The Bible As Revelation

[Lightkeeper]

Thomas Paine contended that it is a contradiction in terms to call anything a revelation that comes to us second-hand, either verbally or in writing. He asserted that revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication, and that after that it is only an account of something which another person says was a revelation to him. We have only his word for it, as it was never made to us. This argument never has been, and probably never will be, answered

Can the Bible be considered revelation?

[metis]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Can the Bible be considered revelation?

What you are most likely to get are very subjective answers. The root word of "revelation" is "reveal". Now whether the scriptures "reveal" anything about a deity is subject to a variety of opinion. However...

My answer: I don't they objectively determine if there are any deities or not, but it may reveal some concepts of how we may live our life that could be very useful.

[mooomooo]

When Jesus showed that He could Heal anything they killed Him and not because He was a fake but because Jesus would not allow them to know "THE TRUTH" . They felt this was unfair of Jesus to Heal just who 'Jesus' felt should be Healed .
Jesus asked Himself , " Am l doing the Healings or is it God who decides who gets Healed and who doesn't ? " .
Jesus was not sure but Jesus was sure in what He saw and He did in respect to His Healings and when they 'demanded' rational to His Healings Jesus didn't know what to do and Jesus was not yet in direct 100% communication with God although Jesus did assume God was real and the 'force' behind His Healings . Jesus was 'forced' to demand from God the Truth so Jesus could then go and tell them 'all' how to Heal their mom's and dad's ailments too , just as Jesus does .

Jesus assuming it was God behind His Healings confronted God when Jesus was told , "tell us or die" , and Jesus was about to reveal that God did it but even Jesus did not know if it was God's doings or what causes the Miracle Healings to be and even if God did it , how did God do it ??? , was Jesus main concern and question to God .

God was forced [first] to show Himself to Jesus and when Jesus finally saw the real God as 100% real and face to face Jesus realised that even all His Healings were not enough to show 'proof of God' but seeing God and then when Jesus was told the rational behind the Healings from God , Jesus knew it all was real but even with seeing it first hand was not enough for 'proof of God' to Jesus and it wasn't until Jesus was forced to connect with God and when God was forced to connect with Jesus , was when Jesus realised the dynamics behind what was really going on and it wasn't about Healing although the Healings were the factor which brought Jesus and God in true nexus .

God told Jesus that not only were Man and God and Jesus involved in the Jesus Healings but there was another factor as well and this factor was told to Jesus from God and it was 'then' when God told Jesus the whole Truth of the Healings and then Jesus could see obviously why Man can not know the Truth of the Healings . This is because this Healing Truth if known by Man , will be exploited into other areas besides Healings and quite innocently Man will take Jesus's Healing Secrets [which now were Jesus and God's Healing Secrets] and quite innocently destroy us all but not for the 'obvious' reason but for a reason kept with Jesus and God as they murdered him for not saying it .

It seems all Religious Scholars seem to put little interest on the capacity of Jesus's Healings and the whole picture of His Hwalings and His death .

[arthra]

I think Thomas Paine was a genius self made and a true revolutionary .. The argument attributed to him:

"He asserted that revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication, and that after that it is only an account of something which another person says was a revelation to him. We have only his word for it, as it was never made to us. This argument never has been, and probably never will be, answered .."

Is a good one... and applies to I think the revelations recorded in the Bible...after all we don't have the original revelation in the BIble as it was verbally passed down and then recorded in writing much later... so it is largely based on hearsay..

but there is a practical way I think people have found to say to read the Bible and garner it's wisdom and inspiration nonetheless by practical day to day living..so while it may not be the original revelation in it's pristine form it still counts I think as being inspired.

I believe after the Bible the record of revelation is more direct or pristine if you will... for we have recorded in writing and sometimes in the original writing certified as to what was revealed.

- Art

[shaw-n]

More a tome than a revelation. Even the tenach is a compilation of earlier works as per zachariah sitchin.
All these stories tell a great deal, but so much has been lost. what we need is a "rosetta stone" type of find to help us decode and read between the lines so as to fill in the "rest of the story".

[angeleyes]

I agree with Thomas Paine that revelation is first-hand and personal. When considering the Bible, it seems to me that the words/ideas aren't sacred in themselves. They must come to life in our consciousness, not unlike that "ah-ha" moment that we've all had when we recognize (re-cognize) something we know in our heart to be true. It's not about the words per se, because they can be accepted or rejected intellectually. It's about how they resonate within us (the "living word").

My personal experience is that revelation is a kind of inner awakening that can be triggered by any number of thoughts, words, or experiences. It's like a door opening in our consciousness.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by arthra

but there is a practical way I think people have found to say to read the Bible and garner it's wisdom and inspiration nonetheless by practical day to day living..so while it may not be the original revelation in it's pristine form it still counts I think as being inspired.

I believe after the Bible the record of revelation is more direct or pristine if you will... for we have recorded in writing and sometimes in the original writing certified as to what was revealed.

- Art

I think you are always left with the problem of knowing what might have been "inspired," and what was merely conjured out of a mind -- and that doesn't necessarily have to be through deception, deliberate or otherwise.

I mean, there have been many, many writings over the millenia claiming to be "inspired." They cannot all be right. I think that the Gospels (and Paul before them) appear to make the claim that (as Paul says), "each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband," which can hardly be read as polygamous, and yet Joseph Smith made a directly contrary claim, upon which the FDLS is currently at odds with the rest of the country.

Now, if we accept revelation (or even inspiration) at face value, and those revelations directly contradict one another, you are left with the problem of how to decide. You may choose to believe that one revelation or the other is the correct one, but this merely falls back on faith, which is almost universally that which was taught by one's family/community.

When I think of the absolutely stunning numbers of wildly contradictory "revelations" from around the world, I come to the conclusion that the revelatees are just like me except in a single regard. We both get ideas in our heads. The difference is, I am cognizant that my own mind can be very inventive, or may simply be remembering something consciously forgotten.

The revelatee assumes, without any discernable reason, that such ideas come from outside.

And the "faithful" believe him.

Now, many suggest that this faith is also "inspired," so that people will know how to distinguish false prophets. And yet, if we assume that God is capable of that level of inspiration for some, how is it that so many continue to believe in these contradictory revelations? It imples, at the very best, that the system is somehow broken.

You can see, then, why I am unable to accept the notions of revelation or divine inspiration. Personal inspiration is, of course, perfectly legitimate. But by its very personal nature, it can't apply universally unless some further evidence for its utility or truthfulness can be provided.

[arthra]

Some of us see similarities and things in common say in various revelations.

Read the Bible which is something of a record of revelations over time say a thousand years and you'll see simialrities I think. Ordinances and cultural trappings do change with time but there are some spiritual aspects that are pretty much the same.

- Art

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by arthra

Some of us see similarities and things in common say in various revelations.

Read the Bible which is something of a record of revelations over time say a thousand years and you'll see simialrities I think. Ordinances and cultural trappings do change with time but there are some spiritual aspects that are pretty much the same.

- Art

And would you assume that the fact that "there are some spiritual aspects that are pretty much the same" is because God made sure of that (and why only some if that's the case?), or because they were all created by humans who do, after all, share some physiological and psychological commonalities?

[prapanther]

There is cerainly a number of examples whereby what looks like divine intention repeats something of itself. Whether that is a product of human creation is a matter less understood as widely. I think the question of revelation is meant to be humbling and inspiring. Who am I to say, though, what one persons' hallucination or another's 'demon' may or may not reveal, or whether when an angel speaks to someone directly, what is then exactly going on? I think i'm with the scientific camp on this one, wherein it is written that certain truths shall be revealed...