> “Read Jeremiah 18.1-12 for starters. Jonah 3.10 is an example.”
Ok, I see what you’re talking about. We’re talking about two different things. Future predictive statements of the sort described in the texts you referenced were in their original utterance, always conditional in their respective fulfillments. This means statements like these (“I am going to destroy Ninevah”) are not good candidates for use as criteria of determining revelation, for the simple reason that they are “fulfilled” whether the event occurs or not. Heads I win, tails you lose.
If one is to say that all prophetic statements are of this sort, then my point stands that “fulfilled prophecy” is a useless criteria understood as such.
It seems evident to me, that many statements in the Bible and other writings claiming revelation are NOT of this sort. That is to say they make actual “hard” predictions, that are not contingent on the reaction or behavior of the recipients for their fulfillment.
But as we have agreed, these sorts of prophetic statements are only useful as criteria in a limited sense, and I would further contend produce false positives.
For example, a pre-exilic prophet would not necessarily need divine revelation to predict that the Babylonians were going to destroy Jerusalem.
> “They are then also affirmed by the message they give as being in conformity with the other messages God gives (consistency and no self-contradictions). “
I agree that this is a good criteria, but only for exclusion, that is determining true negatives. Yet this isn’t useful for true positives, as one could write a book now, in complete harmony with orthodox Christian doctrine but this would not mean it is necessarily revelation from God.
> “These messages were confirmed at the time, affirmed through time, but now are being doubted by a secular, skeptical scholarship. But if they've already been confirmed, and have been affirmed for thousands of years now, where do we get the hubris to reject them?”
I think this is where we are farthest apart. It is not as though I am rejecting that the original audience of these prophets confirmed or affirmed their revelatory nature. Of course, no claim to revelation could even get off the ground if no one around believed it.
The point is, this idea of “confirmation” or “affirmation” or having along tradition of belief are utterly irrelevant to the discussion unless one can demonstrate the criteria they used to come to that conclusion. Lacking that, the argument then becomes: “one should believe Moses was a prophet, because those around him believed so”
This not only is poor reasoning, but would necessarily entail that anyone who claims revelation and subsequently convinces those around them HAS in fact received revelation. Christians would have to conclude that Islam is also revelation from God.
It is not about skeptical scholarship or secularism. I’m not making any claim on Gods existence or non-existence, nor am I making any claim about the sources of or historical nature of the biblical writings.
Board index ‹ Bible
Forum rules
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
45 posts
• Page 3 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Re: The Bible and a lack of a coherent message
by jimwalton » Sat Dec 23, 2023 11:45 am
Thank you for all you said. I generally agree with it and respect what you've written. The point I was making is that if a prophet was being tested, he would have to produce a prophecy from the Lord where the fulfillment was close enough (short-range prophecies) to find out if what the prophet said was true or not. It couldn't possibly pertain to long-term prophecies. One mistake and you're a fake. Deuteronomy 18.20-22 is the go-to text. 1 Ki. 22.28 & Jer. 28 are examples of it. The same was true in the surrounding cultures of Mari and Nineveh. Prophecies were “tested” to evaluate their validity by getting another opinion. Royal written records were kept about prophecies in order to check their fulfillment or nonfulfillment.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible and a lack of a coherent message
by Fodder » Sat Dec 23, 2023 11:48 am
I’m not sure where to go from here. I still don’t see any sound criteria one could use to determine whether a prophet is receiving revelation that wouldn’t ALSO apply to every other person who has claimed revelation and gotten those around them to believe it.
- Fodder
Re: The Bible and a lack of a coherent message
by jimwalton » Sat Dec 23, 2023 11:48 am
There has to be at least some level of verification. Claiming revelation isn't good enough. Like might have been used in the OJ Simpson trial: "If there's no verification, there wasn't revelation." I dunno, just being silly, I guess. There had to be ways of discerning false prophets from true, false writers from inspired writers, and it all came from some kind of verification, some kind of evidence, and some kind of assessment.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible and a lack of a coherent message
by Fodder » Sat Dec 23, 2023 11:52 am
I agree with you that they must have used some criteria for determining revelation. I just can’t conceive of any criteria that could be used that affirm only these writings, while at the same time, denying all others.
As far as I can tell, the major religions of the world make similar claims to the prophets in the Bible, and their adherents argue for their legitimacy in the same or similar ways that Christianity does.
I think many Christians are woefully unaware of how extensive the work of Islam apologetics is. They use many of the same classical arguments to get to a monotheistic God. They have miraculous claims they use to prove the Quran is inspired. They appeal to long tradition of Islam, though it’s about 500 years behind Christianity, that’s still a very long time. They appeal to its moral efficacy and value in human society—in short, they do everything that Christianity does. At this point in my life I am much more inclined to think that God (in the classical Theist sense) really does reveal himself in multiple ways including many religions and philosophies.
As far as I can tell, the major religions of the world make similar claims to the prophets in the Bible, and their adherents argue for their legitimacy in the same or similar ways that Christianity does.
I think many Christians are woefully unaware of how extensive the work of Islam apologetics is. They use many of the same classical arguments to get to a monotheistic God. They have miraculous claims they use to prove the Quran is inspired. They appeal to long tradition of Islam, though it’s about 500 years behind Christianity, that’s still a very long time. They appeal to its moral efficacy and value in human society—in short, they do everything that Christianity does. At this point in my life I am much more inclined to think that God (in the classical Theist sense) really does reveal himself in multiple ways including many religions and philosophies.
- Fodder
Re: The Bible and a lack of a coherent message
by jimwalton » Sat Dec 23, 2023 11:53 am
> I just can’t conceive of any criteria...
We've already covered this ground. In the OT, it's the record of God's work in and through Israel. We don't most of the authors, or even the dates, so it's tough to nail down their criteria. But they obviously had criteria to separate the true from the false. There is no disagreement recorded in history for us of any dispute about these books.
And we've already discussed the criteria for a legitimate prophet.
> the major religions of the world make similar claims
They do (sort of), and that's where we have to go with the evidence. Hindu texts don't claim inspiration; they are recognized gurus of Hindu wisdom. Same with Buddhism. Islamic texts are tougher. They recognize the Qur'an, written by Muhammed, and the Hadith gathered about him. They recognize (and simultaneously disparage) the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels. The Bible is somewhat unique in its claims.
> I think many Christians are woefully unaware of how extensive the work of Islam apologetics is.
Islam similar to that of Christians, but they are fiercer about discrediting contradictions and even sometimes killing their critics—though the contradictions are certainly there.
> They have miraculous claims...long tradition...moral...
That's where we have to go with evidence. Discussing them in general is of no value. Only in the particulars is discussion fruitful.
> I am much more inclined to think that God ... does reveal himself in multiple ways including many religions and philosophies.
There is truth in all religions, but all religions can't be true. The problem is they directly contradict each other, so it's nonsense to think God has revealed Himself in all of them. If so, He's a God of confusion, not or reason and order.
We've already covered this ground. In the OT, it's the record of God's work in and through Israel. We don't most of the authors, or even the dates, so it's tough to nail down their criteria. But they obviously had criteria to separate the true from the false. There is no disagreement recorded in history for us of any dispute about these books.
And we've already discussed the criteria for a legitimate prophet.
> the major religions of the world make similar claims
They do (sort of), and that's where we have to go with the evidence. Hindu texts don't claim inspiration; they are recognized gurus of Hindu wisdom. Same with Buddhism. Islamic texts are tougher. They recognize the Qur'an, written by Muhammed, and the Hadith gathered about him. They recognize (and simultaneously disparage) the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels. The Bible is somewhat unique in its claims.
> I think many Christians are woefully unaware of how extensive the work of Islam apologetics is.
Islam similar to that of Christians, but they are fiercer about discrediting contradictions and even sometimes killing their critics—though the contradictions are certainly there.
> They have miraculous claims...long tradition...moral...
That's where we have to go with evidence. Discussing them in general is of no value. Only in the particulars is discussion fruitful.
> I am much more inclined to think that God ... does reveal himself in multiple ways including many religions and philosophies.
There is truth in all religions, but all religions can't be true. The problem is they directly contradict each other, so it's nonsense to think God has revealed Himself in all of them. If so, He's a God of confusion, not or reason and order.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible and a lack of a coherent message
by Fodder » Sat Dec 23, 2023 11:57 am
> And we've already discussed the criteria for a legitimate prophet.
I think we have pretty significant agreement on some things, and I’m really enjoying this conversation btw, I hope you are too.
However, it seems as though you are missing what I was saying in the last comment: that I am NOT denying that there must have been some sort of criteria or standards used by the original audience. What I am trying to say is that it seems whatever criteria they used are not significant enough to ALSO exclude other claims to revelation today.
It appears that all we are left with today is “well those folks in the past must have had good reason to believe these various texts were revelations, so we ought to as well”. But of course all religions in the world have their own reasons for believing their revelation, though I acknowledge not all religions claim the exact mechanism of revelation the same as the Abrahamic religions, but they believe their doctrines are in some sense “divine” or above the normal plain of human knowledge and that their beliefs are to be taken as authoritative and “in conformity with reality”.
There just doesn’t seem to be anything that one could point to that Definitively, without a doubt, 100% for Certain demonstrates that these texts, AND these texts ALONE are divine revelation AND for Certain couldn’t be from normal human thought.
I mean, the Westminster confession suggests things like “the majesty of the subject matter” as a marker of inspiration. It should be manifest to anyone how lousy of a criteria this is, as of course all faiths believe their teachings are profound, or majestic, or whatever other adjectives one would like to use.
> The Bible is somewhat unique in its claims.
I think this is where I disagree with you the most. Just because a Hindu or Buddhist text doesn’t say “thus says the LORD” doesn’t mean that the Bible is of a completely unique category unto itself. They are all authoritative teachings of the religion and are in some sense considered on a “higher plain” than average human thought. I could be wrong on this, but I’m just expressing where I’m at honestly.
> It's similar to that of Christians, but they are fiercer about discrediting contradictions and even sometimes killing their critics—though the contradictions are certainly there.
My point is, a Christian looks at the Quran and says, there’s obviously contradictions here, but their apologetics apparently “work” for most Muslim people to not be disrupted in their faith. And Bible critics say there are obvious contradictions here and Christian apologetics “work” for most Christians to remain in their faith.
And let’s not forget that throughout christian history there are plenty of examples of one sect persecuting another sect for not seeing the faith the same way they do, yes even to the point of sometimes killing each other.
You say God is not one to confuse. Couldn’t he have done something much better than what we in fact have, to say “here is my revelation, AND here is how you know it, without a doubt, and that everyone will be able to see in the same way”?
> There is truth in all religions, but all religions can't be true.
Sure, in one sense. But perhaps in considering man’s freedom and that people all see the world differently and come to belief for different reasons—God has shown himself in many ways, and has IN A SENSE allowed all the religions to be true (in that they tend to orient one towards the divine), and IN A SENSE false (in that none of them fully exhaust the completeness of the divine).
For example many of the great church fathers like Origen, Justin Martyr, Augustine and Aquinas— they all saw the classical philosophies of Plato and Aristotle as sort “folded into” Christianity.
I think if the early church fathers were in conversation with Hinduism and Buddhism, they would probably see a lot of overlap, it’s just a consequence of history that they weren’t in dialogue with each other.
I think we have pretty significant agreement on some things, and I’m really enjoying this conversation btw, I hope you are too.
However, it seems as though you are missing what I was saying in the last comment: that I am NOT denying that there must have been some sort of criteria or standards used by the original audience. What I am trying to say is that it seems whatever criteria they used are not significant enough to ALSO exclude other claims to revelation today.
It appears that all we are left with today is “well those folks in the past must have had good reason to believe these various texts were revelations, so we ought to as well”. But of course all religions in the world have their own reasons for believing their revelation, though I acknowledge not all religions claim the exact mechanism of revelation the same as the Abrahamic religions, but they believe their doctrines are in some sense “divine” or above the normal plain of human knowledge and that their beliefs are to be taken as authoritative and “in conformity with reality”.
There just doesn’t seem to be anything that one could point to that Definitively, without a doubt, 100% for Certain demonstrates that these texts, AND these texts ALONE are divine revelation AND for Certain couldn’t be from normal human thought.
I mean, the Westminster confession suggests things like “the majesty of the subject matter” as a marker of inspiration. It should be manifest to anyone how lousy of a criteria this is, as of course all faiths believe their teachings are profound, or majestic, or whatever other adjectives one would like to use.
> The Bible is somewhat unique in its claims.
I think this is where I disagree with you the most. Just because a Hindu or Buddhist text doesn’t say “thus says the LORD” doesn’t mean that the Bible is of a completely unique category unto itself. They are all authoritative teachings of the religion and are in some sense considered on a “higher plain” than average human thought. I could be wrong on this, but I’m just expressing where I’m at honestly.
> It's similar to that of Christians, but they are fiercer about discrediting contradictions and even sometimes killing their critics—though the contradictions are certainly there.
My point is, a Christian looks at the Quran and says, there’s obviously contradictions here, but their apologetics apparently “work” for most Muslim people to not be disrupted in their faith. And Bible critics say there are obvious contradictions here and Christian apologetics “work” for most Christians to remain in their faith.
And let’s not forget that throughout christian history there are plenty of examples of one sect persecuting another sect for not seeing the faith the same way they do, yes even to the point of sometimes killing each other.
You say God is not one to confuse. Couldn’t he have done something much better than what we in fact have, to say “here is my revelation, AND here is how you know it, without a doubt, and that everyone will be able to see in the same way”?
> There is truth in all religions, but all religions can't be true.
Sure, in one sense. But perhaps in considering man’s freedom and that people all see the world differently and come to belief for different reasons—God has shown himself in many ways, and has IN A SENSE allowed all the religions to be true (in that they tend to orient one towards the divine), and IN A SENSE false (in that none of them fully exhaust the completeness of the divine).
For example many of the great church fathers like Origen, Justin Martyr, Augustine and Aquinas— they all saw the classical philosophies of Plato and Aristotle as sort “folded into” Christianity.
I think if the early church fathers were in conversation with Hinduism and Buddhism, they would probably see a lot of overlap, it’s just a consequence of history that they weren’t in dialogue with each other.
- Fodder
Re: The Bible and a lack of a coherent message
by jimwalton » Sat Dec 23, 2023 11:59 am
> “well those folks in the past must have had good reason to believe these various texts were revelations, so we ought to as well”
The problem is we can't get at what they knew and why they made their decisions. As good as archaeology is, it tell us only about 1% of what was going on. Is there anything wrong with trusting the decisions others have made? If not, each generation—no, each class in school—must start from scratch on everything.
> but they believe their doctrines are in some sense “divine”
Only Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Not so in Hinduism, Buddhism, or Confucianism. The former have texts ascribed to revelation; the latter do not, but instead only texts of historical wisdom.
And since Christianity uses all the Judaistic texts (the Tanakh), and since Islam is a cult of Christianity, it reduces our discussion quite a bit.
> Definitively, without a doubt, 100% for Certain
There is no such thing in this discipline (religion, theology, even history and philosophy, and only somewhat even in science). We don't deal in certainties but rather in inferring the best conclusion given the evidence.
> Just because a Hindu or Buddhist text ...
The Hindus and Buddhists regard their texts differently. They don't regard them as holy scripture, inspired, or authoritative, in that sense. They are consolidations of the historical wisdom of their teachings. They don't consider their texts to be divine. Only Judaism, Christianity, and Islam look at their texts that way, and even those are different. Islam is a religion of the book; Christianity is a religion of a person.
> examples of one sect persecuting another sect
For sure. Sordid stuff.
> “here is my revelation
If you want Him to drop golden tablets from Heaven, no one would believe it. If you want Him to inspire people to write it, people don't believe it. if you want Him to show up in person to teach it, people don't believe it. I don't know what plan you'd have for doing it better.
> God has shown himself in many ways
Yes, this is true even just with Judaism/Christianity. God rarely revealed Himself in the same way twice. Each person got a unique method. Does that make it more believable or less?
> in conversation with Hinduism and Buddhism
I've been doing quite a bit of study in Hinduism and Buddhism. There isn't much overlap. The teachings and worldview are quite different. The theological overlap is close to zero.
The problem is we can't get at what they knew and why they made their decisions. As good as archaeology is, it tell us only about 1% of what was going on. Is there anything wrong with trusting the decisions others have made? If not, each generation—no, each class in school—must start from scratch on everything.
> but they believe their doctrines are in some sense “divine”
Only Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Not so in Hinduism, Buddhism, or Confucianism. The former have texts ascribed to revelation; the latter do not, but instead only texts of historical wisdom.
And since Christianity uses all the Judaistic texts (the Tanakh), and since Islam is a cult of Christianity, it reduces our discussion quite a bit.
> Definitively, without a doubt, 100% for Certain
There is no such thing in this discipline (religion, theology, even history and philosophy, and only somewhat even in science). We don't deal in certainties but rather in inferring the best conclusion given the evidence.
> Just because a Hindu or Buddhist text ...
The Hindus and Buddhists regard their texts differently. They don't regard them as holy scripture, inspired, or authoritative, in that sense. They are consolidations of the historical wisdom of their teachings. They don't consider their texts to be divine. Only Judaism, Christianity, and Islam look at their texts that way, and even those are different. Islam is a religion of the book; Christianity is a religion of a person.
> examples of one sect persecuting another sect
For sure. Sordid stuff.
> “here is my revelation
If you want Him to drop golden tablets from Heaven, no one would believe it. If you want Him to inspire people to write it, people don't believe it. if you want Him to show up in person to teach it, people don't believe it. I don't know what plan you'd have for doing it better.
> God has shown himself in many ways
Yes, this is true even just with Judaism/Christianity. God rarely revealed Himself in the same way twice. Each person got a unique method. Does that make it more believable or less?
> in conversation with Hinduism and Buddhism
I've been doing quite a bit of study in Hinduism and Buddhism. There isn't much overlap. The teachings and worldview are quite different. The theological overlap is close to zero.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible and a lack of a coherent message
by Fodder » Sat Dec 23, 2023 12:02 pm
>The problem is we can't get at what they knew and why they made their decisions. As good as archaeology is, it tell us only about 1% of what was going on.
Precisely. And so we have no ability to critically examine why they came to the conclusions that they did, and we are left simply with an argument of human authority. In other words we ought not say of the Bible, “this is the word of God”, rather we ought more honestly to say, “the ancient people believed this was the word of God, and we take their word for it” which is a VERY different (and much weaker) claim.
> Is there anything wrong with trusting the decisions others have made? If not, each generation—no, each class in school—must start from scratch on everything.
No, not in principle, but you are setting up a false dichotomy of, either we must accept every claim from the past, or start over every generation. Of course, one is free to just accept their claims, but we must remain agnostic on the claim that this IS actually revelation.
> Only Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Ok, fair enough, it sounds like you know more about it than I do. My point is, they all are making claims of God, whether they are saying the exact same mechanisms of epistemology (revelation) as Christianity.
It’s worth mentioning too that there are also plenty of books in the Bible that DON’T have a strong thrust of “thus says the LORD”, like Ecclesiastes, Esther, Chronicles and more. Why do these books get to just “piggy back” on the revelation claim of the others, when they don’t even claim it themselves? It could simply be the case that these authors are just mistaken in thinking that they are speaking for God. That doesn’t mean we just throw it all out, or say it’s all BS. It’s quite evident that the Bible has made a profound impact on western civilization, it has some amazing insights and wonderful ideas—-it’s just that we MUST remain agnostic about whether it is in fact revelation.
> There is no such thing in this discipline (religion, theology, even history and philosophy, and only somewhat even in science). We don't deal in certainties but rather in inferring the best conclusion given the evidence.
That’s right. And you have said, we don’t have adequate evidence, so how can we reach well reasoned conclusions?
>If you want Him to drop golden tablets from Heaven, no one would believe it. If you want Him to inspire people to write it, people don't believe it. if you want Him to show up in person to teach it, people don't believe it. I don't know what plan you'd have for doing it better.
I don’t see how it is an unreasonable request that God continue to reveal himself in ways that will work for each person, if in fact he wants to be known.
Here’s the thing, in the stories of the Bible, you don’t get a sense that the ways God reveals himself to the people of the time were ways that UNREASONABLY strained their credulity, or forced them out of their own plausibility structure. That is to say, if people of that time found miracles and dreams convincing, he gave them that. If they found claims of revelation in inspired texts convincing, he gave them that, if they found divination through “casting lots” or Urim/Thumim convincing, he gave them that. Why has he now, in our age stopped this pattern? We are now in the longest gap of time where god has not given new revelation.
I don’t see why, in his graciousness, God couldn’t say, “you know these people think so differently than in the time of Moses and Isaiah, I will give my message again in a way that better fits their plausibility structure, because I love them and want them to know me”
>The theological overlap is close to zero.
I’ll admit I don’t know a ton about Hinduism, but my understanding is that their primary conception of God is ultimately transcendant and has the same essential attributes as the God of classical Theism (like Aristotle and Aquinas). That is to say the Hindu God is a “big G” God, not a “little g” god like Zeus or Thor, if you catch my drift.
Precisely. And so we have no ability to critically examine why they came to the conclusions that they did, and we are left simply with an argument of human authority. In other words we ought not say of the Bible, “this is the word of God”, rather we ought more honestly to say, “the ancient people believed this was the word of God, and we take their word for it” which is a VERY different (and much weaker) claim.
> Is there anything wrong with trusting the decisions others have made? If not, each generation—no, each class in school—must start from scratch on everything.
No, not in principle, but you are setting up a false dichotomy of, either we must accept every claim from the past, or start over every generation. Of course, one is free to just accept their claims, but we must remain agnostic on the claim that this IS actually revelation.
> Only Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Ok, fair enough, it sounds like you know more about it than I do. My point is, they all are making claims of God, whether they are saying the exact same mechanisms of epistemology (revelation) as Christianity.
It’s worth mentioning too that there are also plenty of books in the Bible that DON’T have a strong thrust of “thus says the LORD”, like Ecclesiastes, Esther, Chronicles and more. Why do these books get to just “piggy back” on the revelation claim of the others, when they don’t even claim it themselves? It could simply be the case that these authors are just mistaken in thinking that they are speaking for God. That doesn’t mean we just throw it all out, or say it’s all BS. It’s quite evident that the Bible has made a profound impact on western civilization, it has some amazing insights and wonderful ideas—-it’s just that we MUST remain agnostic about whether it is in fact revelation.
> There is no such thing in this discipline (religion, theology, even history and philosophy, and only somewhat even in science). We don't deal in certainties but rather in inferring the best conclusion given the evidence.
That’s right. And you have said, we don’t have adequate evidence, so how can we reach well reasoned conclusions?
>If you want Him to drop golden tablets from Heaven, no one would believe it. If you want Him to inspire people to write it, people don't believe it. if you want Him to show up in person to teach it, people don't believe it. I don't know what plan you'd have for doing it better.
I don’t see how it is an unreasonable request that God continue to reveal himself in ways that will work for each person, if in fact he wants to be known.
Here’s the thing, in the stories of the Bible, you don’t get a sense that the ways God reveals himself to the people of the time were ways that UNREASONABLY strained their credulity, or forced them out of their own plausibility structure. That is to say, if people of that time found miracles and dreams convincing, he gave them that. If they found claims of revelation in inspired texts convincing, he gave them that, if they found divination through “casting lots” or Urim/Thumim convincing, he gave them that. Why has he now, in our age stopped this pattern? We are now in the longest gap of time where god has not given new revelation.
I don’t see why, in his graciousness, God couldn’t say, “you know these people think so differently than in the time of Moses and Isaiah, I will give my message again in a way that better fits their plausibility structure, because I love them and want them to know me”
>The theological overlap is close to zero.
I’ll admit I don’t know a ton about Hinduism, but my understanding is that their primary conception of God is ultimately transcendant and has the same essential attributes as the God of classical Theism (like Aristotle and Aquinas). That is to say the Hindu God is a “big G” God, not a “little g” god like Zeus or Thor, if you catch my drift.
- Fodder
Re: The Bible and a lack of a coherent message
by jimwalton » Sat Dec 23, 2023 12:05 pm
> so we have no ability to critically examine
I don't see where it's any different from history and what historians do, and yet we are still able to assess what happened. We don't just blow it off because we can' reproduce it or go back there to interview and video.
> we are left simply with an argument of human authority.
I don't think so. This seems reductionistic to me. We can still examine what evidence that remains, corroborate with other sources, etc.
> “the ancient people believed this was the word of God, and we take their word for it”
But what if I, on the basis of their word, the available evidence, and the depth of truth I perceive there, also conclude "this is the word of God"? I'm not JUST taking their word for it because they believed it and I believe them. There's a lot more to it than that.
> you are setting up a false dichotomy of, either we must accept every claim from the past, or start over every generation.
No, that was just my dichotomy for the sake of argument. The truth is, we must always be evaluating claims from the past, as well as those from the present (we can't watch the news uncritically or read the Internet likewise). We are continually assessing reliability and legitimacy. It's not easy to do now; it's not easy to do in the past.
For instance, most of what we know about Alexander the Great comes from 4 biographies, all written centuries later, and those 4 sources contradict. Rather than throw in the towel or make some minimalist claim, we examine and think and critique.
> they all are making claims of God, whether they are saying the exact same mechanisms of epistemology (revelation) as Christianity.
Yes, they are (except Buddhism, which is atheistic). So do we toss up our hands and say "they hopelessly contradict each other," or do we use our brains to figure things out?
> Why do these books get to just “piggy back”
We'd have to discuss these books separately. I could write a book addressing each of these, and neither of us want that. They're not just "piggy back[ing]." There's a reason each one is there.
> It could simply be the case that these authors are just mistaken in thinking that they are speaking for God.
It could be. This would be a minimalist approach, or "the Bible is mythological" assertion. It could just as well be the case that they are speaking for God. That's what needs to be examined.
> it’s just that we MUST remain agnostic about whether it is in fact revelation.
We don't "MUST" remain agnostic. It sounds like prior to proper assessment, you're tossing up your hands prematurely and saying, "It's a mystery." But you are prejudicial in your conclusion.
> we don’t have adequate evidence
I said we don't know all of what they knew or necessarily how they made the conclusions they made, but that doesn't mean we can't reach well-reasoned conclusions. There's a lot we CAN know.
> Why has he now, in our age stopped this pattern?
The Bible says 2 things about that. (1) He has already said what He wants to say; (2) When Jesus came and then the NT was written, no new revelation was needed.
What I find interesting is the more obvious God was the more disbelief came from it. In the time of the Exodus, despite all the miracles recorded, the Bible also records that every single one of them fell into disbelief except two: Joshua and Caleb. And in the time of Jesus, by the time He died, He had only a handful of followers. I could give more examples, but those are two prominent ones. Adam and Eve walked with God, and yet they snubbed Him. Noah walked with God, and then turned into a drunken sot. Lot was visited by angels, and he ended up screwing his two daughters, after offering them for a night of rape by the townsmen. Great; what a guy.
It's only the in the prophets where God reveals Himself and they don't fall away.
It's possible it's the nature of revelation and the nature of humanity: The more you give people, the worse they get.
> their primary conception of God is ultimately transcendent and has the same essential attributes as the God of classical Theism
No, no, no. They are agnostic about God: There may be 1, there may be 3 million, there may be none. God isn't transcendent; instead, God is pantheistic: All is God, and God is all. It's a completely different theology than Christianity.
I don't see where it's any different from history and what historians do, and yet we are still able to assess what happened. We don't just blow it off because we can' reproduce it or go back there to interview and video.
> we are left simply with an argument of human authority.
I don't think so. This seems reductionistic to me. We can still examine what evidence that remains, corroborate with other sources, etc.
> “the ancient people believed this was the word of God, and we take their word for it”
But what if I, on the basis of their word, the available evidence, and the depth of truth I perceive there, also conclude "this is the word of God"? I'm not JUST taking their word for it because they believed it and I believe them. There's a lot more to it than that.
> you are setting up a false dichotomy of, either we must accept every claim from the past, or start over every generation.
No, that was just my dichotomy for the sake of argument. The truth is, we must always be evaluating claims from the past, as well as those from the present (we can't watch the news uncritically or read the Internet likewise). We are continually assessing reliability and legitimacy. It's not easy to do now; it's not easy to do in the past.
For instance, most of what we know about Alexander the Great comes from 4 biographies, all written centuries later, and those 4 sources contradict. Rather than throw in the towel or make some minimalist claim, we examine and think and critique.
> they all are making claims of God, whether they are saying the exact same mechanisms of epistemology (revelation) as Christianity.
Yes, they are (except Buddhism, which is atheistic). So do we toss up our hands and say "they hopelessly contradict each other," or do we use our brains to figure things out?
> Why do these books get to just “piggy back”
We'd have to discuss these books separately. I could write a book addressing each of these, and neither of us want that. They're not just "piggy back[ing]." There's a reason each one is there.
> It could simply be the case that these authors are just mistaken in thinking that they are speaking for God.
It could be. This would be a minimalist approach, or "the Bible is mythological" assertion. It could just as well be the case that they are speaking for God. That's what needs to be examined.
> it’s just that we MUST remain agnostic about whether it is in fact revelation.
We don't "MUST" remain agnostic. It sounds like prior to proper assessment, you're tossing up your hands prematurely and saying, "It's a mystery." But you are prejudicial in your conclusion.
> we don’t have adequate evidence
I said we don't know all of what they knew or necessarily how they made the conclusions they made, but that doesn't mean we can't reach well-reasoned conclusions. There's a lot we CAN know.
> Why has he now, in our age stopped this pattern?
The Bible says 2 things about that. (1) He has already said what He wants to say; (2) When Jesus came and then the NT was written, no new revelation was needed.
What I find interesting is the more obvious God was the more disbelief came from it. In the time of the Exodus, despite all the miracles recorded, the Bible also records that every single one of them fell into disbelief except two: Joshua and Caleb. And in the time of Jesus, by the time He died, He had only a handful of followers. I could give more examples, but those are two prominent ones. Adam and Eve walked with God, and yet they snubbed Him. Noah walked with God, and then turned into a drunken sot. Lot was visited by angels, and he ended up screwing his two daughters, after offering them for a night of rape by the townsmen. Great; what a guy.
It's only the in the prophets where God reveals Himself and they don't fall away.
It's possible it's the nature of revelation and the nature of humanity: The more you give people, the worse they get.
> their primary conception of God is ultimately transcendent and has the same essential attributes as the God of classical Theism
No, no, no. They are agnostic about God: There may be 1, there may be 3 million, there may be none. God isn't transcendent; instead, God is pantheistic: All is God, and God is all. It's a completely different theology than Christianity.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
45 posts
• Page 3 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest