The Word of God

[xenia]

I would very much like to know the Orthodox understanding of the phrase "Word of God."

In John 1:1 Logos (word) is used to refer to Jesus. Jesus is the Word of God.

In other places the phrase "Word of God" refers to Scripture.

So Word of God = Jesus

and

Word of God = The Bible

but does it follow that

Jesus = The Bible?

My question is this: does the phrase "Word of God" have two different meanings or does it have one meaning? Or is there a third possibility, that there are two meanings but they are intrinsically connected?

If it only has one meaning, then Jesus = The Bible

If it has two different meanings, then Jesus =/= the Bible.

Thanks for any help!

In Christ Xenia

[Marjorie]

I don't know about the Greek, but it seems to me a matter of common sense. When the Scriptures refer to God's law as "God's word," this is meant as God's word to man. But the concept of Jesus as Logos is one of Christ being the eternal manifestation of God's existence. One would also have to look into Jewish and Greek ideas about "The Word" in order to understand John's use of it. Also, the Scriptures themselves are not referred to as the Word of God except in the sense that the Scriptures contain God's commandments, i.e. the word of God. One thinks of the parable of the Sower... when Christ talks about the word of God falling on many ears, he is not merely referring to Scripture, though Scripture is inspired by God and therefore contains the words/commands of God.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Rilian]

I think the other important point is Christ is the divine Logos, the word made flesh. He is the word of God prexistent and eternal. Scripture is of course divinely breathed, given to us through the holy spirit and passed through the hands of man. It clearly has a point where it came into being. It is the word of God in human words, in ways we can understand.

The two are not the same.

[Lotar]

As far as I know, the Word of God is Christ and the Bible is the word of God (though not exclusively).

The difference is L vs l, Word vs word. I had this confusing conversation with my mother last Saturday.

[countrymousenc]

So Word of God = Jesus

and

Word of God = The Bible

but does it follow that

Jesus = The Bible?

No, it doesn't, and in all fairness, even the vast majority of heterodox folks over in GH don't believe that Jesus = the Bible.

The problem is that (and some of us who are converts should be able to remember when we felt this way) if you've never been in a church you could trust, or if you'd always been taught that by the 2nd century, the Church fell into error, you have no other recourse than to rely on the Bible and interpret it for yourself. They've been indoctrinated to trust no church, that all churches are merely human institutions. Their belief systems are such tangled webs, and they argue in circles like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, and when anyone comes along claiming theirs is the real Church, like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and a whole string of cults have done, the red flags go up and they go defensive.

[countrymousenc]

*double post* sorry!

[xenia]

No, it doesn't, and in all fairness, even the vast majority of heterodox folks over in GH don't believe that Jesus = the Bible

I know. I do have some people at work who do believe this, though.

-Xenia

[xenia]

The problem is that (and some of us who are converts should be able to remember when we felt this way) if you've never been in a church you could trust, or if you'd always been taught that by the 2nd century, the Church fell into error, you have no other recourse than to rely on the Bible and interpret it for yourself. They've been indoctrinated to trust no church, that all churches are merely human institutions.

This is so true, and a very charitable way to put it.

Yes, I do remember when I felt this way. I was very fearful that someone would find a mistake in the Bible that I couldn't explain away and my whole system would collapse around my ears. Since I rolled my own theology, and since I am not all that bright, I was sure someone smarter than me would find a crack in my system and I would be lost.

-Xenia

[CyberSponge]

Hi Xenia! :)

I would very much like to know the Orthodox understanding of the phrase "Word of God."

In John 1:1 Logos (word) is used to refer to Jesus. Jesus is the Word of God.

In other places the phrase "Word of God" refers to Scripture.

So Word of God = Jesus

and

Word of God = The Bible

but does it follow that

Jesus = The Bible?

My question is this: does the phrase "Word of God" have two different meanings or does it have one meaning? Or is there a third possibility, that there are two meanings but they are intrinsically connected?

If it only has one meaning, then Jesus = The Bible

If it has two different meanings, then Jesus =/= the Bible.

Thanks for any help!

In Christ Xenia

I'm pretty sure that the standard usage of the "Word of God" in Orthodoxy is just about Christ. I hear some Orthodox Christians refer to scripture as the word of God, but within the context it's always clear that they don't equate it to Christ.

But i do know what you mean about some people almost equating the Bible to equal Christ. I remember going to an Intervarsity Christian Fellowship Large group meeting where there was a speaker talking about knowledge of scripture and how important it is. But she kept on calling the Bible "The Word" (and in her powerpoint slides, she even capitalized "Word" when referring to the bible), not necessarily as though it was God incarnate, but in a way that I felt kind of disturbing. Interestingly, the protestant Christian friend who invited me remarked (on his own, during the talk) how "The Word of God is NOT the Bible". So I wasn't the only one kind of taken aback by this speaker. :)

[gzt]

I was very depressed when they quoted John 1:1 as referring to the Bible.

I think even the phrase 'word of God' or 'God's word' should only very carefully be used to refer to the Bible, especially within the pages of the Bible. I don't think God's words can be circumscribed by a book, that God's law is not fully contained within the Pentateuch, and that the Church did not think so in history. God's word is bigger than the Bible, though the Bible is a sure place to find it and in the Gospels Christ Himself speaks to us. But I'd be tremendously disappointed if the Psalmist's meditations on the Law really only referred to his mastery of the books of the law rather than his meditations on the God whom the Law tells us to worship.

[Eusebios]

This is precisely why I do not affix the "word of God" label to the bible. It is particularly easy in our culture (referring genericaly to western culture) to confuse the bible and Jesus Christ. When referring to the bible, I prefer to use the terms "Holy Scriptures".For me personally, only Christ incarnate is the "Word of God" and is the only use I personally make of the terms.
This likely relates to my own phobias resulting from my varied former delusion(s)
On a side note, I'm always glad to see our Monkey Ninja friend Lotar around! :wave:
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.
:bow:

[katherine2001]

Eusebios, I have also gotten to the point where I am very reluctant to use the word of God for the Bible. I reserve that title for Christ now. One of the posters on that thread started his post on the subject with "In the beginning was the Word...". Of course, that particular passage of John was not talking about the scriptures but about the Son. The Bible was not present at the beginning. Unfortunately, many people seems to have the two confused.

[xenia]

At my former Evangelical church, the Bible was almost ALWAYS referred to as "The Word." Get into the Word! I've been in the Word! Let's study the Word! I asked my boss at school, who is a pastor, exactly what does he mean by the phrase and he had the honesty to scratch his head and admit he didn't know, that it was muddled in his mind. One of my co-workers, a very smart man, seems to equate Jesus with the Bible, too, saying they are both called Logos. So this confusion seems rampant in certain circles.

-Xenia

[xenia]

I deleted what I wrote. It wasn't very edifying. Forgive me, folks.

-Xenia

[Reader Nilus]

I have never felt that the Bible by itself was the "word of God". It witnesses to the Word, but it itself is not that Word.
Jeff the Finn

[Reader Nilus]

Part of the problem with fundamentalists is that the Bible is all they got. If it does not take on divine status, it leaves their whole faith stucture without any foundation. They do not value the teachings that have come down to us, so they have to put all of their marbles in the basket of the Bible. When I was in college, evangelicals would always think that if it was in the Bible then it was self evident that it was the truth. I was a Lutheran at the time, and would always say that can not be true, until one addresses where the Bible came from, and how these books and not others got to be known as the Bible. No one prior to the printing press would ever make that kind of statement, the Bible is the "word of God". The text was never outside of the Liturgy or the services of the daily Office for everyone except for clergy and monks.
Jeff the Finn

[prodromos]

My teachings are very easy to understand and to practice; yet there is no one in the world who is able either to understand or to practice them. This is because my teachings have an originating principle and arise from an integrated system. This is not understood, so I am unknown.
Lao Tzu

Of the Logos. which is as I describe it, people always prove to be uncomprehending, both before and after they have heard of it. For although all things happen according to this Logos, people behave as if they have no experience, even when they experience such words and deeds as I explain, when I distinguish each thing according to its constitution and declare how it is. The rest of humanity fails to notice what they do after they wake up just as they forget what they do when asleep.
Heraclitus

Born in the middle of the sixth century B.C., Heraclitus was the Greek philosopher surnamed "the Obscure", for the riddling character of his writings. He based his philosophy on the "Logos" a word which itself means "Word," but which bears the connotations of measure, proportion, and pattern. The Logos of Heraclitus, according to one textbook of Greek philosophy, "is the first principle of knowledge: understanding of the world involves understanding of the structure or pattern of the world, a pattern concealed from the eyes of ordinary men. The Logos is also the first principle of existence, that unity of the world process which sustains it as a process. This unity lies beneath the surface, for it is a unity of diverse and conflicting opposites, in whose strife the Logos maintains a continual balance. The Logos maintains the equilibrium of the universe at every moment". Although Heraclitus taught that "all things change, and nothing remains at rest", he knew the Logos to be itself stable, the measured pattern of flow.

At about the same time that Heraclitus lived in Greece, there lived in China the philosopher Lao Tzu ("Old Master"). Lao Tzu wrote of the same universal Pattern or Ordering Principle that Heraclitus styled the Logos. "I do not know its name", he said, "but characterize it as the Way (Tao)" - the Tao being a symbol basic to Chinese thought, as the Logos was to ancient Greek thought. For Lao Tzu, the Way was precisely what its adopted name signified, in its full metaphysical sense: the Way, Path or Pattern of Heaven, the Course that all things follow. The Way is the Uncreated Cause of all things. It is the Way that creates, and it is the Way that "nourishes, develops, cares for, shelters, comforts, and protects" the creation, balancing the strife of opposites by itself not contending.

Of the writings of Heraclitus, only a handful of fragments have come down to us; but from Lao Tzu we have a full eighty-one chapters of the Tao Teh Ching. Of all the ancient philosophers, Lao Tzu came the closest to assimilating the essence of reality and describing the Tao or Logos. His Tao Teh Ching represents the epitome of what a human being can know through intuition, through the apprehension of the universal Principle and Pattern manifested in the created order.

Six centuries after Heraclitus and Lao Tzu, there lived on the Greek island of Patmos an old, white-haired hermit named John. While exiled in a cave on the island, he dictated to his disciple Prochorus what he had received by direct revelation from the heavenly realm, from Divine vision, and thus spoke to the world words that it never thought to hear:

In the beginning was the Logos,
And the Logos was with God,
And the Logos was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by Him;
And without Him was not anything made that was made.
In Him was life, and the life was the light of men,
And the light shines in darkness,
And the darkness comprehended it not....
He was in the world, and the world was made by Him,
And the world knew Him not....
And the Logos became flesh,
And dwelt among us,
And we beheld His glory.

This was that very Logos of which Heraclitus had said the people "always prove to be uncomprehending"; this was the very Tao that Lao Tzu had said "no one in the world is able to understand". It is not without reason that sensitive Chinese translators of St. John's Gospel, knowing that "Tao" meant to the Chinese what "Logos" meant to the Greeks, have rendered the first line of the Gospel to read: "In the beginning was the Tao.

When the Apostle John wrote his Gospel, he was no doubt aware of the common Greek philosophical symbol of the Logos. But as can be clearly seen by a comparison of that Gospel with the riddles of Heraclitus or the writings of other philosophers when he spoke from revelation he was not merely borrowing an old term; rather, he was transforming it, bringing it into the light of the fullness of mystical knowledge. When he spoke of the Logos, it was now no longer in riddles, as from one who had only glimpsed its traces in nature. For now the Logos the Creator, Sustainer, Pattern and Ordering Principle of nature was made flesh, and dwelt among us, for the only time in history. And John, His disciple, had seen Him; he had beheld His glory and heard the words which proceeded from His mouth. Being offered the ultimate closeness to Him who had only been dimly seen before, he had even lain on His breast and, in the greatest of mysteries had received Him into himself at the Last Supper.

Thus, while Lao Tzu's Tao Teh Ching represents the highest that a person can know through intuition, St. John's Gospel represents the highest that a person can know through revelation, that is, through God making Himself known and experienced in the most tangible way possible.

Excerpt from the book Christ the Eternal Tao, written by Hieromonk Damascene, from the St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina.

[Reader Nilus]

Goodness, that would raise eyebrows in some of the forums here, as it clearly shows that the Tao is a witness to Our Lord, and how can Our Lord be speaking to pagan Asians!
Great Post!
Jeff the Finn

[ufonium2]

You would think that English-speakers, of all people, would realize that sometimes one word can mean more than one thing. For instance:

bear: to carry or support
bear: a large ominvore

but "to carry or support" does not equal "a large omnivore"


Similarly:

Christ: Logos
Scripture: Logos

but Christ does not equal scripture

[Suzannah]

Hi xenia,

I don't know all the scholarly research like some others, but I can actually see some good in those who hold the theory that Jesus =the Bible. While acknowledging all that is wrong in it, I see that people are at least taking Jesus into their lives with a serious attempt to the best of their ability, to assimilate the Bible and its Truths into themselves and their lives. While we certainly don't want Jesus reduced to an earthly book, we can at least appreciate that these folks are attempting, a serious living faith. That attempt does count, in my opinion, although it happens to be in error. It sort of reminds me of St. Paul's introduction: "Men of Greece! I see that you are very religious...."

So too, should we acknowledge the good in them if we want to share the truth with them.

[xenia]

Hi Suzannah,

Well, they do have zeal!

-Xenia

[Suzannah]

Aye, they do have that!

^_^

[Marjorie]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to prodromos again.Ick.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[elizabethevangeline]

Hi Xenia,
A few weeks ago I brought up a similiar experience over at GT. I was at an arena conference & a well known speaker said "the Bible is the bread of life". I was shocked and I'm an evangelical. Anyways...one conclusion I reached at GT was:
"Could lack of precision in the english language also causes a lack of precision in our thinking & therefore it is easier for some to confuse word of God with Word of God, and/or make the leap from "the Bible feeds us" to "the Bible is the Bread of Life"?

While they may never agree with the statement 'Bible=Jesus', I think many evangelicals are fuzzy enough in their thinking on Word/word that they don't recognize how they (self included) blended the two together, & how that shapes our perceptions & thot-processes.

I'll be working on changing my speech habits and only use 'the Word' to refer to Christ and use 'scripture' to refer to the Bible.

[xenia]

Hi Elizabeth,

I agree with you that in many cases there is a fuzziness of thought and language, fueled by good intentions.

My co-workers though... these are college graduates, and one of them attempts to be very precise in his use of words.

But I must say this: As mentioned earlier, Evangelicals have jettisoned many of the things in the Christian life that matter: the Sacraments, the Eucharist, the Liturgy, monasticism, Tradition, etc. They have put all their mystical hopes and longings onto the Bible because that's all that's left for them. As Suzannah said earlier, we should give them credit for at least doing that.

Over on GT I have noticed that quite a few of the participants don't attend any church and in fact have a very negative attitude about church, calling it "man-made" and full of "Doctrines of Men." While I understand why many of them flee their churches, the refusal to attend a church is basically rebellious and fosters the "All I need is my Bible" attitude that we see on GT and in the world. It's rebellion, a refusal to come under the authority of the Church, or any church.

-Xenia

[elizabethevangeline]

You state it well..."They have put all their mystical hopes and longings onto the Bible because that's all that's left for them". It's the only tangible thing we have, and I think many don't realize they have mystical longings. A popular evangelical book called The Sacred Romance talks about this longing without using the word 'mystical'. I wept as I read it because I recognized that was what I was missing...some greater experience of God and His love outside words on a page and knowledge in my head, or even emotions for a moment.

And many evangelicals I know who are in church and very active are very resistant to "doctrines of man" and traditions. I've been thinking lately of friends from college who were Catholic or Lutheran, and maybe I should write them an apology for being so oblivious! I never thot I was dismissive towards their faith, but now I wonder...

[xenia]

Ah Elizabeth, what a sinner I am.

After I wrote my post, I went off to say morning prayers and I couldn't concentrate because I felt I had been rude to you in my post about Evangelicals. I interrupted my prayers and came back to the computer to either delete my post or apologize, and here you are telling me that not only were you not offended but you even seemed to appreciate my post. I think this has more to do with the generosity of your nature than the goodness of my post. But thanks. :) Lord have mercy on me a sinner!

I am getting too passionate about this subject. Time for me to bow out for a little while.

Forgive me.

Love, Xenia

[elizabethevangeline]

Xenia! All forgiven, tho no offense was taken.:)

This is a topic to be passionate about. For months I've been frustrated like crazy reading posts from evangelicals who refuse to "get" what others are saying, but I didn't register here until I was finally motivated by the 'bread of life' comment & no one in my real life wanted to discuss it.:scratch:

But I appreciate your desire to remain calm, and the example of humility. Thanks. I need that now as I so want my friends & loved ones to "get it" now and come with me to Orthodoxy, and I can be so impatient.

[Theophorus]

Because the west views grace as a stasis, rather than an energia or creative force, The logos for them is merely a static manifestation, as upposed to the source of theosis. So in the same way the bible,and in varying degrees, Christ, become a manifestation, or "Picture" of God, and the full concept of the Logos is lost.

[elizabethevangeline]

Theophorus,
Wow. That gets to the heart of it.

I said in another thread:"most evangelicals don't think of communion as being literally the body of Christ, therefore possibly don't fully connect with how Christ is the Bread of Life and all that implies. Maybe there is also a disconnect with how Christ is the Word of God."

You just said what I think I was intuitively talking around but couldn't put my finger on! :) OK, I'm not really trying to steal glory here, I think I'm excited to see I might be on the correct track. Thanks!

[Theophorus]

Theophorus,
Wow. That gets to the heart of it.

I said in another thread:"most evangelicals don't think of communion as being literally the body of Christ, therefore possibly don't fully connect with how Christ is the Bread of Life and all that implies. Maybe there is also a disconnect with how Christ is the Word of God."

You just said what I think I was intuitively talking around but couldn't put my finger on! :) OK, I'm not really trying to steal glory here, I think I'm excited to see I might be on the correct track. Thanks!
It is a major difference in theology that in my opinion effects many things, even the role of Mary, the Theotokis. Because of a judicial mindset of the west they have taken two extremes, either to get rid of her altogether, or to place her too high, ie the emaculate conception. All of this is do to a misunderstanding of the nature of grace. Again, my interpretation of the Orthodox mind, maybe others could add some more or correct me if I am in error.

look here;

http://www.orlapubs.com/AR/R75.html

it comes from this

http://www.orlapubs.com/AR/R145.html

[elizabethevangeline]

Thanks Theophorus. I'll be reading thru that slowly. A lot to process. I agree it is a major theology difference...and yet subtle...and subtle differences can have a deep impact.

[katherine2001]

The more I think about it, I think that many people don't get the full implications of the Son's incarnation. In the Real Presence thread, a poster (I won't post a name) kept saying that the verses in John 6:51-71 couldn't be referring to the actual body and blood of Christ because the flesh profits nothing and is carnal. I mentioned that Christ took on our flesh and our human body and nature in order to redeem them. This person seemed to think that Christ's flesh needed to be redeemed also (in other words, His flesh was carnal too). This person didn't seem to get it that nothing about Christ is carnal or profits nothing. He took on our flesh and lived a pure life in His flesh so that, through His grace, we could do the same thing. Feeding us with His own pure Body and Blood is part of this process. It's all part of the process of healing and purifying our flesh so that we don't have to be carnal.

I think as Xenia said in this thread itself, it's much easier to have a relationship with a book than it is a Person, because, of course, Jesus is a person. Many people have made Him into their buddy. He tells them just what He wants to hear. If you just have the Bible, you can pick and choose your verses. You can quote the verses that express your opinions and ignore those that dont. As Fr. Thomas Hopko says, the real God rarely agrees with us and often doesn't give us what we tell Him we want or need (because He knows much better than we do what we need).

[katherine2001]

The real God can't be manipulated either, like many people seem to think. When I used to listen to Christian radio, I would often hear that if you ask God a certain way, then God has to give us whatever it is we ask Him for. God is much bigger and smarter than we are. The real God is smart enough to know what we're trying to do (manipulate Him to get what we want) and isn't going to be manipulated like that. Without the Church, you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say if you pick your verses carefully and ignore all the verses that contradict the way you are using it.

[countrymousenc]

This person seemed to think that Christ's flesh needed to be redeemed also (in other words, His flesh was carnal too). There's a popular misconception that Christ, in taking human flesh, also took upon Himself our "sin nature." It's the source of endless circular discussions about whether Christ could have sinned, and what would have happened if He had. That's what comes of being disconnected from the Church.

[Marjorie]

Well, just to clarify for any protestants reading this (I'm sure the people who wrote the above already know this) who would quote where the Scriptures talk about Christ being made sin for us, etc.... Christ did not have a fallen nature, but he took on the consequences of our fallen nature... in doing this he immediately deified it and redeemed it, so that there was nothing about his nature that needed to be redeemed.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[countrymousenc]

Marjorie's correct. To clarify what I wrote about the misconception that Christ takes on our "sin nature;" people often take this to mean a human proclivity to sin rather than only the consequences of our fallen nature, believing that He couldn't have otherwise identified with us.

EDIT: it seems to come from the gnostic idea that flesh is inherently evil.

[Marjorie]

Countrymouse, that is exactly right. Kurt Rudolph, the writer of Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, wrote that gnosticism has never stopped following the Church like a shadow... "they remain two-- hostile-- sisters." It is the perennial heresy.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[katherine2001]

In order to be like us, Christ had to have the capability to sin. However, He chose to be obedient to God and didn't sin. The same poster kept making the point that Christ's mind was not carnal, though His flesh was. I think it goes hand-in-hand with the Total Depravity that most Evangelicals are taught. The material world is evil/carnal--there is nothing good about it--it all profits nothing. Therefore, Christ's flesh was also of no profit and carnal. Dianne, I think you are exactly right--it's a very gnostic argument. Unfortunately, since many people aren't interested in the history of the Christian church, they fall into many of the heresies and teachings that were condemned in the New Testament and in the early centuries of the Church. Just spend some time on the General Theology board, and that comes across in very short order.

[Reader Nilus]

When The Word became flesh, He did indeed become subject to the conditions all humans find themselves in, He would die. But being God when He died Jesus despoiled hell as the Paschal Hymn sings.
Jeff the Finn

[MariaRegina]

Theophorus,
Wow. That gets to the heart of it.

I said in another thread:"most evangelicals don't think of communion as being literally the body of Christ, therefore possibly don't fully connect with how Christ is the Bread of Life and all that implies. Maybe there is also a disconnect with how Christ is the Word of God."

You just said what I think I was intuitively talking around but couldn't put my finger on! :) OK, I'm not really trying to steal glory here, I think I'm excited to see I might be on the correct track. Thanks!




1 John 1: 5 to 2:3
1:5 And this is the message which we have heard from Him
and we announce to you,
that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.
6. If we should say that we have communion with Him,
and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7 but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light,
we have communion with one another,
and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we should say that we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we be confessing our sins, faithful is He and righteous
to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we should say that we have not sinned,
we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
2:1 My little children, these things I write to you,
in order that you do not sin.
2 And if anyone should sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous.
And He Himself is the expiation for our sins,
and not ours only, but also for the whole world.
3 And in this we know that we have come to know Him,
if we be keeping His commandments.
< The Orthodox New Testament

Most protestants think of the shed blood as being Christ's death on the Cross - but this passage refers to the reception of Holy Communion for the forgiveness of our sins -- which they do not comprehend due to their non-liturgical services.

Hope this helps.
:amen:

[elizabethevangeline]

Thanks Aria,

Last Fall I attended a "Precepts" (Kay Arthur's inductive study method) Bible Study on 1 John. That's when I started to question the "once saved, always saved" I had always believed...prepared me to better receive the concept of theosis. I think I need to read it again now that I'm thinking more "orthodox" :)

[katherine2001]

Elizabeth, that is the type of thing that happened for me. God was starting to open my eyes to things that were in scripture that my church (Baptst) didn't believe in. I remember the verse in James about confessing our sins to one another hitting me like a brick because, of course, in the Baptist church (as in most other evangelical churches), your sin is just between you and God. For me, the last straw was the last time I took Communion and the passage from 1 Cor. 11 was read and the words "this is my body", "this is my blood" and the verse that people were getting extremely sick and/or dying for not discerning the Lord's body hit me like a brick. For the first time, I didn't run those verses through the "He didn't mean those words literally" filter that I'd been taught to put them through. I very quickly came to the conclusion that again, my church didn't believe what the scriptures actually said. I took Communion that morning, but I never did again.

[xenia]

For me, the last straw was the last time I took Communion and the passage from 1 Cor. 11 was read and the words "this is my body", "this is my blood" and the verse that people were getting extremely sick and/or dying for not discerning the Lord's body hit me like a brick. For the first time, I didn't run those verses through the "He didn't mean those words literally" filter that I'd been taught to put them through.

I had an identical moment like this two years ago. Once you know the truth you can never go back.

Love, Xenia

[Oblio]

Apperantly, there are some who seem to literally believe that Jesus Christ == The Bible (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10067781&postcount=59)

[xenia]

Apperantly, there are some who seem to literally believe that Jesus Christ == The Bible

Yes, Oblio, that's what's been driving me crazy and why I started this thread!

[MariaRegina]

Yes, Oblio, that's what's been driving me crazy and why I started this thread!

Dear Xenia,

Now I understand why they don't believe in Holy Communion. How can a book turn into bread and wine or become the Body and Blood of Christ?

[CyberSponge]

Apperantly, there are some who seem to literally believe that Jesus Christ == The Bible (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10067781&postcount=59)
a programmer, ehh? ;)

[CyberSponge]

double post

[Reader Nilus]

If the Bible is Jesus, why do they the fundamentalists love to underline and write notes in it? It seems that is not how one would treat God, IMHO.
Jeff the Finn

[katherine2001]

But Jeff, they only let them underline parts of the Word. They are not allowed to underline John 6:51-71. However, why don't you ask that question on the thread that Xenia and Oblio are talking about? That's a great question. Not to mention, ask them if they expect to see St. Paul and the other Apostles in heaven. If there was no New Testament at the time, how is it possible for them to be there? Not to mention that Christ must have lied to the Thief when He told him that he would be with Him in paradise. I somehow have a sneaking suspicion that the Thief was not allowed off the cross so that He could read the Old Testament and say that he believed that they were inerrant.

[xenia]

A poster just said this:

You see, it is through the Word that we come to believe in Him for redemption. He is given to us in book form.

Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.

I'm speechless and can't think of anything else to say. :eek:

[MariaRegina]

A poster just said this:


You see, it is through the Word that we come to believe in Him for redemption. He is given to us in book form.


Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.

I'm speechless and can't think of anything else to say. :eek:

I guess they don't celebrate the Incarnation of our Lord and God Jesus Christ in the flesh. No Christmas for them?

[Patristic]

A poster just said this:

"You see, it is through the Word that we come to believe in Him for redemption. He is given to us in book form."

Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.

I'm speechless and can't think of anything else to say. :eek:

Haha, I'm sorry if this is a bit coarse, but that is one of the silliest and most whimsical things I have ever heard. We get crucified for believing that Jesus comes to us in the form of bread and wine, but the same fundamentalists that rail on us for that belief turn around and say Jesus comes to us in the form of a book.

[xenia]

You know, that thread may bear some good fruit yet. Some of the Bible=Jesus lurkers may start wondering and thinking. Chances are they never thought this out thoroughly. When they think "Word of God" they probably don't really know what they mean- Jesus? The Bible? Their thoughts are probably muddled, just as mine were when I was a fundamentalist. So, they may do some serious thinking and this is good.

[MariaRegina]

You know, that thread may bear some good fruit yet. Some of the Bible=Jesus lurkers may start wondering and thinking. Chances are they never thought this out thoroughly. When they think "Word of God" they probably don't really know what they mean- Jesus? The Bible? Their thoughts are probably muddled, just as mine were when I was a fundamentalist. So, they may do some serious thinking and this is good.

Dear Xenia,

Did you celebrate Chrismas when you were a fundamentalist?

I mean, did you really believe in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ?

I"ve heard some converts say that they never really thought of Christ becoming Man as God in the flesh. They thought of Christ as a man - much like Arius did.

[xenia]

Did you celebrate Chrismas when you were a fundamentalist?

Yes, I did, and I did really believe in the Incarnation.

I was always taught that Jesus is the Word and in some way, the Word is the Bible. I never thought it through until I started doubting Sola Scriptura a few years ago. When I began to doubt Sola Scriptura, I started noticing the confusion over the phrase "Word of God." I never thought Jesus equaled the Bible per se although I know people who do.

[katherine2001]

I was a fundy for a couple of years. Yes, all I knew celebrated Christmas. We believed in the Incarnation. However, I do think that most evangelicals don't understand all the implications of the Incarnation. For instance, since the Son took on a human body, then we can depict Him (as in icons). I don't understand their arguments against icons, if they can take photographs of their families and friends (aren't those graven images according to their definition)? Also, many of them have paintings of Christ in their churches or pictures of Christ in their Sunday School materials. I know this as I taught Sunday School for 9 and 10 year olds. I also don't think they understand that Christ inheritied His human nature from His mother--they think God just used her womb, but she had nothing to do with His genetic makeup.

[Reader Nilus]

I was a fundy for a couple of years. Yes, all I knew celebrated Christmas. We believed in the Incarnation. However, I do think that most evangelicals don't understand all the implications of the Incarnation. For instance, since the Son took on a human body, then we can depict Him (as in icons). I don't understand their arguments against icons, if they can take photographs of their families and friends (aren't those graven images according to their definition)? Also, many of them have paintings of Christ in their churches or pictures of Christ in their Sunday School materials. I know this as I taught Sunday School for 9 and 10 year olds. I also don't think they understand that Christ inheritied His human nature from His mother--they think God just used her womb, but she had nothing to do with His genetic makeup.There is a fantastic book, unfortunately out of print by Anthony Ugolnik called The Illuminating Icon which describes the differences in thought patterns between Eastern and Western Christians. He writes about the movie Martin Luther the Irving Pichel one of 1953 and the Anatoli Solonitsyn movie of St Andrie Rublev. The image for us who grew up protestant is the one where Luther unchains the Bible. We also learned where Blessed Augustine heard "take and read." For protestants the book is the center of consciousness, where for us it is not. That was the thing that struck me most about the Orthodox Church when I first started going to it, the sermons were not the main part of the service, and it was almost was if there were none, no one would have missed it.
Jeff the Finn

[elizabethevangeline]

Katherine, what is ironic is that I think we evangelicals use the James verse about 'confessing our sins to one another' to encourage small group "sharing our struggles" as we try to figure out how to build "community" and "authenticity". Because we don't have the Eucharist as the real body and blood of Christ, we don't have the same concept or understanding of how the church is the body of Christ. I've only a glimmer of understanding but it's enough to convince me...