Are you a politician? We call that ‘spin’, taking something out of context, aka sound bite and quote mining.
That seems a little incongruous. 
On the other hand, he was probably speaking Aramaic and not Hebrew, and pretty definitely not Greek!
I don’t think Jesus was omniscient and couldn’t have predicted what John was going to say about him years later without specifically receiving that revelation from the Holy Spirit.
I’ve actually done some looking into what languages Jesus probably spoke because someone asked here once. The scholarly consensus is that he and his disciples came from Aramaic speaking towns, and that was probably their first and primary language. Luke 4 has Jesus reading a scroll, presumably in Hebrew that he learned for religious purposes. Scholars think he knew enough Greek to converse with people who weren’t from Palestine, but probably wasn’t fluent. Trilingual is doing better than most Americans. 
1 Like
You might elaborate a bit on which language Jesus was reading, as I understand the most frequently quoted version in the New Testament was the Greek language Septuagint, at least by Paul. I guess my question comes down to if the scrolls in use were Hebrew or were Greek.
Good question. I assumed the Septuagint was for Jews who didn’t speak Hebrew. Aramaic is related to Hebrew. But maybe Jesus read from it.
The one time we are told that Jesus himself read Scripture in the synagogue, the text he read followed the LXX (see Luke 4:1619).
Here’s a CT article on the subject:
The answer is that he likely heard Scripture read in Hebrew and occasionally in Greek, and then paraphrased and interpreted in Aramaic. How much of this paraphrase was actually written down in Jesus’ day is difficult to tell. It is probably safer to assume that most of this Aramaic tradition circulated orally and only generations later was committed to writing.
…when Jesus alludes to Scriptures in the Gospels, he usually does so in a manner that agrees with the Aramaic Targum, not the Greek or Hebrew versions.
2 Likes
Hebrews 1:1-2 (NIV2011)
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.
God’s revelation is God’s Word, Jesus Christ.
Agreed. And I believe God’s clearest and best revelation is in Jesus. But it’s not an all or nothing thing. Why can’t it also be true that God also reveals himself in the rest of Scripture?
Thanks for the article and insight. Interesting stuff.
What is your “coherent doctrine of inspiration?”
Inspiration was never a criterion for canonicity.
I certainly don’t view inspiration as meaning “God wrote this and these are His words.”
Here is an excerpt from the definitive book on the development of the canon. I hope it enlightens you.
“It will have been noticed that in the preceding discussion concerning criteria used by early Christians in discerning the limits of the canon, nothing was said concerning inspiration. Though this silence may at first sight seem to be strange, the reason for it arises from the circumstance that, while the Fathers certainly agreed that the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments were inspired, they did not seem to have regarded inspiration as the ground of the Bible’s uniqueness. That is, the inspiration they ascribe to the Scriptures was only one facet of the inspiring activity of the Holy Spirit in many aspects of the Church’s life.7 For example, while Clement of Rome
speaks of the sacred Scriptures (here referring to the Old Testament) as ‘true and given through the Holy Spirit’ (lxiii. 2), the author of the Epistle to Diognetus writes for his own part to his correspondent: ‘If you do not offend this grace, you will learn what the Word (λόγος) talks about through those through whom he wishes to talk, when he pleases. For whatever we have been moved painstakingly to utter by the will of the Word that commands us, it is out of love for the things revealed to us that we come to share them with you’ (xi. 7–8). Among the writings of Eusebius there is a sermon attributed to the Emperor Constantine; whether or not this attribution is correct, the preacher clearly does not consider inspiration to be confined only to the Scriptures. He begins his sermon with the prayer, ‘May the mighty inspiration of the Father and of his Son … be with me in speaking these things’ (Orat. Const. 2).
“Not only do early ecclesiastical writers view themselves to be, in some degree at least, inspired, but also others affirm, in a rather broad sense, the inspiration of their predecessors, if not their contemporaries. In a letter that Augustine addressed to Jerome, the bishop of Hippo goes so far as to say (Epist. lxxxii. 2) not only that Jerome has been favoured with the divine grace, but also that he writes under the dictation of the Holy Spirit (Spiritu Sancto)—which may seem to be rather strong hyperbole applied to the often irascible Jerome. That Gregory the Great enjoyed the reputation of being inspired is easier to understand than is the case of Jerome, and Gregory’s biographer, Paul the Deacon, describes how the Holy Spirit, ‘under the form of a dove whiter than snow’, would explain to him the mysteries of Scripture (Vita S. Gregorii, 28)…
The same impression is conveyed when we examine patristic usage of the designation ‘non-inspired’. While the Fathers again and again use the concept of inspiration in reference to the Scriptures, they seldom describe non-Scriptural writings as non-inspired. When, in fact, such a distinction is made, the designation ‘non-inspired’ is found to be applied to false and heretical writings, not to orthodox products of the Church’s life. In other words, the concept of inspiration was not used in the early Church as a basis of designation between canonical and non-canonical orthodox Christian writings.
In short, the Scriptures, according to the early Fathers, are indeed inspired, but that is not the reason they are authoritative. They are authoritative, and hence canonical, because they are the extant literary deposit of the direct and indirect apostolic witness on which the later witness of the Church depends.”
Excerpt From
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Bruce M Metzger
](https://is2-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Publication123/v4/aa/61/2d/aa612d3d-683f-3a76-4377-878d93236528/9780191606878.jpg/1200x630wf.png)
The Canon of the New Testament
Religion & Spirituality · 1997
itunes.apple.com
This material may be protected by copyright.
I know that. I’m not talking about the formation of the canon. I’m talking about current beliefs the church holds about the Bible–what it is and what role it plays in the life of the church and the believer.
This whole thread you and others have been telling me what the Bible isn’t. It’s not God’s word. It’s not free from error or omissions. It’s not God’s highest revelation. It’s not the gospel. To the point that it sure comes across like you think anyone who views the Bible as anything other than a mere book that was somewhat dubiously compiled, a collection of human writing and no more, then you are ascribing an undeserved and potentially idolatrous status to it.
I think that is completely wrong. You can hold the Bible in reverence as God’s word to us without worshiping it or denying Jesus proper glory. You can believe the Bible is authoritative revelation from God without slavishly obeying woodenly literal interpretations.
The normal Protestant one.
4 Likes
Your presentation of my views is a combination of exaggeration and outright falsehood.
I noticed you did not present your “coherent doctrine of inspiration”
It was not a “presentation of your views.” It was things “you and others” have said on this thread. I did a search and find for the word “not.” All of those statements came from various contributors who object to calling the Bible the word of God in the 410 posts above.
I have no plans to do so.
1 Like
I do not recommend that you argue with God over this matter. If Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Father but by Me,” then I would take His word for it.
When the Judaizers said that Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to became Christians, Paul said that God said NO.
When the converted Jews asked the author of the Hebrews if they could go back to Judaism so they could avoid persecution, he or she said NO.
God sent Jesus to save the world. If God could have revealed Godself without Jesus having to die on the Cross, God would have done so.
God does not go out of God’s way to condemn us, but we need to go out of our way to seek God for what God has done for us.
.
I don’t see how any of what you wrote above implies that the Bible is not God’s revelation.
2 Likes
The Old Testament does reveal Jesus, and the New more fully.
If it were not for scripture, how do you know who Jesus is?
You replied to me, and you included me in your accusations.
I encourage you to be more careful, clear, and accurate with such statements.
There were no “accusations.” Honestly, your reading comprehension requires an awful lot of hand-holding. I said that people, including you, have said things about what the Bible is not. I said that from this, I got a certain impression.
None of that is an accusation. Zeesh.
I disagree with this post also
It seems to be that this is point the writer of Hebrews is setting up in 1:1-2 since he quite clearly indicates that God spoke in the past. Thus in the mind of the author, the revelation provided through the prophets of old is as much God’s word(s) as the revelation that comes through Jesus Christ. The drive of the whole letter seems to me, not to prove that Jesus is the word of God but the Hebrew Scriptures are not, but that the former brings final clarifying revelation, completion, and fulfilment of the former.
Given this context, I would also argue that Hebrews 4:12 is referring to God’s revelation (as a whole) as being the word of God not a reference to Jesus per say in a John 1:1 sense. This fits best with the extended treatment of the wilderness generation which begins in Hebrews 3:7 and runs to 4:13. Here the writer explicitly says that a Psalm attributed to David are also the words of the Holy Spirit, the word(s) of God (Cf. 3:7 & 4:7). Later the promise of rest is called good news and contrasted with the good news preached to the author and audience (4:2, 6). Their unbelief of the good news is then contrasted with the current audience’s belief of the good news (4:3).
The point being, if a person’s response to God’s revelation of his promises was the criterion of belief vs. unbelief in the past, how much more will our response to God’s revelation be the criterion of belief vs. unbelief now that those promises are fulfilled in Christ (4:11, cf. 3:19). The author logically leads us to read 4:12 as a reference to God’s revelation as a whole, both what was promised in the past and what has been fulfilled through the appearance of the Son-King-High Priest, Jesus. The word of God is dynamic because it lays bare before God what we truly think of his promises and the one who came to fulfil them (4:13).
2 Likes