The Word of God

[Travis]

Lou recently, as well as in the past, brought up something of importance: mainly that referring to the bible as "the" word of God is wrong.

I want to understand this more fully though. I think I understand what you, (Lou) are saying, in that the Word of God is clearly a person, Jesus Christ himself. Jesus is not a book, and the way some people (myself included at times) regard the bible is actually idolatrous in that they hold these mere words up higher than the author of these words.

So I know who the Word of God is....

But... what is the word of God? I say that because in the scriptures we do have, there are times when it seems the words "word of God," are used to refer to what is written in this book that we have. The phrase, "the word of God" in the scriptures more often than not does not refer to the scriptures when it is used, but sometimes it does, at least it seems to me.

So, would it be accurate to call the scriptures "part of the word of God." Knowing that they aren't "The Word of God," but they still make up a part of what the scriptures refer to as the "word of God?"

Examples:


Matthew 15:6 KJV says: And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
But
Matthew 15:6 NIV says: they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

The Textus Receptus (KJV) actually has the word ἐντολὴν (commandment) but the GNT Morphological by Nestle or whoever (NIV) has λόγον (word) there. It's scary to me that we have two different words for the same verse.... but, is Jesus referring to the scriptures delivered to Moses as the "word of God?"

---

1 Corinthians 14: KJV 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

The words "word" and "commandment" seem to be used almost as synonyms in much of the New Testament, but isn't Paul refering to written words when he says "the word of God," here?

---

Acts 13:44 KJV And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

I don't think Paul and Barnabas just read straight from the scriptures, but expounded and prophesied to them the scriptures... but it is still kind of referring to the written word isn't it?

---

2 Corinthians 4:2 KJV But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Could be something else, but context seems to me like it's talking about the scriptures?

---

I'm just trying to figure out if it is biblically accurate to refer to the bible as the word of God in some sense. The scriptures are surely not the Word of God. But it seems to me the label applies to them at least in some sense or way at times.

:unsure:

Travis

[Travis]

Forgot a very important one:

John 10:35 KJV If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't that a direct comparison between the "word of God" and "the scripture" ?

[Lou Newton]

Jesus is The Word of God

Hi Travis,

Let us look at the SUPREME principle of God. All other laws are far below this law. That is the fact that there is One God and we are to put NOTHING beside Him.

1st - We can look at the name of The Holy Scriptures printed on the outside for hundreds of years - The Bible - which simply means - The Book

2nd - we can look in the book and see this:

John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

And this:

Revelation 19
The Rider on the White Horse
11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

3rd - Now let me ask you this. Would you call anything in the creation, God, or Jesus, or The Word of God.

Obviously the Book is part of His creation and not The Creator. Why would we ever call the Book the same name as The Author. It is OK to call The Bible, The Book written by The Word of God. Is it OK to confuse ANYTHING with The Lord Jesus.

How about the angels of the Word of God, Can we call them, The Word of God.

How about Solomon's temple for the Word of God. Can we call that temple The Word of God.

How about the followers of The Word of God - Is it OK to call us The Word of God - since The Word of God sometimes speaks or acts through us.

NOTHING in all of creation compares to The Creator who is The Lord Jesus.

There are many verses that one could be confused by in The Bible about this subject. We can look at those verses.

But before we even start, we should be able to see that NOTHING compares to The Lord Jesus, and NOTHING deserves the same title as He does.

If we are not standing on that firm foundation, we have little chance of finding Truth.

Certainly no one is foolish enough to think that The Book shed blood for them, or that it can save, or that it can heal, or that it can love them.

Then why would we ever think that paper and ink can speak. It is The Lord Jesus that speaks to us while we are reading The Book.

Why did the Jews not recognize Christ. They studied The Book DILIGENTLY. We know this because Jesus said they did.

One of the very serious errors of the Jews was that they looked to The Book rather than the Author of The Book. They had no problem recognizing the Scriptures when Jesus quoted them. But they could not recognize the very One who was The Author. They went to destruction over this error.

They should have remembered what was written in The Book. To worship no other than God Almighty.

The sons of Eli made a similar mistake. They worshipped the ark, instead of the One who told them to make the ark. They marched out against the enemy carrying their god and they all died that day.

Certainly we know that above all, THERE IS BUT ONE GOD AND WE ARE TO WORSHIP NOTHING BUT HIM.

Satan's works to get us all to demote The Lord Jesus is some little way. But of course there is no little way to demote The Creator of everything that exists. For in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. A child can see then that Jesus is that God.

ALL OF The CULTS HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON - they demote The Lord Jesus in some way.

JW - Claim that Jesus is The Son of God, but NOT God Almighty

Mormon - Claim that Jesus is the good brother of evil Satan

RC - They claim that Jesus is the lessor God and that His Father and Mother ( Mary) are greater Gods.

I have had preachers claim that Jesus is the words that came from the very lips of God. This is to demote Jesus to mere words. Jesus is not part of God, but fully God in every way.

To demote Jesus to a Book, even His Book, is the same kind of error.

Isaiah 9
9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Much of the church that professes to be Christian demotes Jesus to a lessor God that the Father. When there is but one God. Once they demote Jesus, then it is a small step to go a little further and also promote The Book to the same as Jesus.

Isaiah 43
10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior

The wise men of the East studied the stars and were able to see that The Christ would be born in Jerusalem and when he would be born.

BUT they did not make the mistake thinking that the stars could speck or act in any way. They correctly seen that God spoke through the stars.

The Book can not speak, but The Lord Jesus can speak through the Book.

The two things are as different as night and day.

Grace to you
Lou Newton
Bond servant of Jesus

[Travis]

Now let me ask you this. Would you call anything in the creation, God, or Jesus, or The Word of God.

Obviously the Book is part of His creation and not The Creator. Why would we ever call the Book the same name as The Author. It is OK to call The Bible, The Book written by The Word of God. Is it OK to confuse ANYTHING with The Lord Jesus.

How about the angels of the Word of God, Can we call them, The Word of God.

How about Solomon's temple for the Word of God. Can we call that temple The Word of God.

How about the followers of The Word of God - Is it OK to call us The Word of God - since The Word of God sometimes speaks or acts through us.

NOTHING in all of creation compares to The Creator who is The Lord Jesus.

Thank you for posting this Lou,

Jesus is unequivocally and infinitely more then anything written on a piece of paper. No doubt about that.

The Word of God is definitely one of the many titles that Jesus holds. He is the Word of God.

If the scriptures, which were divinely inspired, were always clearly referencing the exact person, Jesus Christ, whenever they used the phrase "word of God," then I would not even be bringing this point up. But there seems to be places where the scriptures compare the written word with the phrase "word of God."

Jesus speaks and reveals himself to me more clearly and frequently through these written scriptures than he does any old book I pick up off the shelf. There is something more special about these words put together into a book than all the other words in all the other books I have ever seen. Now, without the Spirit of God using these words to speak to people, they are of course of no value. It is the Spirit of God which gives them value. Apart from him, they are not in any way helpful. So yes, to hold them above Him, is backwards and idolatrous.

But, can we refer to the scriptures, with the right understanding, and call them the word of God without being in error?


God has many titles, so lets look at another one for example. God is our Father, and in Matthew 23 Jesus says this:

Matthew 23:9 KJV
And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Isn't God the only one deserving of the title "Father." I mean he created everything that exists in this time and space we live in. Who else is deserving of that title.

Yet, we can see places where the apostle Paul refers to other younger believers as sons, and implies that he is their father. That would seemingly contradict what Matthew records Jesus as saying wouldn't it?

1 Corinthians 4 NIV
14 I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. 15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

But that can't be so, Paul must have understood something more than what's on the surface here. God is the only Father there is. But, I don't think he is upset about Paul referring to himself as a father to these other believers, knowing full well that Paul and the rest of them all have one Father. Jesus is everything there is to be which makes up the Word of God. In every sense, he fills that role to it's fullest. But, can we also refer to some words he gave to men to speak forth and write down as the word of God as well. They are not the fullness of the title by any means. Only a person, Jesus Christ can be so. Can they not share a similar title though, if the scriptures indeed indicate they do? There is one Father, but one call can another father. There is one Spirit, but there are many spirits. There is most definitely only one Word of God, but can there also be a "word of God?" Maybe it's how we use the words more than the words themselves? I could be missing something though...

I can clearly see that Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus is clearly the Author of the scriptures. Jesus is clearly much much more than Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words written on some form of paper, let alone our modern language translations.

But what isn't so clear to me, is how the scriptures use the phrase, "word of God." I think there may be room to use the phrase "word of God," in reference to the scriptures which God inspired and not be in error about it. If the scriptures don't give any room for this, then I want to know that as well. I don't want to use the term "word of God," in reference to the scriptures and be in error if this is the case.

Grace to you,

Travis

[Lou Newton]

Hi Travis,

I just wanted to lay the foundation of anything we quote.

We know that any stones laid upon the foundation has to agree with that foundation.

We can not start out thinking that the cap stone disagrees with the foundation stone.

We have to interpret the scriptures always considering the foundation that the whole book is laid upon.

It is 1:05 AM here, so I will try to sleep now. I will address this tomorrow.

If I can not sleep I might do this yet tonight.

BUT even if we can not see how these scriptures do not agree, we know they must. and so I always wait upon The Lord, and just consider myself unable to understand at the time, instead of saying the foundation is wrong.

I called my earthly father, Dad. Or referred to him as my earthly father. But I refuse to call any other man, father. I have had RC priests get livid with me over this.

I have been a spiritual father to some young men. But I do not permit them to call me, father. Others choose what they want to do, but as for me, I call no man father, except The Lord. Now I may call my earthly father, in some context, which makes it obvious and it is understood that he is not my heavenly Father. But I think it is preferred to call no man the same as I address my Heavenly Father.

I do not want to dishonor my earthly father, by giving some other man an equal name as him. That does not honor him.

I also do not want to dishonor my heavenly Father by giving anyone the same title as I use for Him.

Lou

[The Knight]

I've always considered it both. Capital "W" is Christ, lowercase "W" is the Bible.

I still call the Bible the word of God, though. If nothing else, because of habit.

[Lou Newton]

I wrote that I would try to write a response today. But I was called away all day for a friend who needed help fixing his car. I did not get home until just now and I need to shower before going to bed.

Tomorrow I need to go back and help finish the car.

Lou

[Blane]

I wrote that I would try to write a response today. But I was called away all day for a friend who needed help fixing his car. I did not get home until just now and I need to shower before going to bed.

Tomorrow I need to go back and help finish the car.

Lou

Lou, your friend is blessed to have a friend like you.

Peace,

Blane

[Lou Newton]

I've always considered it both. Capital "W" is Christ, lowercase "W" is the Bible.

I still call the Bible the word of God, though. If nothing else, because of habit.

Hi Karl,

Let me ask you, did you read my post #3 and # 5.

Did you read them carefully and then pray about them.

If you did the above, then you are saying they are not valid, or true.

What statements that I made in the two posts are not valid, or true.

Or are you saying, even though these statements are true, you are going to ignore the truth.

Awaiting your reply dear friend.

Lou

[Lou Newton]

Lou recently, as well as in the past, brought up something of importance: mainly that referring to the bible as "the" word of God is wrong.

I want to understand this more fully though. I think I understand what you, (Lou) are saying, in that the Word of God is clearly a person, Jesus Christ himself. Jesus is not a book, and the way some people (myself included at times) regard the bible is actually idolatrous in that they hold these mere words up higher than the author of these words.

So I know who the Word of God is....

But... what is the word of God? I say that because in the scriptures we do have, there are times when it seems the words "word of God," are used to refer to what is written in this book that we have. The phrase, "the word of God" in the scriptures more often than not does not refer to the scriptures when it is used, but sometimes it does, at least it seems to me.

So, would it be accurate to call the scriptures "part of the word of God." Knowing that they aren't "The Word of God," but they still make up a part of what the scriptures refer to as the "word of God?"

Examples:


Matthew 15:6 KJV says: And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
But
Matthew 15:6 NIV says: they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

The Textus Receptus (KJV) actually has the word ἐντολὴν (commandment) but the GNT Morphological by Nestle or whoever (NIV) has λόγον (word) there. It's scary to me that we have two different words for the same verse.... but, is Jesus referring to the scriptures delivered to Moses as the "word of God?"

---

1 Corinthians 14: KJV 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

The words "word" and "commandment" seem to be used almost as synonyms in much of the New Testament, but isn't Paul refering to written words when he says "the word of God," here?

---

Acts 13:44 KJV And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

I don't think Paul and Barnabas just read straight from the scriptures, but expounded and prophesied to them the scriptures... but it is still kind of referring to the written word isn't it?

---

2 Corinthians 4:2 KJV But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Could be something else, but context seems to me like it's talking about the scriptures?

---

I'm just trying to figure out if it is biblically accurate to refer to the bible as the word of God in some sense. The scriptures are surely not the Word of God. But it seems to me the label applies to them at least in some sense or way at times.

:unsure:

Travis

Hi Travis,

As I have pointed out in post #3 and post # 5, we need to get our priorities straight first.

Is it OK to call part of the creation, The Creator.

The Scriptures also tell us that it is wrong to worship the creation, or any part of it. To worship is to take any part of creation and look to it, instead of looking to The Creator.

What you are really saying is this. God clearly teaches through The Bible that we are not to look to any part of creation, but we are to ONLY look to The Creator. But in spite of this clear teaching as one of the foundation stones of truth, I think The Bible also teaches that it is OK to do this.

I propose a better way to approach this whole issue is this:

God clearly teaches in The Bible that we are not to look to any part of creation, but instead we are only to look to The Creator. But I find some scriptures confusing for they seem to say different. I must be misunderstanding those scriptures.

NOW, maybe we can clear up that misunderstanding IF we have the proper attitude toward the whole issue.

BUT if we insist that it is possible that God contradicts Himself in The Bible, then of course, how can we see the truth.

Or are you saying that it is OK to look to part of the creation, instead of only looking to The Creator.

One may be able to give a man a fish. But it is far better to show that same man how to catch his own fish.

But one can not show a man how to fish, if he insists that there is no fish in the lake.

To be able to see, any man has to first confess to God that he is blind and can not see. For no man can give another man sight. Sight only comes from the giver of sight, The Lord Jesus.

So if a person agrees with the statements in posts #3 & #5, then don't they need to say I must be looking at these other scriptures wrong.

OR they must not agree with the statements in post #3 & # 5.

So if they agree with the statements in post # 3 and #5, should they ignore the truth.

OR if they disagree with the statements in post # 3 & # 5, would it not be best to state which ones are not true, and why.

UNLESS A FUNDATIONAL TRUTH CAN BE AGREED UPON, IT IS USELESS TO FURTHER ANY ARGUMENT.

THEN ONCE THESE FOUNDATIONAL TRUTHS ARE ESTABLISHED, THEY MUST BE FOLLOWED, OR IT IS USELESS TO FURTHER THE ARGUMENT

( I must point out that all caps are not used by me to indicate shouting, which would be rude. I use them to make these points stand out. )

Example of this:

I try to show JW's the truth when they come to my door.

I try to establish a foundational truth that we both agree is true.

Then show them that that truth does not agree with their doctrine.

But they will continue to ignore that foundational truth and bring up more scriptures to back up their doctrine.

But I keep insisting that they agreed that the foundational truth was true, and either it is not true, or their doctrine is wrong. Which is it ?

They then do either one of several things:

They refuse to consider the foundational truth and keep bringing up more scriptures to back up their doctrine.

They get angry and say that I am not open to the truth, and leave.

OR very often the junior partner of the two will actually see that the foundational truth is true and think about it. They then will eventually see that their doctrine is wrong and leave the JW.

BUT it is absolutely a waste of time to allow them to ignore the foundational truth that was established and keep allowing them to bring up more arguments.

So first we must establish some foundational truths that we both agree on.

To just keep bring up more arguments on both sides will be fruitless.

Do you agree with the statements made in posts #3 & #5. If not which ones do you disagree with and why.

Grace to you
Lou Newton
Bond servant of Jesus

[Lou Newton]

Lou recently, as well as in the past, brought up something of importance: mainly that referring to the bible as "the" word of God is wrong.

I want to understand this more fully though. I think I understand what you, (Lou) are saying, in that the Word of God is clearly a person, Jesus Christ himself. Jesus is not a book, and the way some people (myself included at times) regard the bible is actually idolatrous in that they hold these mere words up higher than the author of these words.

So I know who the Word of God is....

But... what is the word of God? I say that because in the scriptures we do have, there are times when it seems the words "word of God," are used to refer to what is written in this book that we have. The phrase, "the word of God" in the scriptures more often than not does not refer to the scriptures when it is used, but sometimes it does, at least it seems to me.

So, would it be accurate to call the scriptures "part of the word of God." Knowing that they aren't "The Word of God," but they still make up a part of what the scriptures refer to as the "word of God?"

Examples:

Acts 13:44 KJV And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

I don't think Paul and Barnabas just read straight from the scriptures, but expounded and prophesied to them the scriptures... but it is still kind of referring to the written word isn't it?

---

I'm just trying to figure out if it is biblically accurate to refer to the bible as the word of God in some sense. The scriptures are surely not the Word of God. But it seems to me the label applies to them at least in some sense or way at times.


Travis

Hi Travis,

If Paul just read the scriptures to people then why meet together? For certainly anyone can do that at home.

If Paul just read scriptures to people, then he was not a prophet. For a prophet is a man that God speaks through.

But we know that Paul is called an apostle in the scriptures. An apostle is one who is a teacher, a pastor, an evangelist, and a prophet. There is a difference between a disciple and an apostle. Some disciples may be apostles, but all apostles are disciples.

So when Paul preached, it was not Paul speaking all of the time, for that would be dead preaching.

When Paul preached, it was The Holy Spirit of The Word of God who was preaching.

So the people came to hear The Word of God speak.

Grace to you
Lou Newton
Bond servant of Jesus

[Travis]

Context

Hey Lou,

I started this topic with genuine intent to find out whether these things you are saying about our use of the the phrase, "word of God," are really true or not. I have never heard anyone make this exact argument you recently made, it is something quite new to me. I've never in the past looked through the scriptures with this thought on my mind. If what you are saying, that we should never refer to the scriptures in any way as a/the "word of God," is true, I want to know so. I know many born again believers, myself included, who have done this in the past and continue to do so to this day. It has never really struck me as being a big deal before, so this topic is quite new to me.

I think I can see a portion of the intent of your heart here. It seems like you want to lift the Lord Jesus Christ up and glorify him and him alone, and to not allow anything else to be held up beside him, which would be idolatry. I respect that, and I can see a love for Jesus Christ in the things that you do.

As I know we all know, good intentions do not guarantee that what we are doing is 100% right or correct all the time though. I have had good intentions and still made many errors and blunders in things I have done in the past. You said you want to lay a foundation here, so I want to go through what you consider the foundation, and see where we differ on something, because we are definitely coming to a different conclusion.

Hi Travis,

Let us look at the SUPREME principle of God. All other laws are far below this law. That is the fact that there is One God and we are to put NOTHING beside Him.

I believe you are referencing one or two things here, but just so we are all the same page, this is what you are referring to as the Supreme Principle of God, correct:

Deuteronomy 6: NASB
4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! 5 "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

Exodus 20:3 NASB
"You shall have no other gods before Me.

The LORD our God is one, he is not divided or against himself in any way. Also, we are not to put any other gods (elohiym) before him.

Interestingly, this same word the scriptures here use for god's, in the right context is the same word the LORD uses to refer to himself as God. So, the LORD does not have a problem with calling lesser created beings gods, and himself God, knowing full well that something differentiates between the two, namely the context. Satan is the god of this world, as scriptures say:

2 Corinthians 4:4 NASB
in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

The exact same word is used here for Satan as is for God himself in this one verse (θεός, pronounced theos). But, based on the context I know one is referring to Satan as a lesser created being, and the other to the Creator of all things. So, in the right context I can call Satan god, without going into error. But in another another context, if I called Satan god, I would be 100% blaspheming. The context is the key.

So, if you are saying that the supreme principle of God is that there is only one God, and that nothing else in all creation should be put above or even beside him in value, then we agree.

If you are saying that the supreme principle of God is that there is only one God, and that nothing in all creation can even be labelled in any way that it might be confused by someone to be putting something that is created on the same level as the Creator, then we don't agree.

1st - We can look at the name of The Holy Scriptures printed on the outside for hundreds of years - The Bible - which simply means - The Book

2nd - we can look in the book and see this:

(John 1: 1-3)

And this:

(Revelation 19:11-16)

3rd - Now let me ask you this. Would you call anything in the creation, God, or Jesus, or The Word of God.

Yes, sort of.

As I pointed out, the scriptures themselves refer to satan as "god of this world." Context tells us this is not putting him on the same level as God Almighty. Many hispanics are named Jesus, and any of them I talk to I use this name to refer to them by. If anyone accused me of blaspheming God by calling a mere human friend of mine Jesus (pronounced Hey-zues), I would be a little confused. I have also had friends named Joshua, after the succesor of Moses who God used mightely. Joshua is effectively the same meaning as the name Jesus, so can I not call my friend Joshua? Isn't it that context that determines who I am talking to, not just the word by itself? If all these other titles of God can be used in different ways and not be blasphemy, perhaps there is some room to refer to the words which God spoke to men, intending them to be written down on paper, as "God's word/words." I mean, he spoke them, are they not his? I think maybe it is the context that tells us whether the phrase "word of God," is referring to Jesus himself, or to something else.

Obviously the Book is part of His creation and not The Creator. Why would we ever call the Book the same name as The Author. It is OK to call The Bible, The Book written by The Word of God. Is it OK to confuse ANYTHING with The Lord Jesus.

It is not OK to confuse anything with the Lord Jesus Christ. In it's proper context, it should not be confused with the Lord Jesus Christ. Some may confuse it with the Lord Jesus Christ, but does that mean I should be restricted in my ability to use words just because some lack understanding?

How about the angels of the Word of God, Can we call them, The Word of God.

How about Solomon's temple for the Word of God. Can we call that temple The Word of God.

How about the followers of The Word of God - Is it OK to call us The Word of God - since The Word of God sometimes speaks or acts through us.

NOTHING in all of creation compares to The Creator who is The Lord Jesus.

There are many verses that one could be confused by in The Bible about this subject. We can look at those verses.

But before we even start, we should be able to see that NOTHING compares to The Lord Jesus, and NOTHING deserves the same title as He does.

If we are not standing on that firm foundation, we have little chance of finding Truth.

Certainly no one is foolish enough to think that The Book shed blood for them, or that it can save, or that it can heal, or that it can love them.

Then why would we ever think that paper and ink can speak. It is The Lord Jesus that speaks to us while we are reading The Book.

Why did the Jews not recognize Christ. They studied The Book DILIGENTLY. We know this because Jesus said they did.

One of the very serious errors of the Jews was that they looked to The Book rather than the Author of The Book. They had no problem recognizing the Scriptures when Jesus quoted them. But they could not recognize the very One who was The Author. They went to destruction over this error.

They should have remembered what was written in The Book. To worship no other than God Almighty.

The sons of Eli made a similar mistake. They worshipped the ark, instead of the One who told them to make the ark. They marched out against the enemy carrying their god and they all died that day.

Certainly we know that above all, THERE IS BUT ONE GOD AND WE ARE TO WORSHIP NOTHING BUT HIM.

Satan's works to get us all to demote The Lord Jesus is some little way. But of course there is no little way to demote The Creator of everything that exists. For in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. A child can see then that Jesus is that God.

ALL OF The CULTS HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON - they demote The Lord Jesus in some way.

JW - Claim that Jesus is The Son of God, but NOT God Almighty

Mormon - Claim that Jesus is the good brother of evil Satan

RC - They claim that Jesus is the lessor God and that His Father and Mother ( Mary) are greater Gods.

I have had preachers claim that Jesus is the words that came from the very lips of God. This is to demote Jesus to mere words. Jesus is not part of God, but fully God in every way.

To demote Jesus to a Book, even His Book, is the same kind of error.



Much of the church that professes to be Christian demotes Jesus to a lessor God that the Father. When there is but one God. Once they demote Jesus, then it is a small step to go a little further and also promote The Book to the same as Jesus.



The wise men of the East studied the stars and were able to see that The Christ would be born in Jerusalem and when he would be born.

BUT they did not make the mistake thinking that the stars could speck or act in any way. They correctly seen that God spoke through the stars.

The Book can not speak, but The Lord Jesus can speak through the Book.

The two things are as different as night and day.

Grace to you
Lou Newton
Bond servant of Jesus

I think it is the intent of the heart that is the most important things here. I think one man can say, "I was reading through the word of God, when the Lord Jesus Christ revealed himself to me and showed me my sinfulness, brokenness, and my need for a Savior," and not be in error." I think another man can say, "I have hidden the word of God in my heart, and it teaches me right from wrong, and gives me life, joy, and peace," in be in complete error. One man is trusting in the words themselves from the Book, the other is trusting in the Author of the Book, to save them. Both used the phrase word of God to refer to the scriptures though, it's just that one understood that apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, those words are just that, words, it is the author of those words who gave them their meaning and gives them life.

I guess I'm just not seeing things the way you do about the foundations of this principle.

I also don't want to put anything that is created on the same level as Jesus, who is God. That's why I started this thread, because I do not precisely see how this is being done. I can see how in some cases it is being done, but not in all cases.

Grace to you,

Travis

[The Knight]

Hi Karl,

Let me ask you, did you read my post #3 and # 5.

Did you read them carefully and then pray about them.

...

Awaiting your reply dear friend.

Lou

Hi, Lou.

Admittedly, no, I didn't.

Jesus is the Word/word of God. Words have to do with reading and speaking and the Bible can't speak to us unless we have the Holy Spirit.

You're still going hear me say casual stuff like "I haven't been in the Word this week", though. That's not out of disrespect or anything. That's just what we say down here in the south.

Thanks, brother.

[Lou Newton]

God and Satan

Dear Travis and Karl,

I use the word dear to show how I feel about you two.

I certainly never questioned your intentions.

But the Hebrew language is not anything like the English language. The English translations lose a lot of meaning especially since most are done with the legalistic belief that the translation had to have about the same number of words in it so as to not add or take away from the Holy Scriptures.

Our words have meaning by themselves and English is a language of words. BUT the Hebrew language is a language of thoughts. One can not tell the meaning of a word without considering the whole thought.

To say that Satan is addressed the same as God Almighty is just not correct. If one would have spoken of Satan with the thought - El Echad - they would have been stoned by the people. The same would have taken place if a person had used any of the terms used for God Almighty.

To use the word -El - by itself does NOT mean God like we use the word today. It simply means strength or power or might. Does a elephant have strength - yes it does - does Satan have strength, yes he does, Much more than any mere man. So to refer to Satan as the El of this world is NOT calling him God Almighty.

A better translation for - the god of this world - would be the one that has power that the world follows - That is totally true. That is why the English translations use the lower case letter for Satan and the upper case letter for God Almighty. They are NOT addressed the same in any way.

The El by itself has little meaning. That is why God Almighty is referred to El Echad - the one God - or some other word is put after El. So they refer to God Almighty as The One of power that is righteous - the one of power that is wise - The one of power that is faithful etc.

If anyone would have referred to Satan with these terms they would be stoned.

Look what took place when God Almighty referred to Himself as the God that is forever.

John 8
58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Seems the Jews did not agree that one could use a name of God Almighty for anything other than God Almighty.

So my hope is that everyone is able to see that The Jews did NOT address anyone, other than God Almighty, with the same name, for someone other than God Almighty.

Jesus is God Almighty and came preforming miracles like raising the dead. But when Jesus addressed Himself as "I AM" (which meant the one that has always existed and always will exist) they picked up stones to kill Him.

Awaiting your reply on this one issue.

Grace to you
Lou Newton
Band servant of Jesus

[Lou Newton]

Joshua

Dear friends,

First of all the one who we call Joshua was not named Joshua.

His given name was Hoshe'a the son of Nun.

It was Moses that called him Yehoshu'a, but never Yahweh.

Yehoshu'a means - "Yahweh is salvation"

So the name Moses gave him glorified God Almighty, instead of proclaiming that there could ever be anyone like God Almighty.

So Joshua was not called by the same name as God Almighty. Anyone would have been stoned for calling Joshua, by the name Yahweh.

Grace to you
Lou Newton
Bond servant of Jesus