What is a "revelation"?

[fhansen]

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.

Many years ago I had a series of experiences over a period of about a week which included revelations known as locutions and visions. One aspect of these experiences is the knowledge that they’re being received, from a vastly superior being separate from oneself. Anyway, they all related to information regarding the molestation of an acquaintance approximately 14 years earlier who suffered from depression and anger. She had held all this in and it was beginning to cause severe problems-I was to find out later that she was suicidal, for one.

I carefully confronted her with my “knowledge”, which was difficult to do since I had no proof other than my revelations, which I knew would impress exactly no one on their own. After two attempts over a period of a couple days I was feeling rather foolish but those experiences had been so profound and clear that I couldn’t deny them. Finally, on the third attempt she opened up a bit, which later turned into a flood, and ultimately saved her life IMO. She went on to live a very full life, very different from the one she was heading for-she had been in a very dark place, which I had been given insight into as well. One way or the other she was impressed-my insights hadn’t been made known previously.

 

[brb3]

Tyrion…

God gives us both public & private revelations. When he lived here in 1st Century, he performed both type revelations. Public ones — healing of infirmities, multiplying bread and fish ( on two occasions), water to wine, appearance to the Apostles & 500 disciples after resurrection. If you had lived in Palestine in 30 AD…u might of seen a public one.

Today, with Christ in Heaven, it’s still possible …but, not common like in first Century. We have a few documented large public miracles, view by large crowds …& attested to.
But, as someone has already mentioned, the Church going on 2000 yrs old, conquer of Secular Roman Empire …is the best shining example of miraculous works/revelations of God in lives of Christians/ Saints — since the Age of Apostles.

 

[Tyrion]

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.

Very true! IF they would be authenticated, they would point to a knowledge and ability far beyond to our currect understanding. But that would still not point to divine origin. The assumption of “true, divine origin” would need a knowledge that such achievements are forever impossible via natural means… and that would necessitate omniscience. Nevertheless, since none of those instances were authenticated, this question is moot…

 

[Tyrion]

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?

Certainly I agree. They were most probably written after the events they described by at least 40 or 60 years. As such none of them qualifies as “first hand” testimonials. But again, even if they WERE first-hand testimonials, we know that even those are unreliable. It is well-known to investigators that first hand testimonials are very unreliable… not because people want ro distort the facts, but because people are apt to report what they “thought” happened. Many interesting events attest to this fact. Recall, that there were Christmas Cards with intentional mis-spellings on them, and most readers never saw those errors, because they saw what they “expected” to see.

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?

Nope. The time elapsed was a few decades.

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.

True. And there was no recording of it from other sources.

 

[Tyrion]

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

Only according to the “authority” of the church. There is no outside evidence to substantiate that claim. Self-authentication is insufficient.

 

[Tyrion]

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.

Not relevant. There were many people with the name of “Jesus” - it was a very common name. The alleged acts of such a person is in question.

 

[fhansen]

Very true! IF they would be authenticated, they would point to a knowledge and ability far beyond to our currect understanding. But that would still not point to divine origin. The assumption of “true, divine origin” would need a knowledge that such achievements are forever impossible via natural means… and that would necessitate omniscience. Nevertheless, since none of those instances were authenticated, this question is moot…

IMO most people, in the face of witnessing a ressurection, say, would be sufficiently impressed, to put it mildly, to believe a “non-natural” event had occurred, regardless of how they thought they might react beforehand. And in the case of similar events that we aren’t privileged to witness directly, God can certainly provide us with the ability to believe. Such faith, supernaturally given, is said to be more akin to knowledge than mere belief, and is itself proof to the believer that the events are true, as he possesses no means to believe them on his own.

 

[Tyrion]

God gives us both public & private revelations. When he lived here in 1st Century, he performed both type revelations. Public ones — healing of infirmities, multiplying bread and fish ( on two occasions), water to wine, appearance to the Apostles & 500 disciples after resurrection. If you had lived in Palestine in 30 AD…u might of seen a public one.

Maybe, or maybe not. There is no reliable account that any of them actually happened. It is all hearsay. Mind you, I am not interested in rebutting those testimonials. I am totally uninterested in their “assumed” veracity. If there would be a reliable miracle, I would be happy to entertian it, no matter if it came from christianity, or Islam, or an ancient pagan worship practice.

Today, with Christ in Heaven, it’s still possible …but, not common like in first Century. We have a few documented large public miracles, view by large crowds …& attested to.

There is not one.

But, as someone has already mentioned, the Church going on 2000 yrs old, conquer of Secular Roman Empire …is the best shining example of miraculous works/revelations of God in lives of Christians/ Saints — since the Age of Apostles.

That is not evidence. What is so special about 2000 years? The Muslims would assert that their “1300” years of continous existence is an “evidence”. This is not a “numbers game”… is it?

 

[Tyrion]

IMO most people, in the face of witnessing a ressurection, say, would be sufficiently impressed, to put it mildly, to believe a “non-natural” event had occurred, regardless of how they thought they might react beforehand. And in the case of similar events that we aren’t privileged to witness directly, God can certainly provide us with the ability to believe. Such faith, supernaturally given, is said to be more akin to knowledge than mere belief, and is itself proof to the believer that the events are true, as he possesses no means to believe them on his own.

Actually, simple “resurrection” is not a special event - these days. I happened to undergo one of these procedures myself, when I had a heart attack and flat-lined (!), and the paramedics applied the procedure called the “thumb of life” - witnessed by my wife, when a strong “punch” to my heart “rebooted” my failing “system”. (I had a very obvious black spot on my chest where they hit me…) Now such a procedure after a few days of death would be spectacular indeed… if it ever happened. Buit there is no evidence that it ever happened.

 

[fhansen]

Actually, simple “resurrection” is not a special event - these days. I happened to undergo one of these procedures myself, when I had a heart attack and flat-lined (!), and the paramedics applied the procedure called the “thumb of life” - witnessed by my wife, when a strong “punch” to my heart “rebooted” my failing “system”. (I had a very obvious black spot on my chest where they hit me…) Now such a procedure after a few days of death would be spectacular indeed… if it ever happened. Buit there is no evidence that it ever happened.

That’s a resuscitation, not a resurrection, which involved 3 days stone-cold dead in a tomb, a spear ran through an already emaciated body, then all of a sudden, BAM!, He’s up walking around all over the place, communicating with a variety of people, walking through walls, appearing and disappearing. If we want to disbelieve the story, that’s one thing; but to make it fit our own theories is another matter all together. We can’t know with 100% accuracy the historicity of the accounts, so leaving them alone and simply discounting them would be a more responsible route than revisionism.

 

[davidv]

Only according to the “authority” of the church. There is no outside evidence to substantiate that claim. Self-authentication is insufficient.

Not so. Its existance, from the beginning, alone, without any claim, is the evidence.

 

[Tyrion]

That’s a resuscitation, not a resurrection, which involved 3 days stone-cold dead in a tomb, a spear ran through an already emaciated body, then all of a sudden, BAM!, He’s up walking around all over the place, communicating with a variety of people, walking through walls, appearing and disappearing. If we want to disbelieve the story, that’s one thing; but to make it fit our own theories is another matter all together. We can’t know with 100% accuracy the historicity of the accounts, so leaving them alone and simply discounting them would be a more responsible route than revisionism.

Well, I was thinking about the story of Lazarus… but we can contemplate what you said, too. So someone comes back after 3 days of stone-cold dead, communicates with people, and no one runs to the authorities to tell them about their failure? Peculiar, isn’t it? You see, such legends cannot convince the skeptics. After all, we know now about entropy, which those people did not know.

Moreover, I would bet, that you are just as skeptical as I am, when it comes “miraculous claims” of other religions. And miraculous “claims” are dime a dozen.

As such I still see no evidence that the bible was “inspired” by God - whatever that “inspiration process” might have been.

 

[brb3]

Well, I was thinking about the story of Lazarus… but we can contemplate what you said, too. So someone comes back after 3 days of stone-cold dead, communicates with people, and no one runs to the authorities to tell them about their failure? Peculiar, isn’t it? You see, such legends cannot convince the skeptics. After all, we know now about entropy, which those people did not know.

Moreover, I would bet, that you are just as skeptical as I am, when it comes “miraculous claims” of other religions. And miraculous “claims” are dime a dozen.

As such I still see no evidence that the bible was “inspired” by God - whatever that “inspiration process” might have been.

Ok …reviewed your responses to the half dozen or so dialoging with u. And, its not very encouraging for you. Let me list a few problems that u must overcome, somehow, by God’s grace, love, and supernatural kindness to all his begotten.

1. Raging skepticism…to the extreme.
   A. Reject the scholarship of the experts who have examined Josephus’ testimony about existence of one name Jesus, brother of Apostle James, who was called Christ.
   B. Reject all testimony in past history of public miracles / revelations witnessed by 100’s-1000’s people.
   C. Have read/studied the Bible & Christian history…and have no conviction it is true
   D. Apparently don’t believe in Private revelations either, and even if you had one or more, …you wouldn’t even trust yourself in this regard.

So my friend, no trust of fellowman…or yourself. You have really ‘boxed’ yourself into a place with no escape.

Am I wrong ?

 

[Tyrion]

Ok …reviewed your responses to the half dozen or so dialoging with u. And, its not very encouraging for you. Let me list a few problems that u must overcome, somehow, by God’s grace, love, and supernatural kindness to all his begotten.

1. Raging skepticism…to the extreme.
   A. Reject the scholarship of the experts who have examined Josephus’ testimony about existence of one name Jesus, brother of Apostle James, who was called Christ.
   B. Reject all testimony in past history of public miracles / revelations witnessed by 100’s-1000’s people.
   C. Have read/studied the Bible & Christian history…and have no conviction it is true
   D. Apparently don’t believe in Private revelations either, and even if you had one or more, …you wouldn’t even trust yourself in this regard.

So my friend, no trust of fellowman…or yourself. You have really ‘boxed’ yourself into a place with no escape.

Am I wrong ?

Yes, indeed you are wrong. Your skepticism is exactly as strong as mine, when it comes to the claims of other religions or other supernatural claims, which are not endorsed by your authority, the church. Did you ever wonder, why? Because you find their claims to be ill-established, and their evidence lacking. There is no difference in our attitude.

As a matter of fact, I would accept evidence of anything, if that evidence would meet the proper standards. I do not treat religious claims differently from any other claims. There is a well-known phrase: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”. I do not accept this idea as a “working” method. Any claim must meet the same level of “proof” to be acceptable. And second-hand testimonials simply do not cut it.

 

[brb3]

Yes, indeed you are wrong. Your skepticism is exactly as strong as mine, when it comes to the claims of other religions or other supernatural claims, which are not endorsed by your authority, the church. Did you ever wonder, why? Because you find their claims to be ill-established, and their evidence lacking. There is no difference in our attitude.

As a matter of fact, I would accept evidence of anything, if that evidence would meet the proper standards. I do not treat religious claims differently from any other claims. There is a well-known phrase: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”. I do not accept this idea as a “working” method. Any claim must meet the same level of “proof” to be acceptable. And second-hand testimonials simply do not cut it.

Well, I hoped I was wrong ! None here wish to see you continue in your skepticism…regarding Revelations.

But, you are demanding scientific level proof …from ancient days, when our current fanaticism for documentation didn’t exist. In order to meet your standards of proof, you would need Christ to publicly or possibly privately reveal himself to you.

Do you think you will get that Public, in the flesh, Revelation ?
Would you accept, as most of we, private revelations of Christ ?..as the reasonable, realistic alternative ?

 

[Tyrion]

Well, I hoped I was wrong ! None here wish to see you continue in your skepticism…regarding Revelations.

But, you are demanding scientific level proof …from ancient days, when our current fanaticism for documentation didn’t exist. In order to meet your standards of proof, you would need Christ to publicly or possibly privately reveal himself to you.

That would work.

Do you think you will get that Public, in the flesh, Revelation ?

Obviously that would be ideal. It would allow all the skeptics to compare our experiences, so we could rule out a possible hallucination.

Would you accept, as most of we, private revelations of Christ ?..as the reasonable, realistic alternative ?

Of course. If the only alternative to accept a bona-fide revelation would be the assumption that I went insane, I would accept the revelation. But, of course the “encounter” would have to be a “give-and-take” type of conversation, an equivalent of the Turing-test. The truth is that many skeptics (myself included) already asked for such an unmistakable sign, a la “Doubting Thomas”. Yes, I am aware of the “blessed are the ones, who have not seen, yet they believe” verse, but I also remember that Jesus said: “whatever you ask in my name will be fulfilled, because I will go to the Father”. And there would be no drawbacks of having such a revelation. It would not “force” anyone to start to worship God.

 

[fhansen]

That would work.

Obviously that would be ideal. It would allow all the skeptics to compare our experiences, so we could rule out a possible hallucination.

Of course. If the only alternative to accept a bona-fide revelation would be the assumption that I went insane, I would accept the revelation. But, of course the “encounter” would have to be a “give-and-take” type of conversation, an equivalent of the Turing-test. The truth is that many skeptics (myself included) already asked for such an unmistakable sign, a la “Doubting Thomas”. Yes, I am aware of the “blessed are the ones, who have not seen, yet they believe” verse, but I also remember that Jesus said: “whatever you ask in my name will be fulfilled, because I will go to the Father”. And there would be no drawbacks of having such a revelation. It would not “force” anyone to start to worship God.

It doesn’t begin with worship; it begins with a small degree of trust in God’s existence, and, increasingly, in His goodness. He won’t force us to do this while humans, OTOH, may or may not try to force themselves or others to do it, for a variety of reasons. In the Christian mentality, this faith/trust in goodness-as-foundational-to-this-universe is considered to be a requirement of justice for man. And justice as well as goodness, at this foundationl level, are pretty much relative and worthless concepts if, by this, they’re not meant as attributes of some rational being, superior to ourselves, residing at this most basic level.

So, if it’s true that justice demands that we have this trust, this positivity, then this is the equivalent of saying that God is pleased with our faith, a sincere and humble faith, as Jesus told us is necessary, however small and weak to begin with. This is what God responds to, and “rewards”, as the bible puts it. And this trust is what Jesus came to inspire, and grace (because the giver of it, God, just happens to exist) will help facilitate this inspiration, but we always have the freedom to resist it.

 

[brb3]

That would work.

Obviously that would be ideal. It would allow all the skeptics to compare our experiences, so we could rule out a possible hallucination.

Of course. If the only alternative to accept a bona-fide revelation would be the assumption that I went insane, I would accept the revelation. But, of course the “encounter” would have to be a “give-and-take” type of conversation, an equivalent of the Turing-test. The truth is that many skeptics (myself included) already asked for such an unmistakable sign, a la “Doubting Thomas”. Yes, I am aware of the “blessed are the ones, who have not seen, yet they believe” verse, but I also remember that Jesus said: “whatever you ask in my name will be fulfilled, because I will go to the Father”. And there would be no drawbacks of having such a revelation. It would not “force” anyone to start to worship God.

Great !! A man with open mind, ready to be Enlightened !!

And, yes …it would be a Private Revelation. As you should know from your read of scripture …the next time we see Jesus Christ, will be at his Second and Final coming. And that would too late to accept him …by anyone.

 

[brb3]

Now, if I might ask…were you ever baptized, in water, by Trinitarian Rite ?

This is not a insignificant, nonsensical ?

 

[Tyrion]

Great !! A man with open mind, ready to be Enlightened !!

And, yes …it would be a Private Revelation. As you should know from your read of scripture …the next time we see Jesus Christ, will be at his Second and Final coming. And that would too late to accept him …by anyone.

You bring up an important point. Why is it that one can only “accept” as long as there there is no actual proof? Once you “know”, then you cannot “accept” any more. I am aware that “faith” is considered to be superior to knowledge, but this is absurd. After all, this “faith” is the one mentioned in Hebrews 11:1, which is blind faith.

Now, if I might ask…were you ever baptized, in water, by Trinitarian Rite ?

This is not a insignificant, nonsensical ?

Of course you may ask. Yes, I was baptized Calvinist or Presbyterian, whichever label you prefer. For a while I was a believer, and later I dropped “out”, so to speak.