***That’s curious. Where does John say that?***
Beside being strewn throughout the book by implication through Jewish notions of God and Christ’s claiming to have those qualities, the most explicit claim by Christ that he was God was when he we told the Jews he was the “I am” of the shema (John 8:58). Why do you suppose they wanted to stone him after he made the claim?
Your entire program against Scripture is the old enlightenment screed that claims one can be neutral in assessing the text by using source, form, and redaction criticism and thus come to the “true” meaning in the text. The Enlightenment edifice came crashing down more than forty years ago and found to be nothing more than a circular argument of academic elites.
***Do you believe that bats are birds? The bible says they are. It must be true. It’s in the bible.***
Is that your best argument against the authority of Scripture? Were the authors of Scripture scientists? The Church has always held that the inspiration of Scripture included both divine and human agency. When God condescended to reveal himself to the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles he did so in a way that those who received the revelation could comprehend according to the categories available to them as they knew the world. Sometimes those revelations were not completely clear to the author themselves but to be revealed over time. Hebrews 11 shows how the many men and women of the Old Testament believed in a promise that may have not been completely understood in all its details yet they knew a better “country” awaited them through the Messiah. Thus revelation was progessive through time and what began as a kernel of knowledge grew to the full revelation in Christ. Because Christ is the full revelation of God there is no need for further revelation although our understanding of that revelation can continue to grow as we look at Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit and grow in knowledge of what has been revealed.
In conclusion, while the authors may not have been scientists in the way we think of objects and things today that does not make the Scriptures fallible or errant. Different authors revealing God according to their histories gives us a fuller meaning of God that otherwise would limit our understanding. What appears to be contradiction is actually different authors understanding that revelation according to their histories and the emphasis’ that they place on that revelation. Since God is not an object of this world it makes no sense to use empirical methods to try and interpret his revelation.
I am not sure I agree with you that he claimed to be equal to God. The passage you cite (Jn 8:58)where he says (I am, egw eimi) is not the same as the OT passage (Ex 3:14)where God says I am [who/that], I am (hayah hahyah or in Greek Septuagint, Egw eimi w on).
I suggest, the Jews were ready to stone him because they perceived what he was telling a lie, since, if he were God, he could not be seen, and since, no human can live that long.
He didn't say he was equal with God, but simply that he predated Abraham (as many other humans have, except they all died).
In Judaism, it is unthinkable that angels can rebel against God and that man can become God (they don't entertain the idea of God becoming man either). So, one must read John 8:58 in the light of the Jewish mindset and not read into the words that just sound similar.
The Enlightenment edifice came crashing down more than forty years ago and found to be nothing more than a circular argument of academic elites
Oh?
No. It was a "marker" as to which Protestant mindset you follow. The authority of the scriptures, indeed the decision which writings constitute the canon, is a mater of man's beliefs, first and foremost; in other words, based on human authority. As such, they have no intrinsic seal of authenticity other than what men/women in authority make of it (always claiming "higher power").
Thus, the Muslims will tell you that their scripture s the true Bible, just as the Jews will claim theirs, and Christians theirs (and there is more than one set of canons among Christians as we all know).
So, don't spout some God-given authority of the scriptures unless you can produce a seal of authenticity, a doubtless warranty that it is authored and even dictated [sic] by God, instead of being arrogated by the self-appointed "mouthpieces of God."
When God condescended to reveal himself to the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles he did so in a way that those who received the revelation could comprehend according to the categories available to them as they knew the world
I very much agree with the latter part of that statement, but not with the first. God condescended Himself to become Man. Being a column of fire or a burning bush is hardly condescension. There is nothing humble about the OT God.
Sometimes those revelations were not completely clear to the author themselves but to be revealed over time
I agree that Patriarchs, Prophets and Apostles were not privy to a complete revelation. I doubt that they ever were. In everything they write, there is a string "bats are birds" element of human limitation.
Part of that is a myth that God promised, and led Jews to the promised land. All historical data suggest that the Hebrews never left Palestine and lived right next to the Canaanites, and were subjected to Rhamses II's son a few decades after the alleged Exodus, without suffering any consequences for humiliating his father. In biblical days, that would have constituted a sure genocide. Never happened.
But people always had hopes, for an opportunity or for a "miracle." Sometimes these hopes are unrealistic but chances are that over a few thousand years they may come close to being fulfilled by random chance alone.
Thus revelation was progessive through time and what began as a kernel of knowledge grew to the full revelation in Christ.
Whether it was progressive or not is a question. Judaism underwent a radical change after the Babylonian and Persian domination. It became messianic, apocalyptic, and dualistic, and its demonology begins to resemble something we are familiar with.
The Jews superstitiously blamed their lack of loyalty to God for their misfortune and convinced themselves that if they embrace the God of Abraham, one more time, they will be "saved" (in an earthly way) form being dominated by others.
So, the messianic myth developed, projecitng a man of superior qualities, a superman indeed, who would be king and savior of Israel (in an earthly way), by conquering all Israel's enemies and establishing peace and showing the gentiles the power of their God.
Up to the time of Babylonian captivity, authors who wrote the book of "Isaiah" (more than one author), looked for mighty kings who would be worshiped by pagans they concquers.
The Hebrew expression for the Kingdom of God simply means the state of Israel, not some heavenly kingdom located in heaven; heavenly in so far as it is supported and established (on earth) by the power of God, through his adopted favorite (son of God, not God the Son), a m mortal human, and a descendant of Judah and King David, a title given to angels and kings and meaning anointed (meshiyah in Hebrew).
I agree, but that hardly explains the role of St. Paul, or the book entitled "Revelation of John" (aka the Book of Revelation).
although our understanding of that revelation can continue to grow as we look at Scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit and grow in knowledge of what has been revealed
That's possible, but the "help for the Holy Spirit" is a faith-based assumption and should correctly be stated "and we believe with the help of the Holy Spirit," as a matter of faith, rather than as a matter of fact.
In conclusion, while the authors may not have been scientists in the way we think of objects and things today that does not make the Scriptures fallible or errant
So far, it's all fair.
Different authors revealing God according to their histories gives us a fuller meaning of God that otherwise would limit our understanding.
It's all based on copies of copies and on a priori faith. If faith is salvific, then there is no need for scriptures. You don't learn how to believe through the Bible. In order for the Bible to "make sense" you already have to believe. But if you already believe, what are you going to change? Is believing in God not enough?
What appears to be contradiction is actually different authors understanding that revelation according to their histories and the emphasis’ that they place on that revelation
I agree.
Since God is not an object of this world it makes no sense to use empirical methods to try and interpret his revelation.
From an Orthodox point of view, that makes God a supreme mystery and I agree. Those of us who believe that Jesus is both God and Man, we can relate to Him in his human nature and worship/pray to him in his divine nature, as a Holy Trinity, or as each Divine Hypostasis. But never in God's divine nature, which remains unknown and unimaginable, incomprehensible and invisible.
I agree that empirical method cannot prove anything about God or faith. It also can't disprove anything regarding it. But, you the same token, neither can those who believe prove anything by quoting the bible.
That's more or less a BIG 10-4.
I think that modern scholarship and all that has something to tell us. But when the dust settles, the Bible is what we got. It's not all we got, I as a good Papist add, but it's what we got.
If I live a lot longer and (my cat stays off my keyboard and) I someday get smart, I'm going to write a paper on how the writers of the Scriptures and Our Lord interpret the Scriptures. It seems to me sometimes that they took incredible liberties.
But I think it's quite right to say that the inspiration of the writers gave them more than they sometimes could write. This accounts for the luminous quality of Scripture, which I personally find most apparent in John and Hebrews. Both are, I think, exquisitely crafted (kata sarka) and both are almost bursting because what the write is called to write is too big for his mind and his words.
Any adult who can read John 13:30b - ην δε νυχ and not shiver just isn't paying attention.
In kosta's defense I have to say that once we stipulate that what is going on in the Bible is "too true for words" (as I like to say) we've pretty much agreed that working out the details of the authority of Scripture isn't going to be as cut and dried as we might like.