What is a "revelation"?

[Tyrion]

Lots of things are declared as “revelations”. The questions is: “how does a revelation happen”? Technically one would assume a direct, unmistakable, personal communication from God (in all his splendor), preferably to many people at the same time, so one could not confuse it with a “mental disorder” or a fantasy. But such communications do not happen. So who decides if a genuine revelation took place, and what are the criteria which are used?

 

[davidv]

Lots of things are declared as “revelations”. The questions is: “how does a revelation happen”? Technically one would assume a direct, unmistakable, personal communication from God (in all his splendor), preferably to many people at the same time, so one could not confuse it with a “mental disorder” or a fantasy. But such communications do not happen. So who decides if a genuine revelation took place, and what are the criteria which are used?

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

The Church decides the legitimacy of alleged private revelation. The criterion is consistency with the public revelation, which is guarded and preserved by the Church.

 

[Loving_disciple]

Though the Chruch also says that any private revelation given to a person is authorize to that person but not to everyone else. For example I was told to never marry. Also I was told not to eat junk food during the week but I can eat it during the weekends. It sounds odd but that’s what God asked of me. This doesn’t apply to everyone though

 

[Tyrion]

Oh, I am so sorry. Looks like I was not clear enough.

My question is: “on what grounds is it asserted that there ever was a revelation at all”? How can anyone declare that anything is or was a “direct, unambiguous communication directly from God?”. When one says: “the Church decides…” it is incorrect. The “church” is an institution, a collection of fallible individuals. Only individuals can decide anything, an institution cannot.

 

[brb3]

Oh, I am so sorry. Looks like I was not clear enough.

My question is: “on what grounds is it asserted that there ever was a revelation at all”? How can anyone declare that anything is or was a “direct, unambiguous communication directly from God?”. When one says: “the Church decides…” it is incorrect. The “church” is an institution, a collection of fallible individuals. Only individuals can decide anything, an institution cannot.

Define revelation for us.

What would u consider ( if any) …as examples from history ?

 

[TimothyH]

Define revelation for us.

What would u consider ( if any) …as examples from history ?

He wants to have a discussion about the Church’s authority and ability to declare revelation, not the nature of revelation itself.

-Tim-

 

[thenobes]

Oh, I am so sorry. Looks like I was not clear enough.

My question is: “on what grounds is it asserted that there ever was a revelation at all”? How can anyone declare that anything is or was a “direct, unambiguous communication directly from God?”. When one says: “the Church decides…” it is incorrect. The “church” is an institution, a collection of fallible individuals. Only individuals can decide anything, an institution cannot.

We believe the Church is united with Christ as His Body and so acts through the Holy Spirit as Christ himself, with His Authority.

Guided by the Holy Spirit, it is indeed equipped to determine what is a genuine Revelation of God.

As was stated before, you need to investigate the origin of authority of the Church. This necessary to understand the Church’s position.

peace
steve

 

[Tyrion]

Define revelation for us.

Revelation would be a direct, unmistakable communication from God. If such a communication would happen, it would also be an undeniable proof (not just some “evidence”) that God exists.

What would u consider ( if any) …as examples from history ?

In my opinion there was no “revelation”, since I do not believe that God exists. I am curious only about your opinion… what do you consider a revelation? The bible? Or something else?

 

[brb3]

Revelation would be a direct, unmistakable communication from God. If such a communication would happen, it would also be an undeniable proof (not just some “evidence”) that God exists.

In my opinion there was no “revelation”, since I do not believe that God exists. I am curious only about your opinion… what do you consider a revelation? The bible? Or something else?

Ok …

That helps us know your perspective & how we can begin a conversation appropriate to your beliefs & experience.

Christians believe the Bible is 100 % inspired word of the WORD, our Lord Jesus. And, the Bible relates 100’s of Revelations …that would fit your criteria for a legitimate Revelation.

 

[brb3]

The Bible relates both Public and Private Revelations …but, I’d say u are only interested the Public ones ?

 

[brb3]

Fulfilled scripture, written many centuries before it was fulfilled is very common in Sacred Scripture. This is a powerful, historical proof of Christianity’s claims.

Lets start with Jesus, … do you accept he was a historical person ?

 

[Tyrion]

That helps us know your perspective & how we can begin a conversation appropriate to your beliefs & experience.

Thank you. Let’s start.

Christians believe the Bible is 100 % inspired word of the WORD, our Lord Jesus. And, the Bible relates 100’s of Revelations …that would fit your criteria for a legitimate Revelation.

Indeed they do. That opens quite a few questions:

1. 
   *]Many people believe many things. Someone, who does not a-priori accept that belief, would need more reasons to be convinced. Why should the collective belief of christians to be accepted, while the belief of muslims be discarded?
   *]The bible is a collection of many writings. The selection was done by humans, who voted (!) that text1 should be included and text2 should be left out. Sometimes the vote was very close. A true, direct communication from God would make the text obviously of divine origin.
   *]The bible contains many errors. The usual argument, namely that the bible is not a science textbook is totally unconvincing. Just because it does not “teach” science, it is not a good reason to teach errors. The value of pi is given as “3”, even though there were much better approximation at that time.
   *]Just “how” did that inspiration take place? Did God directly influence the thought processes of those individuals? If the word “brainwashing” would not carry such negative connotations, I would think that it would properly describe the process. Or did it happen in some different way?
   

   The Bible relates both Public and Private Revelations …but, I’d say u are only interested the Public ones ?

   Yes, that is correct.
   

   Fulfilled scripture, written many centuries before it was fulfilled is very common in Sacred Scripture. This is a powerful, historical proof of Christianity’s claims.

   This is problematic. Section “A” of the bible makes a “prediction”, and section “B” says that it was fulfilled. There is no extra-biblical evidence for the prediction, or its accuracy. Most of the time the wording of the prediction is very vague. In other words, one part of the bible attempts to “authenticate” the other part. The skeptic needs much more than that.
   

   Lets start with Jesus, … do you accept he was a historical person ?

   Since the name “Jesus” was a very common name, obviously, thousands of individuals carried it. Whether there was a specific person with all those fancy miracles attributed to him is a whole different question. There could have been one or more charismatic rabbis who served as starting point to the Jesus-legend. The Romans were very meticulous record keepers, and the alleged “miracles” would have been spectacular enough to catch their attention. Thousands of people “healed”? Food falling from the sky? Walking on water? Resurrecting dead people? And no one taking notice of such events?

 

[brb3]

Thank you. Let’s start.

Indeed they do. That opens quite a few questions:

1. 
   *]Many people believe many things. Someone, who does not a-priori accept that belief, would need more reasons to be convinced. Why should the collective belief of christians to be accepted, while the belief of muslims be discarded?
   *]The bible is a collection of many writings. The selection was done by humans, who voted (!) that text1 should be included and text2 should be left out. Sometimes the vote was very close. A true, direct communication from God would make the text obviously of divine origin.
   *]The bible contains many errors. The usual argument, namely that the bible is not a science textbook is totally unconvincing. Just because it does not “teach” science, it is not a good reason to teach errors. The value of pi is given as “3”, even though there were much better approximation at that time.
   *]Just “how” did that inspiration take place? Did God directly influence the thought processes of those individuals? If the word “brainwashing” would not carry such negative connotations, I would think that it would properly describe the process. Or did it happen in some different way?
   
   Yes, that is correct.
   
   This is problematic. Section “A” of the bible makes a “prediction”, and section “B” says that it was fulfilled. There is no extra-biblical evidence for the prediction, or its accuracy. Most of the time the wording of the prediction is very vague. In other words, one part of the bible attempts to “authenticate” the other part. The skeptic needs much more than that.
   
   Since the name “Jesus” was a very common name, obviously, thousands of individuals carried it. Whether there was a specific person with all those fancy miracles attributed to him is a whole different question. There could have been one or more charismatic rabbis who served as starting point to the Jesus-legend. The Romans were very meticulous record keepers, and the alleged “miracles” would have been spectacular enough to catch their attention. Thousands of people “healed”? Food falling from the sky? Walking on water? Resurrecting dead people? And no one taking notice of such events?

1. 
   Do you believe the 1st Century historian, JOSEPHUS (Jewish, Non-Christian) …regarding Jesus of Nazareth, …who was regarded as the Christ ?

 

[fhansen]

Thank you. Let’s start.

Indeed they do. That opens quite a few questions:

1. 
   *]Many people believe many things. Someone, who does not a-priori accept that belief, would need more reasons to be convinced. Why should the collective belief of christians to be accepted, while the belief of muslims be discarded?
   *]The bible is a collection of many writings. The selection was done by humans, who voted (!) that text1 should be included and text2 should be left out. Sometimes the vote was very close. A true, direct communication from God would make the text obviously of divine origin.
   *]The bible contains many errors. The usual argument, namely that the bible is not a science textbook is totally unconvincing. Just because it does not “teach” science, it is not a good reason to teach errors. The value of pi is given as “3”, even though there were much better approximation at that time.
   *]Just “how” did that inspiration take place? Did God directly influence the thought processes of those individuals? If the word “brainwashing” would not carry such negative connotations, I would think that it would properly describe the process. Or did it happen in some different way?
   
   Yes, that is correct.
   
   This is problematic. Section “A” of the bible makes a “prediction”, and section “B” says that it was fulfilled. There is no extra-biblical evidence for the prediction, or its accuracy. Most of the time the wording of the prediction is very vague. In other words, one part of the bible attempts to “authenticate” the other part. The skeptic needs much more than that.
   
   Since the name “Jesus” was a very common name, obviously, thousands of individuals carried it. Whether there was a specific person with all those fancy miracles attributed to him is a whole different question. There could have been one or more charismatic rabbis who served as starting point to the Jesus-legend. The Romans were very meticulous record keepers, and the alleged “miracles” would have been spectacular enough to catch their attention. Thousands of people “healed”? Food falling from the sky? Walking on water? Resurrecting dead people? And no one taking notice of such events?

1. 
   Nothing that’s happened in the past is 100% provable, including, say, WWII or your own birth. So the public miracles worked by Jesus certainly would fulfill your criteria for revelation, so long as they are credible. The question for yourself is, how do you believe such a thing? Private revelations are self-validating to the receiver alone.

 

[Tyrion]

Do you believe the 1st Century historian, JOSEPHUS (Jewish, Non-Christian) …regarding Jesus of Nazareth, …who was regarded as the Christ ?

There are quite a few problems regarding the mention of Jesus: Josephus on Jesus. Many historians regard is as later “addition”.

Even if it were authentic, it would not be “evidence” for the alleged miraculous actions of Jesus, and it would not authenticate the “inspired” nature of the bible in the slightest. How can one objectively decide if any particular human writ is “inspired” - in other words it is a result of a “revelation”?

 

[Tyrion]

Nothing that’s happened in the past is 100% provable, including, say, WWII or your own birth.

No one asks for absolute, Cartesian provability. Though what you say is not entirely true. Past events. which leave physical marks, can be ascertained with 100% probability. For example: a volcanic eruption. We might not know “exactly, precisely” when they happened, but we do know that they DID happen. By this criterion, the alleged “flood” could not be authenticated, since it would have left “indelible marks” which could be seen by geology - so we KNOW that the “flood” in the bible is not true. We do not know “everything” about WWII, but we do know that it happened. The physical evidence is not simply overwhelming, it cannot be denied by rational people. (Yes, some crazy people deny it, but why should crazy people be considered?)

Human actions usually do not fall into this category. Caesar allegedly said “Alea iacta est”, when he crossed the Rubicon. He may have said it, or may not have. In such cases one must rely on witness testimonials. The number of unrelated witnesses, their credentials, their possible biases all must be taken into consideration. When it comes to real serious issues, only first-hand testimonials are admissible, since the unreliablity of second, or third-hand testimonials is very well known.

So the public miracles worked by Jesus certainly would fulfill your criteria for revelation, so long as they are credible.

They would be “strange” and shocking, IF they could be authenticated. But there is no way to authenticate them. Even if they could be authenticated, that would not lead to divine miracles, just like Uri Geller’s alleged “paranormal powers” are disqualified as evidence by other stage magicians, who perform the same “tricks” without any reference to the paranormal.

The question for yourself is, how do you believe such a thing?

Personally? I don’t. But the question is not my skepticism. I am curious how can one substantiate a divine revelation? Let me give an example. Suppose someone comes and says that she had a “revelation” about the next ten consecutive Superball jackpot winnings starting one month in the future. The revelation would not only tell the numbers which will be drawn, but also the names, addresses, etc… of the upcoming winners. That would be impressive enough to start one doubt about one’s skepticism.

 

[OxygenMan]

They would be “strange” and shocking, IF they could be authenticated. But there is no way to authenticate them. Even if they could be authenticated, that would not lead to divine miracles, just like Uri Geller’s alleged “paranormal powers” are disqualified as evidence by other stage magicians, who perform the same “tricks” without any reference to the paranormal.

If they were authenticated, there is no chance that they were just stage magic. Raising the dead, healing crippled people, multiplying sources of food, and rising from the dead himself would certainly be miraculous if you accept them as authenticated. Though if you don’t believe they happened, I guess it doesn’t matter anyway.

 

[bzkoss236]

Tyrion, do you believe that historians are correct in saying that the New Testament writings were written during the 1st century? Especially since this has been the claim of believing Christians for hundreds of years? And obviously believed prior to the assemblage of the bible?

If Jesus of Nazareth was around not too long prior to these writings, would they not at least be accurate as to what the people of the time claimed happened?

Also, side note, manna from the sky happened in the Old Testament before Roman rule over the area, in the desert no less. So, other than the original writings, Romans wouldn’t have had a record of it.

 

[davidv]

No one asks for absolute, Cartesian provability. Though what you say is not entirely true. Past events. which leave physical marks, can be ascertained with 100% probability. For example: a volcanic eruption. We might not know “exactly, precisely” when they happened, but we do know that they DID happen. By this criterion, the alleged “flood” could not be authenticated, since it would have left “indelible marks” which could be seen by geology - so we KNOW that the “flood” in the bible is not true. We do not know “everything” about WWII, but we do know that it happened. The physical evidence is not simply overwhelming, it cannot be denied by rational people. (Yes, some crazy people deny it, but why should crazy people be considered?)

Human actions usually do not fall into this category. Caesar allegedly said “Alea iacta est”, when he crossed the Rubicon. He may have said it, or may not have. In such cases one must rely on witness testimonials. The number of unrelated witnesses, their credentials, their possible biases all must be taken into consideration. When it comes to real serious issues, only first-hand testimonials are admissible, since the unreliablity of second, or third-hand testimonials is very well known.

They would be “strange” and shocking, IF they could be authenticated. But there is no way to authenticate them. Even if they could be authenticated, that would not lead to divine miracles, just like Uri Geller’s alleged “paranormal powers” are disqualified as evidence by other stage magicians, who perform the same “tricks” without any reference to the paranormal.

Personally? I don’t. But the question is not my skepticism. I am curious how can one substantiate a divine revelation? Let me give an example. Suppose someone comes and says that she had a “revelation” about the next ten consecutive Superball jackpot winnings starting one month in the future. The revelation would not only tell the numbers which will be drawn, but also the names, addresses, etc… of the upcoming winners. That would be impressive enough to start one doubt about one’s skepticism.

The visible institution, called the Catholic Church, is the physical mark left by the person of the God-Man, Jesus.

 

[brb3]

There are quite a few problems regarding the mention of Jesus: Josephus on Jesus. Many historians regard is as later “addition”.

Even if it were authentic, it would not be “evidence” for the alleged miraculous actions of Jesus, and it would not authenticate the “inspired” nature of the bible in the slightest. How can one objectively decide if any particular human writ is “inspired” - in other words it is a result of a “revelation”?

ANTIQUITY OF JEWS, Book 20, Chp 9. …“the brother of James, who was called Christ, whose name was Jesus” …

This passage, on Christ Jesus …is UNIVERSALLY accepted by today’s scholars, in ancient works, as genuine, unadulterated HISTORICAL FACT.

So, you can dispense, (on good scholarship grounds)…of your belief Jesus Christ didn’t live.