The Orthodox Church does not teach that. We believe that the Holy Spirit influenced the writers. The Church teaches that the Holy Scripture is the "most authoritative part of the Holy Tradition." It doesn't say "inerrant," or "infallible," or "God-dictated."
Compared to secular laws, the Church states "these laws are the product of the life of the community; however, once produced, they are placed above and regulate this life." The Bible is the "product and the epiphenomenon of the life of the Church, being also the work of men. But it is also the work of the Holy Spirit of God, working in this life of the Church. This is why the Church is subjected to the authority of the Bible." Notice that it doesn't say what kind of work, let alone "dictation."
As to the "divine authorship," the Church states (my underscores):
"Much has been said regarding the Divine authorship and inspiration of the Bible (theopneustia). Various theories have been expressed throughout the centuries concerning the way in which the Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit."
Notice the word theories. It is a set of beliefs base don observations or experiences, not a fact. The view of Pope Leo XIII (and, sadly, the Protestant fundamentalists) is described here:
"Philo of Alexandria is the main exponent of the so-called "mechanical theory" of understanding the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. According to Philo, the authors of the Bible were in a condition of "possession" by the Spirit of God, who was just using these authors as blind instruments."
The Orthodox view is different (my underscore):
"A better view is the so-called "dynamic view" of the cooperation between man and the Holy Spirit in the case of the Bible. In any case of "synergy" (cooperation) between God and man, God leads, and man follows; God works, and man accepts God's work in him, as God's coworker in subordination to Him. So it is with divine inspiration in the case of the Bible: the Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit's injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit." [all quotes from From the Grk. Orth. Archdioc. of America (GOARCH), Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Faith]
The expression of revealed truth is imperfect because man is imperfect. But the Church trusts, that is, has faith, that God is perfect and that his message was perfect even if not understood or relayed perfectly.
Therefore the OT prophets were given the truth, but they did not necessarily fully grasp it. They had inklings of the revealed truth. They saw something but they didn't fully recognize it. "Dimly as through the glass..." That's why the OT doe snot talk about Jesus by name, but mentions things that symbolically foretell of Christ's coming, the archetypes, the foreshadowing of the coming of the One who is without sin, as St. John the Forerunner says. He recognized him, but John the Baptist was filled with Spirit while he was in his other's womb still. The rest were not so blessed, so they could not have seen what he saw (assuming he did see what the Bible says).
In other words, Alex, your side, like the Protestants, follow the Philo Pharisaical together with the Muzzies, of a God who hijacks people and "uses" them like rag dolls for his purpose. I understand that as a Catholic must believe the proclamations of the Council of Trent, but do not confuse the Church of the Seven Councils with that. The undivided Church never made such pronouncements regarding the Holy Scripture and never obligated anyone to believe we are in a state of "possession" by God.
What you wrote is a good reason why the living Magisterium is a necessary part of the organism of the Church, but it does not discredit the Scripture as the necessary part of the Holy Tradition
Yes, the Church safeguards what was believed ever since the Church, to put it bluntly, "figured out" what it was that was believed (circa 4th century). Our interpretations of what we believe are defined by the Holy Tradition, which includes not only the Bible but the Councils as well. The Catholic Church, however, consider the Bible separate from, but parallel with the Sacred Tradition, not part of it!
The Pope says so because the Holy Spirit dictated the Scripture, as he explains
Again, this is his belief. It does not mean it is a universal truth. Just because you, I or the Pope believe something does not make it true.
It doesn't differ in form. In fact, Mohammed got his idea from the Christian Church. most likely
The only difference is that you don't believe theirs is true and they don't believe yours is true. And both sides are absolutely convinced the other side is wrong. That's not knowledge, Alex, that's figment of one's imagination.
Before the Reformation and especially before the Higher Criticism and atheistic rationalism there was no need to proclaim that
What's that got to do with Orthodoxy? The Orthodox teaching of the Bible does not reflect your teaching, period, Reformation or not.
Ping a propos discussion on another thread
Pope Leo does not espouse the mechanical view, even though he uses the verb "dictated":
... we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas
What we have here is healthy, critical, balanced view on the nature of divine inspiration.
Kosta: The Orthodox Church does not teach that. We believe that the Holy Spirit influenced the writers. The Church teaches that the Holy Scripture is the "most authoritative part of the Holy Tradition." It doesn't say "inerrant," or "infallible," or "God-dictated."
I don't see how that can be. It was my understanding that the Consensus Patrum, with the consent of the laity, was infallible. THAT, by definition, would make it more authoritative than the Bible as you describe above.
"A better view is the so-called "dynamic view" of the cooperation between man and the Holy Spirit in the case of the Bible. In any case of "synergy" (cooperation) between God and man, God leads, and man follows; God works, and man accepts God's work in him, as God's coworker in subordination to Him. So it is with divine inspiration in the case of the Bible: the Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit's injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit." [all quotes from From the Grk. Orth. Archdioc. of America (GOARCH), Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Faith]
That's a nice sounding model, but of course in Orthodox thinking man DIDN'T follow, in MOST cases as a matter of fact, when it comes to the authors of scripture. That is, unless you want to say that God led into error, and I know you won't touch that. :) See the problem? What you and Kolo have been saying does not match the above.
The expression of revealed truth is imperfect because man is imperfect. But the Church trusts, that is, has faith, that God is perfect and that his message was perfect even if not understood or relayed perfectly.
What kind of God is that Who would allow such pollution? Does God not want us to have His perfect message? Does God prefer for us to have a watered down, error prone version of His message? What's the deal? :) I mean, did God hand down His message, knowing it would be polluted by fallible men, and that was fine with Him because He knew that hundreds of years later other men, your men, would come along and use their free wills to repair the damage??? :)