not putting God's words onto paper, but that they were writing their own thoughts, as sinful people, albeit touched by God's divine love. It is when we read the words in this context, that we are able to learn the most from them, and not lead ourselves astray down a path of literalism that is fraught with contradictions and less concerned with God's love and wisdom than pursuing a quest for a false certainty.
I do not agree with this. The words are given by inspiration of God and even Paul's letters according to Peter are up there with the 'other scriptures.'
We need to re-affirm the hermeneutic of God as author. This is not merely a human invention; the content is of divine origin through human media. your assertion reduces the scriptures to any other inspirational or devotional book found in the Christian bookshop.
And BTW, accepting the divine inspiration of the Bible does not necessitate any kind of literalism.
I would ask what alleged contradictions there might be that would have any significance to the message, but it's probably a DH tangent.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
What it is not? The words are not divine in themselves. They were written by men, and now today they are read by men and women. It's very clear from the language that those who wrote them knew well that they were not putting God's words onto paper, but that they were writing their own thoughts, as sinful people, albeit touched by God's divine love. It is when we read the words in this context, that we are able to learn the most from them, and not lead ourselves astray down a path of literalism that is fraught with contradictions and less concerned with God's love and wisdom than pursuing a quest for a false certainty.
I do not agree with this. The words are given by inspiration of God and even Paul's letters according to Peter are up there with the 'other scriptures.'
We need to re-affirm the hermeneutic of God as author. This is not merely a human invention; the content is of divine origin through human media. your assertion reduces the scriptures to any other inspirational or devotional book found in the Christian bookshop.
And BTW, accepting the divine inspiration of the Bible does not necessitate any kind of literalism.
I would ask what alleged contradictions there might be that would have any significance to the message, but it's probably a DH tangent.
But does inspired by God = authored by God? To me there are differences - to say that God is the author of Scripture is to deny the personality that different authors bring to their books. Paul, for example, has a distinctive voice of his own AND clearly states when he is writing for himself and not for God. So while I do believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture, and certainly don't think that necessitates literalism, IMO it involves God and human authors working together rather than God (holy)ghostwriting.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Well of course the human writers use their personalities and methods of writing; that doesn't negate the divine authorship as well - it's like the Incarnation - fully God, fully man: why cannot the Scriptures themselves be truly and properly human and truly and properly divine in their authorship?
Paul, I believe, on only one occasion gives his own opinion. Which rather suggests that the rest of what he wrote he believed came from the Lord.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well of course the human writers use their personalities and methods of writing; that doesn't negate the divine authorship as well - it's like the Incarnation - fully God, fully man: why cannot the Scriptures themselves be truly and properly human and truly and properly divine in their authorship?
Paul, I believe, on only one occasion gives his own opinion. Which rather suggests that the rest of what he wrote he believed came from the Lord.
And of course there is no 'ghost-writing' The Bible isn't the Koran or the Book of Mormon!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Oh! I seem to have pressed the wrong button and edited my post by quoting it instead! Sorry about that. I thought it looked different!
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Host hat on
This thread has moved away from the OP and into Dead Horse territory. We can move it to DH or leave it here so people can talk about the very negative and unattractive ideas found in parts of the Bible.
If there is any more talk of inspiration, the thread will be moved.
Host hat off
Moo
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Paul, I believe, on only one occasion gives his own opinion. Which rather suggests that the rest of what he wrote he believed came from the Lord.
You're thinking of 1 Corinthians 7.25. But surely it must apply to other issues, such as the meat sacrificed to idols, as there is more than one view represented in the New Testament on that subject. In fact, wouldn't it be a saner default to say that Paul should only be taken as conveying the word of the Lord when he actually positively claims to be? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I am moving this thread to Dead Horses.
Moo, Kerygmania host
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0