How can Theists possibly believe in "Revelations" or "Gospels"?

Question

First of all, I think Theists are missing the definition of a "Revelation". A Revelation is specifically defined as " A divine disclosure of something relating to human existence". Now, let us reexamine the Bible as an example. The authors and editors of the Bible merely claim to have had these pieces of information of human existence revealed to them. Although one would expect that one should prepare a substantial amount of evidence to support such a claim, none of the Gospels or Revelations come with any of the latter. On top of that, the zealous followers who feverishly read these Revelations are not receiving this knowledge directly from a direct source, but rather an unknown (and rather questionable) one, further categorizing the term "Revelation" as a misnomer.

So what do we classify these "Revelations" as? A rumor. A circulating story of doubtful truth spread by an unverified account, qualities which the Bible fall rather neatly into.

What other Holy Texts would like to step up to the gauntlet of Reason founded by Thomas Paine?

What other Holy Texts would like to step up to the gauntlet of Reason founded by Thomas Paine?

To Towlie:
This argument is not designed to disprove the existence of God, which is impossible. Rather, it is designed to exemplify the fraudulent nature of "Holy" Texts.

Answer 1

Your definition does not exclude receiving a divine disclosure from a mediator, such as one of the Bible writers.

Also, only the books of Daniel, Revelation and some of the Pauline epistles reflect that they thought what they shared was of Divine origin...none of the Gospel writers make any claim, even though they were inspired by God.

I would encourage you to look at a couple of great books, one quite scholarly, Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell and The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. This last one is more of expository writing since Strobel is a former journalist for the Chicago Tribune.

Peace.

Answer 2

It amazes me that you can ignore 2000 years of Biblical influence on the world and history and simply say the Bible is "unverified" and a mere rumor. Boy, maybe all the monks of Orthodox and Catholic faiths, Holy Roman Empire, kings who fought over the Bible and its views, Protestants, rulers who claimed the Bible as authority, and foreign policy of empires that spanned the last 2000 years---simply didn't realize the Bible was a rumor--according to you.

Like many people--You really should pick up a good "Introduction to the Bible" book (not just McDowell or Strobel's works--which are good also). Attacking the texts of the Bible with the claim "the Bible has no textual support" or no witnesses-- is almost insane--because 1000s of manuscripts exist, far more so than the Roman classics which have only a handful of copies of each. No other ancient text comes even remotely close to producing the evidence that the Bible does.

I can point you to the location of the actual manuscripts in the museums worldwide...and you can trek there and look at them yourself, just as I have on occassion. If this were not enough, the Dead Sea scrolls were also found and a number of other translations of the Bible exist in other languages--texts that are as old as many Bible manuscripts.

Regarding Revelation-- Revelation builds much of its SUBSTANTIAL support on the rest of the Bible (not "out of the blue), which spanned 1000s of years and around 66 authors...the writer of Revelation grounds the book heavily in the rest of the Bible...

Answer 3

Actually, it's pretty much agreed upon by scholars exactly who authored all the books in the New Testament and when, and much of this has been corroborated by archaeologists.

And there's plenty of evidence to suggest that everything in the New Testament actually did happen.

Okay, I suppose I should have provided a few examples. I won't go into detail at the moment because I'm feeling lazy, it would take too long, and there's always the chance you wouldn't read it anyway, but I'll still make a list.
1. All but one of the Apostles were killed. Violently. This is actually written about in other historical books of the time, it's not all in the Bible.
http://www.justanswer.com/JA/ASP_A/T_140437/TR/jesuss-apostles-die.htm
http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html
2. The fact that ANYTHING about Jesus was important enough to be written down at all, especially within the lifetime of witnesses. Even the history of Alexander wasn't written until five hundred years after his death.
3. The fact that Jesus was even MENTIONED in secular writings of the time.
4. The fact that Christianity did not just spread, it EXPLODED. THOUSANDS converted, even if they had been Jewish their entire life. If anything written in the New Testament had been false, people would have spoken out about it. Instead, they said that Jesus HAD performed miracles, but that He had done so because He was demon-possessed. They said that yes, His tomb was empty, but that was because somehow the disciples managed to sneak past the guards and remove the stone without waking them, then stole the body. They said sure, Jesus claimed to be God, but that was only because He was crazy.

If you REALLY want to know, try reading the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. It's only a cursory overview, but it'll give you a good idea about where to go from there. It even includes references to books that argue against the divinity and even the existence of Jesus Christ, as well as books that go into more detail.

Answer 4

No. God isn't something yet an limitless volume of organic capability with a single judgment of right and incorrect. that's independent in each and every way. It would not have any emotions, emotions or the different ingredient which makes it Anthropomorphic. those style of emotions, emotions, alongside with Love and so forth are constrained to human beings or the different existence variety with a similar psychological device. those are the weak point besides as strengths of such beings. yet God is all-helpful. It would not ought to have any strengths or weaknesses. So Love won't be able to be linked with God's nature. i'm no longer an atheist yet i think of Atheists in basic terms have faith interior the non-existence of God. on account that for them God would not exist, why might they associate something which does no longer exist. Love is a private selection or feeling. some might set it at distinctive priorities than different issues of their existence based upon their very own situations.

Answer 5

Really you answer your own question...

The authors of the Bible wrote as God revealed to them.

If we were depending on our brains, logic, reasoning, and natural evidences to be the exclusive or primary means of accepting what is written- then we are not at all relying on revelation knowledge- that which heaven imparts to us.

In fact, we ARE meant to rely on what God reveals to us.

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

Although I LOVE getting and studying natural reasons and logic... my trust is ultimately and fully in what God says to me.

Answer 6

200 year old quotes? From a religious dissenter disproves God? Try again.

Answer 7

Excellent analysis of the most fraudulent book!

Answer 8

dnt knwe