The Word of God

[William]

The Gospels present us with words attributed to have been spoken by biblical Jesus.

Re the Thread Subject, as far as I have been able to examine the claim Christians make that biblical Jesus is "The Word of God", I can find no direct writing which has Jesus making such a claim himself.

I have - of course - found biblical reference of others claiming this about Jesus, but nothing yet of Jesus claiming it of himself.

If we are still to take that claim seriously - even if there is no record of Biblical Jesus making the claim himself ...

QFD: Why is there no known existence of anything Jesus wrote down himself for us to examine?

Should we not expect that someone who may have claimed to be "The Word of God" would have left his own personal record rather than leave that task to others, whom may have misunderstood or even misrepresented him?

Why should we believe The Word of others, [according to them] when all Jesus had to do was write for himself, The Word [according to him]?

[William]

Given we are informed that biblical Jesus 'wrote on the ground' we can go along with that as biblical evidence that he knew how to write.

Sure. If one has an agenda that depends on the idea that Jesus knew how to write. Scratching in the dirt certainly doesn't qualify as solid evidence that he did.


Tcg

I could agree if the word used was 'scratching' because this may have be simply playing around with the dust, or perhaps doodling pics - but because the word used is "writing" I have no option but to dismiss the idea of scratching as a non-mentioned thing.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to William in post #9]

["snip" unsupported evidence]

Here you go:

He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:13


Surely you knew that?

[Tcg]

Given we are informed that biblical Jesus 'wrote on the ground' we can go along with that as biblical evidence that he knew how to write.

Sure. If one has an agenda that depends on the idea that Jesus knew how to write. Scratching in the dirt certainly doesn't qualify as solid evidence that he did.


Tcg

I could agree if the word used was 'scratching' because this may have be simply playing around with the dust, or perhaps doodling pics - but because the word used is "writing" I have no option but to dismiss the idea of scratching as a non-mentioned thing.

Okay, let's pretend that is valid. The only mention in the Bible of Jesus writing was in the dirt. How do you imagine that the dirt writing would be preserved until today? Did the adulterous woman dig it up and carry it around to show that she had been forgiven? Or perhaps the Pharisees archived the dust to build a case against Jesus? Nothing but shifting sand lost for all eternity.


Tcg

[William]

Peace to you,

[Replying to William in post #9]

["snip" unsupported evidence]

Here you go:

He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:13


Surely you knew that?

As I said, Revelations has to be considered unsupported evidence due to it not being witnessed by anyone else.

Surely you knew that?

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #13]

I could agree if the word used was 'scratching' because this may have be simply playing around with the dust, or perhaps doodling pics - but because the word used is "writing" I have no option but to dismiss the idea of scratching as a non-mentioned thing.

Okay, let's pretend that is valid. The only mention in the Bible of Jesus writing was in the dirt. How do you imagine that the dirt writing would be preserved until today? Did the adulterous woman dig it up and carry it around to show that she had been forgiven? Or perhaps the Pharisees archived the dust to build a case against Jesus? Nothing but shifting sand lost for all eternity.

Well it might be considered a symbolic gesture that the written word is of no intrinsic value re The Father or The Son.

But the question remains as to why - since it is valid that he could write - he did not write and/or he did write but we have no documentation to examine.
Therefore, why is there no documentation from biblical Jesus available to us, that we can at least have it from the horses mouth rather than as secondhand hearsay from others?

Why leave such inferred 'Words from God' in the hands of fallible Humans?

[Tcg]

Peace to you,

[Replying to William in post #9]

["snip" unsupported evidence]

Here you go:

He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:13


Surely you knew that?

As I said, Revelations has to be considered unsupported evidence due to it not being witnessed by anyone else.

Surely you knew that?

Not in this sub-forum as you pointed out:

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority.

There are no exceptions made for the book of Revelations. Surely you know that?


Tcg

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #13]

I could agree if the word used was 'scratching' because this may have be simply playing around with the dust, or perhaps doodling pics - but because the word used is "writing" I have no option but to dismiss the idea of scratching as a non-mentioned thing.

Okay, let's pretend that is valid. The only mention in the Bible of Jesus writing was in the dirt. How do you imagine that the dirt writing would be preserved until today? Did the adulterous woman dig it up and carry it around to show that she had been forgiven? Or perhaps the Pharisees archived the dust to build a case against Jesus? Nothing but shifting sand lost for all eternity.

Well it might be considered a symbolic gesture that the written word is of no intrinsic value re The Father or The Son.

But the question remains as to why - since it is valid that he could write - he did not write and/or he did write but we have no documentation to examine.
Therefore, why is there no documentation from biblical Jesus available to us, that we can at least have it from the horses mouth rather than as secondhand hearsay from others?

Why leave such inferred 'Words from God' in the hands of fallible Humans?

You've yet to establish that Jesus ever wrote anything on other than sand or dust or dirt. Until you establish that he did, these questions are meaningless.


Tcg

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to William in post #9]

["snip" unsupported evidence]

Here you go:

He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:13


Surely you knew that?

As I said, Revelations has to be considered unsupported evidence due to it not being witnessed by anyone else.

Surely you knew that?

Revelation is just one place where Christ is referred to as the Word of God. (Though John saw some of the same things that other prophets received in visions given to them.) Christ is also clearly stated to be the Word of God in the book of "John" (not the same person who received and wrote Revelation).

Christ also stated,

Your Word is Truth... compared with... I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Sounds like some consensus on who is the Word of God.



Granted, it does not seem to matter to you if there are multiple attestations or not, since there are multiple attestations to Christ saying He will return. (not MIGHT return, but WILL return) Yet that does not appear to be acceptable to you either. So the actual problem is not really about "unsupported statements".

[William]

Peace to you,

[Replying to William in post #9]

Well it might be considered a symbolic gesture that the written word is of no intrinsic value re The Father or The Son.

But the question remains as to why - since it is valid that he could write - he did not write and/or he did write but we have no documentation to examine.
Therefore, why is there no documentation from biblical Jesus available to us, that we can at least have it from the horses mouth rather than as secondhand hearsay from others?

Why leave such inferred 'Words from God' in the hands of fallible Humans?

Here you go:

He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:13


Surely you knew that?

As I said, Revelations has to be considered unsupported evidence due to it not being witnessed by anyone else.

Surely you knew that?

Not in this sub-forum as you pointed out:

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority.

There are no exceptions made for the book of Revelations. Surely you know that?


Tcg

As per the OP Subject.

QFD: Why is there no known existence of anything Jesus wrote down himself for us to examine?

Therefore arguing relevance for anything that was not written as attribute to Jesus having spoken in the presence of witnesses, is naturally of less importance than those things which are.

Thus, the basic assumption that any script of the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority is to say that anything in the bible which might contradict and/or are otherwise inconsistent with any other thing written in the bible, is irrelevant.

If that were the case, then there is nothing about the bible which is debatable.

However, I do not see that as being the case, re the statement.

What is under question here specifically is whether biblical Jesus can be shown to refer to himself as "The Word of God" and evidence from John which can realistically be considered delusional [since he had a 'vision' which no one else was witness to] should just as realistically be considered less reliable than actual words attributed to biblical Jesus having spoken.

Surely you can appreciate that as sound enough argument?

So the OP is not arguing that the bible does not have reference to Jesus being called "The Word of God"

Re the Thread Subject, as far as I have been able to examine the claim Christians make that biblical Jesus is "The Word of God", I can find no direct writing which has Jesus making such a claim himself.

I have - of course - found biblical reference of others claiming this about Jesus, but nothing yet of Jesus claiming it of himself.

[Tcg]

Peace to you,

[Replying to William in post #9]

Well it might be considered a symbolic gesture that the written word is of no intrinsic value re The Father or The Son.

But the question remains as to why - since it is valid that he could write - he did not write and/or he did write but we have no documentation to examine.
Therefore, why is there no documentation from biblical Jesus available to us, that we can at least have it from the horses mouth rather than as secondhand hearsay from others?

Why leave such inferred 'Words from God' in the hands of fallible Humans?

Here you go:

He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:13


Surely you knew that?

As I said, Revelations has to be considered unsupported evidence due to it not being witnessed by anyone else.

Surely you knew that?

Not in this sub-forum as you pointed out:

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority.

There are no exceptions made for the book of Revelations. Surely you know that?


Tcg

As per the OP Subject.

QFD: Why is there no known existence of anything Jesus wrote down himself for us to examine?

Therefore arguing relevance for anything that was not written as attribute to Jesus having spoken in the presence of witnesses, is naturally of less importance than those things which are.

Thus, the basic assumption that any script of the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority is to say that anything in the bible which might contradict and/or are otherwise inconsistent with any other thing written in the bible, is irrelevant.

If that were the case, then there is nothing about the bible which is debatable.

However, I do not see that as being the case, re the statement.

What is under question here specifically is whether biblical Jesus can be shown to refer to himself as "The Word of God" and evidence from John which can realistically be considered delusional [since he had a 'vision' which no one else was witness to] should just as realistically be considered less reliable than actual words attributed to biblical Jesus having spoken.

Surely you can appreciate that as sound enough argument?

So the OP is not arguing that the bible does not have reference to Jesus being called "The Word of God"

Re the Thread Subject, as far as I have been able to examine the claim Christians make that biblical Jesus is "The Word of God", I can find no direct writing which has Jesus making such a claim himself.

I have - of course - found biblical reference of others claiming this about Jesus, but nothing yet of Jesus claiming it of himself.

That's a whole lotta words, none of which address the fallacies I've identified.


Tcg