Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Let me ask the following: Do you see a difference between the following two statements:
- All authors were inspired by God. ... and
- The authors were inspired by their understanding of God.
-
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!
Deciding what is God inspired
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Haha. I have no right to. What would happen if a did?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Thank you
I.e.
Former: God told me to explicitly write "Thou shall not kill"
Latter: "God inspired Me-to-write 'thou shall not kill' They were My words not His. My expression from His inspiration.
Former...God wrote it using people as vessals for His words.
Later...authors wrote it using their own expressions which were inspired (not given) by God
I see a difference. The former is saying that the inspiration is God's not the authors. The latter is saying the authors inspiration (not God Himself) wrote the Bible.
I.e.
Former: God told me to explicitly write "Thou shall not kill"
Latter: "God inspired Me-to-write 'thou shall not kill' They were My words not His. My expression from His inspiration.
Former...God wrote it using people as vessals for His words.
Later...authors wrote it using their own expressions which were inspired (not given) by God
And you are claiming that the former is true for all authors, i.e., all scripture exists because "God wrote it using people as vessals for His words"?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I dont believe in God. So, Im stating not claiming what others believe about their inspired scriptures.
What I know of God inspired statements is that God literally spoke to Torah and Biblical authors and from God not themselves they have wrote what God dictated. Since this is their belief, who gives authority to choose what books inspired from God (written by God) and which books are not?
What I know of God inspired statements is that God literally spoke to Torah and Biblical authors and from God not themselves they have wrote what God dictated. Since this is their belief, who gives authority to choose what books inspired from God (written by God) and which books are not?
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
The scriptural idea is that people were moved to put God's thoughts in writing. This was not always a direct transmission of what God literally said to them. Sometimes yes. But not always.
The Good News According to Luke is set as a compilation of eyewitness accounts. (Luke 1:1-4) The Chronicles mentions within itself 20 different sources - some secular. This compilation is generally recognized as being done by the Jewish priest Ezra. What makes these inspired is that God moved these men to compile these accounts with accuracy and to include the things we would need to build on our faith and our hope.
"For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction, so that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope."
- Romans 15:4
"Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the system of things have come."
- 1 Corinthians 10:11
"All Scriptures is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."
- 1 Timothy 3:16,17
"So we have the prophetic word made more sure, and you are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place (until day dawns and a daystar rises) in your hearts."
- 2 Peter 1:19
Nothing !!!! Preachers do it all the time. Just watch them on TV and go listen to them in their churches.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
That leads me back to the OP, who has the authority to chose what books are inspired by God?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
So why the question?
Sorry, but to whom is this question directed?
If you don't no one does. The authors are dead and gone, nobody gets a spanking for using the words or changing the words in the bible. Anyone can start their own cult using the words from the Bible. Just get a bunch of people to believe what you are selling them.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Oos. That was meant for Awoon. I asked whyd he think Im religiously afraid to answer the question. (25)
I think the notion that a divine entity inspired humans to write certain books is as ridiculous as it is harmful, and I believe it is even more ridiculous when said entity is assumed to be omniscient and omnipotent.
roger1440
I do stuff
Would you prefer "said entity" in one place like hiding under you bed?
I don't really "prefer" anything when it comes to supernatural entities, since I don't believe that they exist in the first place.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
Without pretending to demonstrate in some perfectly neutral and objective way the "correctness" of this approach, which I don't think is possible, the eastern orthodox view is a little different from the way questions about biblical authority and inspiration are usually presented, and I think somewhat more tenable, so I'd like to mention it because I think it might be interesting.
As far as authority, eastern orthodoxy doesn't view it in terms of ascertaining that some books are "inspired" and some are not, such that inspiration is the criteria determining what is scripture. Instead, the authority that determines a canon of scripture is that of the Christian church as a whole, historically exercised through ecumenical councils, although the means are secondary, a practical matter. Ideally, the church as a whole, as a body, has the authority to select what books it recognizes as scripture for itself, because the church predates the texts. In the early Christian church, the criteria the church used to determine books of scripture, speaking generally and ignoring a lot of details, was that of apostolic authority. In other words, they believed that certain texts were more closely associated with apostles, or held more closely with the views of the apostles, and authority derived from that source, because the apostles were appointed by Christ. We know now (or at least greatly suspect) that some of the "apostolic authors" of texts were really pseudopigraphic, but it's still useful to understand the means that the early church used, and allowing for some fuzziness between apostolic authorship and merely apostolic tradition, it's at least coherent.
As far as "inspiration", as Christians used it, it comes from 2 Timothy, and as you said, eastern orthodoxy views the authors of biblical texts as being inspired, that is: filled with the Spirit. Your phrasing, which distinguishes between an author being inspired rather than a text, is important, I think, because it makes it easier to be more nuanced about questions of "infallibility" and error and all of that in a reasonable way. In any case, from the eastern orthodox perspective, the church may recognize inspiration in many lives (c.f. the lives and writings of saints), but it does not decide in some final way what is inspired, and inspiration was not the criteria for choosing a canon.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I read your full post. Thank you. I have a mixture of thoughts on the issue. Forgive my biblical history ignorance. From the Roman Catholic Church, I learned similar to what you said. I recieve the impression from them that the pope can dictate if there is any other scripture that can be added given they believe he speaks for peter and peter for Christ. Basically, when the pope speaks (cant think of the word) for Christ, He is in a way inspired as those in the Bible? Would that be in the same category in your knowledge of Roman Catholic tradition.
The other part is some protestant churches positions where God wrote the Bible and humans were just vessels for Gods Word. Similar to the mindset of saying "Mary is just a vessel and nothing more" type of thing.
The other part is some protestant churches positions where God wrote the Bible and humans were just vessels for Gods Word. Similar to the mindset of saying "Mary is just a vessel and nothing more" type of thing.
Given the protestant view, I always thought inspiration was a criteria. The differing views makes the bible somewhat inaccurate to someone outside the faith.
Even with authority; if we're speaking about any religions with a lot of text, we've to first establish a basis of identity....So for instance establish what was the original teachers theology, then question everything else against it.
So:
- The Hua Hu Ching Isn't By Lao Tzu, when compared to the Tao Te Ching.
- The Gospel of John isn't the words of Yeshua, when compared to the synoptic gospels.
- Paul blatantly contradicts Yeshua on well over 36 points, when compared.
- The Hadiths have lots of commentary, that doesn't necessarily fit with the Quran's original intents.
- Pharisee Oral tradition, doesn't go back to Moses (as claimed); and does away with the Torah, when fully considered.
- ....
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
You're thinking of the term "ex cathedra". I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure that the catholic church would consider papal statements made ex cathedra to have the same sort of authority as scripture, although they assert that in some sense they are infallible. Papal authority is a point of contention between eastern orthodoxy and the roman church, the EO tradition doesn't have any concept like ex cathedra, and wouldn't consider it possible for a single person to change the canon of scripture, although I think even in the roman church that is very unlikely that a Pope could do so effectively without consent from the church.
So in response to the Christian/Pharisaic idea of (apostolic) succession; this is where a lot of the errors in this world come from... It is like assigning kings by lineage, and not by God's divine plan.
Using the churches own ideology, to help create and choose which books match its own belief....Clearly has issues with it, from the offset.
The problem is more when God has sent real prophets to correct things, since the canonization, or since 'prophecy ended with Malachi, and no other books could be added to the Jewish cannon'.... What happens when someone with real authority, really comes along?
Passing down Chinese whispers, from people with no first hand experience; has led to many religions facing away from the destination they're all talking about.
Using the churches own ideology, to help create and choose which books match its own belief....Clearly has issues with it, from the offset.
The problem is more when God has sent real prophets to correct things, since the canonization, or since 'prophecy ended with Malachi, and no other books could be added to the Jewish cannon'.... What happens when someone with real authority, really comes along?
Passing down Chinese whispers, from people with no first hand experience; has led to many religions facing away from the destination they're all talking about.