Divine revelation

[seer]

You are one kind of Christian. There are many others.

Well I'm the kind of Christian that has a high regard for Revelation.

It doesn't have to come down to anybody's word.

Then what does it come down to?

[seer]

Then lost you shall be
Clueless and blind to reality.
Maybe someday you may awaken to see,
There are others, not only me
That suffer and long to see
Like Buddha under the Bodhi tree.

Buddha was clueless...

[AkByR64]

This topic came up in another thread, and someone suggested -- rightly, I believe, that it was off topic there.

So, would some Christian (or other theist) care to tell me why I should believe that anyone has ever received any knowledge about God by divine revelation?

I would say follow wherever the evidence leads to. That is the only way you know if something is divine or not.

[shunyadragon]

I would say follow wherever the evidence leads to. That is the only way you know if something is divine or not.

I would say . . .? Kind of anecdotal when it concerns what is Divine and what is not, which evidence leads where? The problem is usually people are rather selective on which evidence they chose to follow, and how the interpret such evidence.

[AkByR64]

I would say . . .? Kind of anecdotal when it concerns what is Divine and what is not, which evidence leads where? The problem is usually people are rather selective on which evidence they chose to follow, and how the interpret such evidence.

To me if something is divinely inspired means that no known natural explanation can account for it. The explanation must be supernatural.

[shunyadragon]

To me if something is divinely inspired means that no known natural explanation can account for it. The explanation must be supernatural.

That is the problem with anecdotal claims of ancient texts are considered supernatural, whether Buddhist, Jewish, Vedic (Hindu) or Christian, or even more recent anecdotal claims of the miraculous and supernatural. When evaluated objectively with out the assumption of a supernatural explanation, natural explanations are possible. The supernatural explanation cannot be proven false, of course, and is possible, but the natural explanation is also possible.

[Truthseeker]

To me if something is divinely inspired means that no known natural explanation can account for it. The explanation must be supernatural.

That does not work, unfortunately. As Shuny pointed out, natural explanations are possible. Also . . .here I must ask now: Are we humans natural or not? If you say, we are not natural, explain or justify that answer.

[AkByR64]

That is the problem with anecdotal claims of ancient texts are considered supernatural, whether Buddhist, Jewish, Vedic (Hindu) or Christian, or even more recent anecdotal claims of the miraculous and supernatural. When evaluated objectively with out the assumption of a supernatural explanation, natural explanations are possible. The supernatural explanation cannot be proven false, of course, and is possible, but the natural explanation is also possible.

Oh really? Then how do you account for the Resurrection of Jesus using naturalistic explanations? I can't speak for other religions because I have not study it in depth as I have with Christianity. At the beginning of Christianity it was just a small base. The things we know about Jesus mainly revolve around His death. He was the front line leading toward His movement. If Jesus had not risen, what would sustained the growth of His followers from the 12? Did His followers made up the story?

Gary Habermas and Mike Licona have a solid case for the resurrection of Jesus. There is the minimal facts argument as presented by Gary Habermas is an argument that uses all the facts that are agreed upon by even liberal scholars. They are not disputed among NT scholars who study in this field.

[Doug Shaver]

Then how do you account for the Resurrection of Jesus using naturalistic explanations?

I don't need to explain how it happened if I don't believe it did happen.

[Doug Shaver]

Gary Habermas and Mike Licona have a solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.

They think it's a solid case. Evangelical Christians think it's a solid case. Others beg to differ.

There is the minimal facts argument as presented by Gary Habermas is an argument that uses all the facts that are agreed upon by even liberal scholars. They are not disputed among NT scholars who study in this field.

I don't care how many NT scholars go along with Habermas. I'd like to know how many secular historians accept every one of his "minimal facts."

[shunyadragon]

Oh really? Then how do you account for the Resurrection of Jesus using naturalistic explanations? I can't speak for other religions because I have not study it in depth as I have with Christianity. At the beginning of Christianity it was just a small base. The things we know about Jesus mainly revolve around His death. He was the front line leading toward His movement. If Jesus had not risen, what would sustained the growth of His followers from the 12? Did His followers made up the story?

The account of the Resurrection can possibly be a created story of those who compiled the gospels after 50 AD is clearly a possibility. There is distinct problem with much of historical claims of miraculous as well as mundane events, when the historicity of the events are not backed up by other sources. The historicity of many miraculous and supernatural events of all ancient religions are considered not accepted as proven historically. This does not translate to the fact that they did not happen, there is simply a lack of evidence that they actually are proven to occur, without natural mundane explanations.

How do you explain the growth of the number of believers? Well, one answer is they believed the teachings of the Gospels of the time were true is the most obvious answer, and this does not prove that the events are true. First we have no evidence of any gospels written record prior to 50 to 75 AD. Those that later converted were not witnesses to the events. We have no records outside the gospels of Jesus and the miraculous events witnessed by many during the life of Jesus even though there were historians in and around Jerusalem that could have reported. The rapid growth of a number of religious movements in history has occurred, such as in Islam, without calling upon miracles as the cause.

Secular historians generally agree that the miraculous events of the life of Jesus as well as other religious figures of the past are not proven events. to have actually taken place.

Gary Habermas and Mike Licona have a solid case for the resurrection of Jesus. There is the minimal facts argument as presented by Gary Habermas is an argument that uses all the facts that are agreed upon by even liberal scholars. They are not disputed among NT scholars who study in this field.

So what? Not sure what you are arguing as liberal scholars. The fact is that many qualified scholars consider the case for the Resurrection not proven historical fact. The scholarly consensus is just not there.

Regardless of the arguments for the Resurrection, this in no way discounts the possibility that the events of the Resurrection are not true, and explanable by natural causes, such as simply the known fallibility of human testimony.

[NormATive]

.. how do you account for the Resurrection of Jesus using naturalistic explanations?

Several theories:

1. Body stolen
2. Body eaten by animals (actually, this one is most believable as this was the common practice of crucifixion of Jews - they normally allowed the body to rot and be devoured by wild animals. In this way, they inflict the ultimate humiliation on them; denying the proper burial ritual).
3. Whole story made up to avoid the embarrassment of leader being defeated.
4. Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, but just lost consciousness.
5. Complex conspiracy theory concocted by Apostles and willing Roman accomplices.

I could probably come up with at least a half dozen more possible naturalistic explanations for the supposed resurrection of Jesus.

But, I don't really look at it that way. It's a pointless exercise. My experience, thus far, leads me to the conclusion that dead people generally stay dead.

NORM

[Doug Shaver]

You are one kind of Christian. There are many others.

Well I'm the kind of Christian that has a high regard for Revelation.

Most of the others don't think revelation means what you think it means, even if they regard it as highly as you do.

It doesn't have to come down to anybody's word.

Then what does it come down to?

It comes down to whether, in a given instance, someone's testimony is sufficient reason, all things considered, to believe the thing being testified to. Bayes' Theorem tells us how we should consider all things.

[AkByR64]

The account of the Resurrection can possibly be a created story of those who compiled the gospels after 50 AD is clearly a possibility.

What evidence is there that it is a created story? All around the world the apostles and followers of Jesus Christ of the 1st century believed that "story" to the death. Quite an effort for an engineered story.

There is distinct problem with much of historical claims of miraculous as well as mundane events, when the historicity of the events are not backed up by other sources.

What sources? What about the Gospels themselves? What about the writings of the Bishops? The NT writings were a bunch of independent sources, not 1 book, it wasn't until later in the 300s when it was put together as a single volume.

The historicity of many miraculous and supernatural events of all ancient religions are considered not accepted as proven historically. This does not translate to the fact that they did not happen, there is simply a lack of evidence that they actually are proven to occur, without natural mundane explanations.

Historical events and documentations act as important pointers..they can never in themselves result in proof, but they can lead people in the right direction. Nothing can be proven in history, only what is plausible or not.

How do you explain the growth of the number of believers? Well, one answer is they believed the teachings of the Gospels of the time were true is the most obvious answer, and this does not prove that the events are true. First we have no evidence of any gospels written record prior to 50 to 75 AD. Those that later converted were not witnesses to the events. We have no records outside the gospels of Jesus and the miraculous events witnessed by many during the life of Jesus even though there were historians in and around Jerusalem that could have reported. The rapid growth of a number of religious movements in history has occurred, such as in Islam, without calling upon miracles as the cause.

Since when is it a condition that we need evidence prior to 50 to 70AD? Show me any historical event from that time period that has evidence for anything within 30 years.

[AkByR64]

Several theories:

1. Body stolen
2. Body eaten by animals (actually, this one is most believable as this was the common practice of crucifixion of Jews - they normally allowed the body to rot and be devoured by wild animals. In this way, they inflict the ultimate humiliation on them; denying the proper burial ritual).
3. Whole story made up to avoid the embarrassment of leader being defeated.
4. Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, but just lost consciousness.
5. Complex conspiracy theory concocted by Apostles and willing Roman accomplices.

I could probably come up with at least a half dozen more possible naturalistic explanations for the supposed resurrection of Jesus.

But, I don't really look at it that way. It's a pointless exercise. My experience, thus far, leads me to the conclusion that dead people generally stay dead.

NORM

All of that can be refute and maybe already has been refuted.

Regarding the stolen body: "The hypothesis has existed since the days of Early Christianity; it is discussed in the Gospel of Matthew, generally agreed to have been written between AD 70 and 100. Matthew's gospel raises the hypothesis only to refute it; according to it, the claim the body was stolen is a lie spread by the Jewish high priests."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_body_hypothesis