Karma reasons for concrete message




    Posts: 5042
  • Darwins +1075/-10

Yeah good question sorry for the use of term that is commonly used among Christians but that I failed to give a definition for.  I think the common thread would be that, through God's direction (which in some cases was more direct than others), "inspired" scripture is written material that God intended to be seen as His very Word.
Why would there be some instances of 'more direct' vs 'less direct'?  If it is intended to be his very word, why not be as direct as possible in all cases?

That just seems like a poor choice for someone interested in communicating his very word.

Why do Christians believe in it?  There are references in the Bible for it such as 2 Timothy 3:16, Psalm 119:9-16, and instances when Jesus asserts that scripture is God's direct word such as Matthew 22:31-32 (among others).
That doesn't seem a bit circular to you at all?

How does God bring about inspired scripture?  It differs from case to case.  Genesis-Deuteronomy was passed on to Moses who heard directly from God, as on Mt. Sinai.  Many of the Psalms were written by David who was anointed by God as king and continued to follow God faithfully (overall), and many Proverbs were written by Solomon who was given a inordinate amount of wisdom from God, so these writings are seen to be divine for those reasons.
Wouldn't that mean that the words attributed to Moses are more likely to match god's very word (as those words are apparently directly from god) than the writings in Psalms or Proverbs (as those words apparently are not directly from god, but rather, the words of David and Solomon while they were thinking about god)?  Does that imply that, if there is a discrepancy between the message given in Genesis/Deuteronomy vs. the message given in Psalms/Proverbs, we should accept what's in Genesis/Deuteronomy over Psalms/Proverbs?  That those words are much closer to the horse's mouth than the others?

Other prophets (Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, John writing Revelation, etc) saw visions and were told what to write and what not to write down from the visions.
They were told what to write and what not to write - as in what words to put down or what events from the visions should be written down as god's very word and what events should be dismissed as, like, 'filler material' of a vision?  What would have been the point of the 'filler material'?  If it's material that's applicable to the message being given in the vision, I fail to see why they should not have written it down.  If it's material that's not applicable to the message being given in the vision, I fail to see why it was included in the vision.

Or were the visions something not from god, and god was just acting as sort of a translator for the vision?  If that's the case, what's the explanation for these visions?

And the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John claim to have the very words of Jesus, God-incarnate, as well as record His actions.  NT epistles are written by men who were being influenced by the Holy Spirit.
Any details on what 'influence' means in this case?  Visions, directly speaking, or something else entirely?

Finally, while Christians believe the Holy Spirit is still at work today, even speaking to some at times, no more scripture is to be written because of a command in Revelation that says not to add any more to the written Word of God.  That's how I understand it, at least.
This has always been a bit strange to me.  It just sounds like god commanding himself to not add anything more to his own written word.  That seems purposeless.

It doesn't seem strange to you that god, who can and did give his very word through direct communication, who is apparently at least interested in having his very word written down for humanity to see, would choose to not give his very word through direct communication every single time?
Changed Change Reason Date
Disciple of Sagan Your conclusion makes perfect sense May 29, 2014, 12:55:33 PM