3

CCC-135:

The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God.

I don't understand the sentence above, because (to me) "contain the Word of God" has a different meaning than "are the Word of God".

Although I will ask how "the application" with the Bible according to the Lutherans, I do agree when this Lutheran link wrote the Bible is the Word of God, not contains the word of God.

My understanding of these terms is as follows:
A. "The Bible is the Word of God" means that all the words written in the Bible are the Words of God.
B. The Bible contains the Word of God = not all the words written (or we read) in the Bible are the Words of God.

Then A can't be also B at the same time (or vice versa)
It must be A if not B ---or--- B if not A.

the Bible contains the Word of God, not is the word of God
---or---
the Bible is the Word of God, not contains the word of God

Since CCC-135 sentences wrote that A is also B at the same time ---> [(B) The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God - (A) The Sacred Scriptures are the Word of God], I am asking how a Catholic would see this as internally consistent. Thank you.

Improve this question
  • 1
    When Paul writes, he says, "I , not the Lord" There is a minutiae in the scriptures, The Gospels, where for example "Red Letters" indicate the actually speaking of God. Old Testament Prophecies, Which eventually came to pass or genealogies listed. All things which are held in high regard, but the actual words spoken from the incarnate God, would, in the eyes of the Church, be held in higher regard than those things spoken of by any other. The word of God is not Scripture alone but Christ himself, not just writings but a Man, a God man who guides the Church. – Marc Oct 2 '17 at 11:27
2

I see your confusion and your syllogism is correct as stated but is based on flawed assumptions. The subtly between 'contain' and 'are' should not be read into as much as you are. Think of it this way: the words contained in the Scripture are the Word of God. The connotation of 'contents' simply refers to where they are represented in one volume or work. It both 'contains' God's literal words (actual words He spoke to Moses, Christ's words while preaching, etc.) and 'is' the Word of God (inspired and directed to be written by God, therefore the possessive connotation). These are not contradictory concepts.

"I am who am" = God's actual spoken words

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" = God's word, spoken and written by a human, inspired or directed to do so by God. So not from His 'mouth' so to speak, but we cannot exactly understand how He works through inspiration, so we have to stop thinking of it like He is dictating things to the authors.

Improve this answer
  • "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" I understand that it is not God's actual spoken words. But since you said that [it is God's words], then I think what you mean is something like this [it is God's words BUT it's not God's actual spoken words ---> uttering/dictating the words literally to the Apostle]. continue – karma Oct 2 '17 at 14:02
  • So when you say ["In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" = God's words] ---> then it's just the same like this : [God say to the readers/hearers indirectly that "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God"]. Am I correct or not ? Assuming I am correct, now the question is how to understand this : [God say to the readers/hearers indirectly that "In that self-confident boasting He is not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool"] (2 Corinthians 11:17) – karma Oct 2 '17 at 14:03
  • Yes I think that is closer to thinking of it 'correctly'. Maybe a simple analogy is direct quotes and paraphrasing when writing a paper. In both cases you have to give credit to the source, and here the source is God (divine inspiration). For the Corinthians verse, you have to think of it as an interactive and ongoing inspiration, so the human authors are not just reiterating something God said in the past. He is outside of time which brings a layer of complication to how this concept is understood. – J. Tate Oct 2 '17 at 15:04
  • I think you misunderstood what I mean, J. Tate :). "In that self-confident boasting He is not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool" ---> the "He" in that sentence is God ---> (1) God say to the Corinthian readers : "In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool". (2) God say to the Corinthian readers "In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it". (3) God say to the Romans reader "there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus". (continue) – karma Oct 2 '17 at 15:28
  • (4) God say to any reader "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" (5) God say to the Galatians reader "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.". That's what I mean, J. Tate. Thank you. – karma Oct 2 '17 at 15:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.