tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post4961908154057708040..comments2024-02-19T04:50:58.170-08:00Comments on Shuck and Jive: Heresies for Holy Week: Day 3John Shuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-18909614019374399762010-04-02T15:46:31.592-07:002010-04-02T15:46:31.592-07:00First I would acknowledge that the primary meaning...First I would acknowledge that the primary meaning of "Word of God" is Jesus, referred to in John as the logos of God.<br /><br />Having said that my main definition would be the one used by some of the prophets. During such and such a year the Word of God came to so and so. The Word of God then is what God intends for people to hear in what the Prophet says. Notice I didn't say that God spoke through the prophet as though the prophet was a puppet. Rather I would use the phrase "The Word of God in the words of humans."<br /><br />Beyond that I think the words of the Westminster Confession says it well, that the purpose of the Bible is to teach humans what to believe and how to behave.<br /><br />But let's never forget that the Bible, as a literary text, always must be interpreted. And sometimes we are wrong and others are right. That's the fun of being in the Church.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787179002120424157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-62148797515005757122010-04-01T20:24:51.370-07:002010-04-01T20:24:51.370-07:00So Bob, what does "Word of God" mean? A...So Bob, what does "Word of God" mean? And why should the Bible be called "Word of God?" What does that phrase do to the Bible?John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-53357413202947047412010-03-31T18:08:02.218-07:002010-03-31T18:08:02.218-07:00It will not surprise you that I disagree with you ...It will not surprise you that I disagree with you on the Word of God part. I do agree with you on identifying the type of literature although I tend to do that when teaching rather than from the pulpit. Although I have no problem with saying "the gospel writer chose this story and put it in this place because . . ." I wouldn't describe Biblical material as fiction unless I have good archeological or literary/historical evidence. As to the gospels I have become convinced that we can't penetrate back behind the editor and distinguish real Jesus sayings and acts from false ones. There is are some things I am sure about. Mark uses the words "and immediately" as a device to connect two texts together. Most if not all of the "and immediately" are humanly impossible.<br /><br />Oh, and I think the Sermon on the Mount is a construct. And there are, I'm sure, other places where I have questions but can't name them all right now.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510081361292855641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-28239268466146737282010-03-31T17:40:24.663-07:002010-03-31T17:40:24.663-07:00Thanks, Hugh!Thanks, Hugh!John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-44746003775239757392010-03-31T12:49:51.273-07:002010-03-31T12:49:51.273-07:00John,
As usual your thoughts, good sense, ideas an...John,<br />As usual your thoughts, good sense, ideas and writing work for me.The Rev'd Dr. Hugh Tudor-Foleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04619792984849308153noreply@blogger.com