Did Jesus call scripture the word of God?

Great Debates
1

I was discussing Jesus, and scripture, with a lady, and she was surprised that the Bible didn’t tell of any time Jesus refered to the scriptures as the Word of God. In my remembering of reading, Jesus mentioned that Scriptures were good for use in teaching but not that they were the Word of God.
The New Testement was not yet written, or gathered until 325 years after Jesus death; the various writings were then gathered when at the council of Nicaea it was decided to have one system of beliefs,so then many writings were not used, such as the writings of Thomas( the Apostle who was to have stuck his fingers in the wounds of Jesus).

Does any one have a time when Jesus mentioned Scriptures as being the Word of God?

Monavis

2

I am not a bible scholar [though oddly enough, my mother sort of was …she went to a baptist university back in the 40s and had to do a lot of biblical studies even though her degree was speach therapy, which came in very useful as a sunday school teacher]

From what I can remember of reading the new testament, and it has been a few years since i revisited it … Jesus never actually used any of the scriptures per se He did a combination of Plato [with his parables] and Socrates [well, what do you do if the tax colelctor comes around? You render unto Caesar…]

It was other people who collected his parables and question/answer situations and wrote commentary on those as well as adding apocryphical stories of his youth and unseen ministry.

Personally, if I was actively christian and running a church, I would probably strip the bible down to the parables, and the socratic bits adding enough of the mosaic laws that make sense in the modern world and cover the rest so people can make their own choices as to how archaic they want to be [dietarily speaking], and ignore most of the commentary. The commentary isnt the word of Jesus [or god] but of men. Flawed, and well meaning, but men nonetheless.

I have one of the bibles that has the words directly ascribed to Jesus in red, and randomly flipping through, there ain’t much red.

3

I don’t know of one from memory and couldn’t find one searching online. Several New Testament books make such claims, but these claims are in the epistles, not the gospels. A passage that is often quoted is 2 Timothy 3:16, available here

4

Of course, to Jesus, “the scriptures” would have been what Christians today call the Old Testament. Presumably, Jesus had the same attitude toward it that other Jews of his day had.

Jesus refers to the “word of God” in Matthew 15:6, referring to God’s commandments in the Old Testament (see verses 1-9 for context). This passage also contains one of several examples of Jesus quoting from (what we would call) the Old Testament.

5

Jesus also quotes from the Old Testament during his tempting in the wilderness (Matthew 4:4, 7 and 10).

6

[ nitpick ] (Because the same error gets repeated in multiple posts.)

The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with “gathering” what became the New Testament. The Muratorian Canon, which contains almost exactly the works now read by all major Christian denominations, was extant by around 176 C.E.–143 years after the traditional death of Jesus–and to have been collected by that point, there had to have been earlier minor collections. (Indeed, one prompt for the various intermediate canons was the creation of a “canon” by Marcinion around 150 that tried to eliminate any books with “Jewish” influence.)

This is not to claim that the New Testament miraculously appeared just a few years after Jesus’s departure or that there was no political discussion regarding the recognition of the canon, but the notion that there were dozens or hundreds of free-floating “Christian” works for hundreds of years that were all suddenly separated into “good” and “bad” at Nicaea is incorrect.

[ /nitpick ]

7

Interesting. I noticed you used the term almost Iwonder how writings changed as they were copied and passed on. I also wonder about the Gnostic gospels and writings that were burned during the persecution of the Gnostics.

8

The Muratorian document (named for its more modern discoverer, not its author) has lost the beginning pages, and begins with a final line about a Gospel, usually reckoned as Mark’s Gospel, since it goes on to describe Luke’s Gospel as the “third” one. It then addresses John’s Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline letters I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Collossians, Galatians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, Romans, Philemon, Titus, I Timothy, II Timothy, the Epistles of Jude, two letters by John, and the Revelations of John and Peter, with a note that that of Peter should not be read at the liturgy. It also addresses two letters that it says were falsely attributed to Paul, (one of which we know about from other sources). Missing from our current canon, (aside from the presumed Gospels of Matthew and Mark), are the letters of Jude, James, both those of Peter, and possibly one of John’s (there is specualtion that it was treated as a preface to the Gospel, since it is quoted there), and the letter to the Hebrews. (It also makes a plea for the legitimacy of (apparently) the deutero-canonical/apocryphal book Wisdom, although the reasoning behind its inclusion is unclear.)
Several works that are condemned appear to be those associated with Marcion.

This does not “prove” anything regarding what “should” be in the canon. However, it does establish that the movement toward a canon began much earlier than the fourth century. Interestingly, for all the hand-waving about the Gnostics that we see today, none of the books condemned in the Muratorian document are recognizably Gnostic. Now, this does not “prove” anything, either. The document could have been written at a time and place where Gnosticism was not a prevalent trend and so the author may have made no effort to refute those beliefs. Since the document appears to be missing its ending as well as its beginning, it is also possible that other works (such as Gnostic efforts) may have been addressed (for good or ill) in the missing sections–as could the letters of James, Jude, and Peter or the letter to the Hebrews.

I am making no assertion that the “right” books were picked to be the final canon. I am simply trying to correct the notion that keeps appearing on this board that there was a large body of equally acceptable writings for hundreds of years that were suddenly filtered into a mere 27 books by a bunch of fourth century politicians. The process was more considered than that and it began much sooner than that.

(The concern about writings changing in time are also a bit overstated. Some changes probably did occur, but we have Greek variants that are cross-referenced to ancient translations in Syriac, Latin, Coptic and other languages that pretty well support the basic thoughts and organizations of most of the writings. Also, a work in which a really strange turn was given to a passage would tend to be highlighted as erroneous when it (or copies of it) were carried from one place to another where the receiving people already had a copy. Errors and changes have crept into different versions, but they are not monumental changes that turn the meaning of whole passages upside down.)

9

This is slightly tangental, but something I think that often gets overlooked about the idea that scriptures are the word of God. The Bible has an idea for every situation, and when one opens the bible with the intent of hearing the word of God, then the word of God is speaking TO THEM, and not to EVERYONE IN THE WORLD. People take what God tells THEM and tries to apply it all over the place, and that just doesn’t work. I’ve read many books that claim to be the Word of God. I go by a certain amount of resonance, when it has a really deep resonance as the Bible or Koran do, then I know there is something there. Sometimes I try to read the bible based upon some intellectual curiousity and it says much less to me than when I let the spirit guide me to a particular place.

I don’t know what Christ’s opinion on scripture was, but I feel that ALL written words are Godly, and I have seen the word of God written in movie posters, and in commercials and other mass media. However, I think that it’s oftentimes overlooked that no one had bookshelves full of words, or access to an internet that’s filled with information, they rarely had access to books, and if they had access to books most commonly it was scripture, so we’ve spent all this time limiting ourselves to 2000 year old “scriptures” without thinking that those sorts of commandments might have originally been a reverence for the written word which was first and foremost the purview of the priests.

Erek

10

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
[ nitpick ] (Because the same error gets repeated in multiple posts.)
The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with “gathering” what became the New Testament. The Muratorian Canon, which contains almost exactly the works now read by all major Christian denominations, was extant by around 176 C.E.–143 years after the traditional death of Jesus–and to have been collected by that point, there had to have been earlier minor collections. (Indeed, one prompt for the various intermediate canons was the creation of a “canon” by Marcinion around 150 that tried to eliminate any books with “Jewish” influence.)

This is not to claim that the New Testament miraculously appeared just a few years after Jesus’s departure or that there was no political discussion regarding the recognition of the canon, but the notion that there were dozens or hundreds of free-floating “Christian” works for hundreds of years that were all suddenly separated into “good” and “bad” at Nicaea is incorrect.

The new Testement was hand written and it was at the council of Nicaea that decided which books were the word of God and what was not. There were many writings and teachings and it was decided after Constantine that the early church fathers decided what was God’s word and what was not. There were very few copies of the Bible because the Monks worked slowly and decorated them also, until the invention of the printing press even the clerics had little access to the Bible.

Monavis

11

In reference to Crotalus, It was Paul, not Jesus, that called Scripture inspired by God.

Thudlow Boink, and Twin; I found no reference of Jesus saying scripture was the word of God, he does mention that what comes out of the mouth of God etc. But doesn’t infer that it is scripture.

I have never read where Jesus stated one should read Scripture(yes, I understand it was then considered the Old Testement and still is)but it seems to me, although he read the Scripture in the Temple, he made very little reference to it, he did call attention to traditions of the Pharisees and berated them for not keeping them. Most of Jesus teachings were for men to correct their own behavior and be kind,loving etc. and not be judgmental to their fellow man. He did warn of people who gave him lip service and that many would come in his name, but not to believe them.

Monavis

12

There are varying opinions of what “God breathed” means. To some it does mean the inerrant word of God. I can’t go along with that. I can believe that those seeking the truth might be influenced by the Holy Spirit. They would also be influnced by their own opinions and culture which seems obvious when reading the NT.
There’s also a question of “all scripture” Are they talking about just the OT? If you include the NT wouldn’t you expect to include the other writings spoken of in the NT?

There is no evidence in the what most Christians regard as scripture that it was ever God’s plan that the church have these particular writings collected together as the final authoritive collection of scripture. That seems to be a Christian tradition that is accepted as “truth”

13

This is interesting. Some translations say word of God while others use the term commandments. Either way it does appear that Christ was giving credibility to the OT. Perhaps it was his Jewish audience that prompted him to make that point. I know when I’m talking to people who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God my conversation is different than with those who don’t believe it.

14

Then what would you call his words in Mat 15:6? My own beliefs are that Jesus advocated communion with God through the Holy Spirit as the prime source of our spiritual direction and not any writings. here in John 5:38

I think the word he refers to in verse 38 is the living word or the Holy Spirit. He is plainly saying that reading the scriptures doesn’t cut it if you are not transformed from within.
In the KJV it doesn’t say “You search the scriptures” It’s more in the way of giving direction, “Search the scriptures” that one word changes the meaning of the passage. In the KJV it appears that Jesus is advocating and recommending searching the scriptures. I other versions he is merely recognizing that people do study the scriptures but are unwilling to invite the Holy Spirit into their hearts. A rather significant difference.

15

I think that would be foolish. Only a madman would advocate throwing out all the wrenches, screwdrivers, and pliers because he himself only uses hammers.

Also, It’s an open invitation to misreading. God’s works are never obvious nor open. How could they be, when he is so much greater than we? There are layers enough to his work that no one man should think he has a portion f the truth just because he read it. The opi ions of theologians et all may be wrong, but they have a validity because they are trying to create a deeper understanding of god not limited to the mere passing fancies of individuals. God transcends the mind of any one man, and so should our understanding of Him.

:dubious:

The idea of communicating well may be Godly. And God may be in all kinds of media, too. But not all media is Godly, written or no. I have seen many works which were wastes of paper, and I do not say that because they were unpleasant to read or not to my taste. Some books are simply bad, and should never have been written. They hurt people, sometimes deeply.

A book can be a stone on which one builds, along with others, a grand palace to reach heaven. It can also be forged into a weapon.

16

Actually, it probably wasn’t even Paul. Most scholars believe that 2 Timothy (along with the other Pastorals) are pseudoepigraphical works, not authentic letters of Paul.

And as Thudlow Boink said, “scripture” would only have included the Hebrew Bible at that time. There was no NT yet.

The Greek says ton logon tou theou, “the word of God.” Since he was referring to Mosaic law, though, it may not necessarily be the case that he regarded the entire Tanakh as containing the same level as divine authority as the Law. For what it’s worth. the word logos can also mean “decree,” “order,” “mandate,” or “command.” so referring to Mosaic law as being “God’s mandate,” or “God’s commandments” is not precisely the same thing as pronouncing all Hebrew scripture to be the literal word of God. I’m not arguing the case either way, just offereing something to think about.

17

Repeating this claim does not make it true. In fact, The Council of Nicaea did not addreess the canonical claims of any book. Nicaea was called to hammer out the doctrine of the church (in a form that has been condensed into the Nicene Creed). However, the canon of Scripture was already pretty solidly accepted long before Nicaea. (In fact, if you want an official pronouncement regarding the canon, you have to wait until the later Council of Rome in 382. At that time the gathered bishops formally confirmed the process of selection that had begun as early as Marcion with results quite close to those they eventually selected from the time of the Muratorian document.) Here is the document produced by the Council of Nicaea, feel free to point out every reference to the selection of a canon or every list of scriptural works within it. (Note that the word “canon” appears throughout the document to identify the specific religious rules the council enumerated, but is used in the sense of “religious rule” without any reference to Scripture. This may be the source of the frequent errors made regarding the actions of the bishops at that council.)

In other words, the bishops at Nicaea were working with an understanding of what they would deem Scripture, an understanding that was not even formally confirmed (at least for the Western Church) for another 57 years. The Council of Nicaea did not assert any book to be Scripture and they did not reject any book as Scripture, and the claim that the canon was “created” at Nicaea is the sort of free-floating error I expect to find in a Chick Tract, not repeated on the Straight Dope.

18

When Tatian (110 - 180) created the Diatessaron, it appears that he relied exclusively on the four gospels with which we are familiar, lending weight to the idea that some portion of the church recognized all and only those four gospels before 200.

The Muratorion list was described earlier.

Irenaeus, who died around 200, referred to the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the thirteen lettters of Paul. He also included the Shepherd of Hermas, a book that was later excluded.

Tertullian, during the ten years (197 - 207) he was with what became the mainstream church, provided lists that included the four gospels, Acts, Revelation, I John, I Peter, and Jude. He mentions the letter to the Hebrews as respected but not of the same calibre as the other works. Early in his writings he champions Hermas, but later set that aside.

Clement of Alexandria, (died ca. 215), includes the four Gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul and Hebrews, and Revelation. He also discusses, although it is unclear that he considered all of them scripture, I Peter, I John, Jude, a letter of Barnabas, the Revelation of Peter, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Gospel of the Egyptians.

So, before 220, we have testimony of several lists of books, several of which were not later accepted as scripture, but the core of what became the New Testament is already being organized over 100 years prior to Nicaea.

By 250, Origen was already producing a list of what he deemed others in the church had accepted. He noted that different works were treated as scripture in different places, but compiled a list that included: 1) the four gospels, Acts, the thirteen letters of Paul, I peter, I John, and Revelation as held to be scripture by everyone; 2) II Peter, II John, III John, Hebrews, James, Jude, Barnabas, and held by many, but doubted by some (with Hermas and the Didache revered but not part of his canon; and 3) the gopels of Thomas, Matthias, Basilides, and the Egyptians being not recognized as scripture.

Other lists compiled in the same period show different entries, but it is clear that a core (if not-yet-official) canon was already being hammered out well in advance of the Council of Rome (since we can ignore irrelevant comments about Nicaea).

19

Thank you, tomndebb. “The council of Nicea decided which books would be included in the New Testament [and which would be exluded]” has always been a pet peeve of mine.

20

In response to the OP: I meant to point out that Jesus may have never referred to scripture (the OT) as being the Word of God. However, scripture (the NT) clearly referred to Jesus as the Word of God (John chapter 1).