How did early Christians reconcile divinity of the bible with it's human authors?

Several of the books of the bible are named for the people (e.g. John, Paul, etc.) on whose writings that book is based, or even written by that person. Also, we know that the books of the bible were decided upon at a meeting* of senior clergymen.

How did Christians reconcile this as “the word of god” when so much of it was written, edited, and/or compiled by mortal humans?

  • more likely a series of meetings and written exchanges over several years.

There was and is nothing to reconcile in that regard.

The Bible has no “divinity” as it is not alive, but an inanimate object.

Just because something may be the “Word of God”, does not mean it can’t be human in composition.

How else would God communicate to humans but through other humans?

“divinely inspired”

If the question is “How did early Christians reconcile the divine inspiration of the bible with it’s human authors?”

Then again I would say, there’s really nothing to reconcile.

How do you think divine inspiration works? It involves God (the divine), inspiring a human to some work.

Not commenting on veracity of the statements, but the Bible itself gives believers a reason to accept divine origin of scripture at 1 Thess 2:14, 2 Tim 3:16, and 2 Peter 1:21

This is true, but those references do not state what Scripture is, and in fact were all written before the Bible was definitively compiled and defined.

It’s all well and good to say that Scripture is divinely inspired; but how does one know what Scripture is, since there are many competing and contradicting claims?

This belongs in Great Debates. Reported for Forum change.

Here’s my explanation. (1) People make shit up (2) People believe the shit that people make up (3) Repeat.

I get the impression that the OP is thinking of the Christian Bible the way Muslims think of the Quran, as having been dictated/revealed directly by God.

Yes. What you seem to be thinking is how did some books become canon? Both questions are interesting. There have been several hundred years of debate on both, too. Enjoy!
.

That was my impression, too.

That view of the Bible is not traditionally Christian.

Yes, particularly 2 Timothy 4:13where Paul asks Timothy to bring Paul’s cloak, which the latter had apparently forgotten at Carpus’ house. Somehow I just can’t see that as being the word of God.

But what is the Word of God? What is God?

God is truth.

If someone speaks something that is true, then are they not speaking the word of God?

It is true that Paul left his cloak, and it’s also true that Paul would like it back.

In Christianity, Jesus is God. Therefore, any word he speaks is the Word of God.

Do you think Jesus ever had a conversation with someone else about something menial? When he was working in the carpenter shop with Joseph, do you think he might have said something like “could you hand me that wood planer, please?”

Was every word that Jesus spoke booming, profound, and deep? I think not. The Word of God can be just as much found in the simple as it can in the profound.

(makes popcorn)

Moved to Great Debates.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Okay, maybe I should have left it as “early christians”. Modern christianity considers the bible as a collection of metaphors, lessons, what-have-you, but even just a few centuries ago, (as I understand it), they considered it the literal truth. They were constantly trying to make scientific discoveries match up with the bible (e.g. the pope’s librarian famously wrote an essay saying the rings of Saturn were where Jesus left his foreskin).

Is this a whoosh? I would say any one of probably a billion different ways.
And word of mouth would be one of the least desirable options if I wanted to ensure the message was conveyed accurately and in a way that receivers would have good grounds for believing was divine.

How early? Which Christians? It’s important to take into consideration that the earliest Christians were not a single, coherent group; that very few people at that time were literate; and that both Judaism and early Christianity had a strong oral tradition. There was no consensus, let alone a “meeting of clergy” at that time.

Both Christianity and the Christian (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox before the Schism) canon evolved. To understand the evolution, you’d have to study the time period and the beliefs and views of the the cultures where early Christianity began. (So would I. I find this stuff interesting but am no expert.) One thing that is clear is that early Christians did not interpret the Gospels literally. As Hugh Houghton, Director of Research in Theology and Religion at the U. of Birmingham (UK) put it,

I hope this helps.

There are still many, many, many people who believe the Bible is literally true. And there are still many, many, many people who will willfully disregard empirical evidence that does not conform to their religion.

I, an atheist, speak “the word of God” whenever I say the truth? He gets the credit when I say the right thing?

By “traditionally Christian”, do you mean the majority of all the different sects that consider themselves to be Christian, or just those you consider to be Christian?