Is progressive revelation believable?

[dybmh]

It's pretty cool...
I am responsible for mapping all the Tax Code Areas.

LIDAR?

 

[dybmh]

It would be correct to consider a progressive from Judaism to Christianity

I've tried to see how this could be true without changing the meaning of the words in the Torah. And I cannot do it. Do you think it makes sense for G-d to completely do a 180 degree turnaround?

It sounds like you are saying this?

First G-d says "Follow all these rules, or else your children are going to be punished in creative and horrible ways". That's Torah.

Then G-d says "OK. I wasn't clear about that. Forget all that. Here is your messiah, now you don't need all those commandments. And you will now be rewarded for it." That's the New Testament.

Am I understanding?

IMO, that's a 180 degree shift. That's not progress. It's regression. It's back tracking. It's going a totally different way. Contradiction.

I'm sorry, I simply cannot see how Christianity is anything other than a reversal of Judaism and that's not progress. At least not to me. Progress builds on the foundation, beautifies it, maybe. But it doesn't knock down the foundation ( AKA the commandments ) and start over with just a few. That's not progress. And if it is, it's not what was described in the Torah as the function of the Messiah.

 

[dybmh]

When a sect of Judaism called the Nazarenes followed Christ,

When I looked these folks up on wikipedia... it doesn't make any sense.

"As time passed, the term came to refer to a sect of Jewish Christians who continued to observe the Torah"

Nazarene (sect) - Wikipedia

First of all... "as time passed"? Sounds like people don't actually know who these people were and what they believed?

Also, "continued to observe the Torah"? How? Please refer to post #123 above.

If any of this is true, the Nazarene's observed only **part** of the Torah maybe similar to modern Jewish people in the Reform and Conservative Jewish Movements.

But without global peace and prosperity... I am guessing any Jewish person who did have hope or belief in The Christ ( assuming that there were people like this back then ) probably lost that hope and faith based on the reality of the hostile, imperfect world that surrounded them on a day to day basis.

 

[Terry Sampson]

• Divine revelation continued up to and including the Baha'u'llah, and no new stuff for 1,000 years.
• No absolute truth; all truth is relative.

If those aren't biases, I don't know what you think "biases" are.

I challenge: "Divine revelation continued up to and including the Baha'u'llah, and no new stuff for 1,000 years".
Odie responds: "Well for the Abrahamic religions, didn't they come 1000 years apart from one another?"
I challenge: "No absolute truth; all truth is relative".
Odie responds: "Correct. We are an ever advancing civilization, what was true in society let say 700 years ago is not true in society today."

1. Actually, I think the "Divine revelations" that you're referring to came 1000 minus a few hundred years apart from each other, but who's counting?
   • So, why are you counting? Is there a Divine Revelation Time Schedule that I don't know about? Is that one of the "proofs and evidences" Baha'i bases its "authority" on: that it was about time for another Divine Revelation and look! Whaddya know, here are the Bab and Baha'u'llah! right on schedule!
2. You say: "There's no absolute truth, all truth is relative". Is that an absolute truth?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Throughout the medieval period, the secular law codes were based variously on Saxon, Roman and other legal norms because the religion itself lacked a divinely revealed legal system. Canon law can be changed by any pope. It's mutable, not an immutable divine code.

Sure, laws could be adapted to be more in keeping with Christian ethics but there wasn't an actual Christian "law" akin to Sharia that anyone could point to and say, "yeah, God wants us to divide inheritance up as follows" or dish out "xyz" punishment for such-and-such a crime.

It seems that Christianity is the odd man out compared to its Abrahamic cousins including Judaism, Islam and the Baha’i Faith. Yet the God of Abraham clearly wanted laws of the state for the Israelites. Yet in Revealing Himself again through Christ allegedly annulled Mosaic law without explicitly saying a single word to that affect. It appears to be an area of enormous confusion early in Christianity as to what laws to follow and which ones to disregard.

The whole issue of civil law appears meaningless in the first centuries of Christianity as its chances of surviving appear tenuous at times let alone achieving any temporal power. Yet temporal power it eventually achieves albeit unwittingly when the Emperor Constantine converts. Arguably the hand of Divine Providence is at work. The challenge during the 4th century is preventing schism and agreeing on what constitutes biblical canon along with agreed doctrine. I doubt if the church or Roman Empire were in a position to implement a Christian theocracy even if one existed. There wasn’t agreement about core beliefs let alone the much more challenging question of what a Christian Empire would look like. So instead of a Christian theocracy we had the kind of iron fisted dictatorship from the Emperor Constantine that typified that era.

Perhaps if the Christian Faith were to offer a model of governance the Roman Empire wouldn’t have fragmented with the West eventually collapsing. So it appears it took a few more centuries before Christianity in the West along with the Empires that came and went would crystallise into a more coherent civilisation. When Islam went through its rapid expansion during the 7th and 8th centuries there was little in the West to take inspiration from. Christianity in the East was much more advanced.

It wasn’t until the Middle Ages and beyond that Western Civilisation flourished. That’s a long time after Christ was around. Perhaps if the early Christians could have developed a cohesive approach to governance based on their scriptures its civilisation would have developed more quickly. The Islamic Golden Age only took a couple of centuries to emerge after Muhammad. Having an approach to governing diverse peoples was established through Muhammad and the constitution of Medina.

Anyway, they are just a few thoughts I wanted to share. Your posts are thought provoking and I really appreciate your insights.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Those who followed Muhammad had no such history. Muhammad’s ancestors were pagans who worshipped many gods. They were a nomadic tribal people whose savagery was renowned. The emphasis was on moving from polytheism and idolatry to monotheism and a means of worship acceptable to the God of Abraham. So there was a similar emphasis in the Quran as there was in the Torah. It raises questions though. Why did God choose to reveal Himself to such a people at this time? Why didn’t he get those tribes to follow Judaism or Christianity rather than bring about an entirely new Revelation?

Hmmm, ... are you suggesting that Muhammed's "appearance" among the desert heathen was a "singularity" in some form of "spiritual Big Bang theory" that you and/or Baha'ism subscribe to? 'Cause if you are, then I guess that's yet another reason for me to reject Baha'ism. I'm an Anti-relativist: I don't believe in the Big Bang theory.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I've tried to see how this could be true without changing the meaning of the words in the Torah. And I cannot do it. Do you think it makes sense for G-d to completely do a 180 degree turnaround?

It sounds like you are saying this?

I would need to better understand your specific concerns before I answered.

First G-d says "Follow all these rules, or else your children are going to be punished in creative and horrible ways". That's Torah.

Then G-d says "OK. I wasn't clear about that. Forget all that. Here is your messiah, now you don't need all those commandments. And you will now be rewarded for it." That's the New Testament.

Am I understanding?

That’s not how I see the Torah or the New Testament but I can appreciate why you would see it that way.

IMO, that's a 180 degree shift. That's not progress. It's regression. It's back tracking. It's going a totally different way. Contradiction.

I'm sorry, I simply cannot see how Christianity is anything other than a reversal of Judaism and that's not progress. At least not to me. Progress builds on the foundation, beautifies it, maybe. But it doesn't knock down the foundation ( AKA the commandments ) and start over with just a few. That's not progress. And if it is, it's not what was described in the Torah as the function of the Messiah.

Perhaps we can agree the Teachings of Christ enabled the world wide dissemination of the Hebrew Bible as well as the New Testament. If G-d wanted to make Himself more widely known, Christianity for better or worse became a vehicle for exactly that.

But without global peace and prosperity... I am guessing any Jewish person who did have hope or belief in The Christ ( assuming that there were people like this back then ) probably lost that hope and faith based on the reality of the hostile, imperfect world that surrounded them on a day to day basis.

Human civilisation has been quite primitive and barbaric in many respects. However the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible have spoken of a time of peace and prosperity in the world. That time is now.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hmmm, ... are you suggesting that Muhammed's "appearance" among the desert heathen was a "singularity" in some form of "spiritual Big Bang theory" that you and/or Baha'ism subscribe to? 'Cause if you are, then I guess that's yet another reason for me to reject Baha'ism. I'm an Anti-relativist: I don't believe in the Big Bang theory.

I’m not sure how the Big Bang theory relates to Muhammad. There were other factors at play such as increasing exposure to different cultures with Jewish tribes being established in the vicinity, the spread of Christianity and many people passing through Mecca. So Islam in part emerged from increasing exposure to diverse cultures.

 

[dybmh]

I would need to better understand your specific concerns before I answered.

I created a new thread in the Baha'i dir to try to get a little extra help with this...

That’s not how I see the Torah or the New Testament but I can appreciate why you would see it that way.

Maybe we can discuss this in the other thread I just started?

Perhaps we can agree the Teachings of Christ enabled the world wide dissemination of the Hebrew Bible as well as the New Testament. If G-d wanted to make Himself more widely known, Christianity for better or worse became a vehicle for exactly that.

That's a pretty interesting idea, thanks for that. But I'm still struggling with Deuteronomy 28. And I'm not sure that the Torah prescribes for disseminating the Hebrew Bible. So, I'm still stuck... but not discouraged.

Human civilisation has been quite primitive and barbaric in many respects. However the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible have spoken of a time of peace and prosperity in the world. That time is now.

I have no problem jumping on the Peace Train. I just can't see it, where is it?

 

[Dawnofhope]

@dybmh , I’ll need to sleep now. I’ll respond tomorrow sometime. In the interim you might like to specify more precisely how you see Deuteronomy 28 being in contradiction with Jesus and the New Testament. Just so we’re both clear

 

[Terry Sampson]

I’m not sure how the Big Bang theory relates to Muhammad.

Just "seemed" to me as if you were characterizing Muhammad as if he were a "singularity". The only other "singularity" that I'm aware of is the one in the Big Bang theory.
Muhammad - Singularity; Big Bang - Islam.

 

[Fool]

Me too, but I call it syncretic. The problem with syncretism ( at least for me ) is it's sometimes confusing and makes my brain hurt. The old adage about going down the river with two feet in two different boats comes to mind. Trying to move efficiently down the river this way is a lot of work. A lot. Start adding more boats... 3 boats, 4 boats, 5 boats... It just gets harder and harder and harder to keep all those boats traveling in the same direction.

But I still can't help it; I am syncretic... sometimes to a fault.

people like to play dress up. unless you're playing the harlot, then you're taking it off.


step into the insight, in to the light of the world

 

[Guitar's Cry]

But what if I told you that divine revelation is progressive, that truth is not absolute but relative.

I would say this is true: Religion's truest power lies in its existential nature. The individual has to come to terms with being an emotional, feeling being in a tumultuous Universe. Since each person is a world in itself, religion is always adapted to that person's perspective.

This is divine revelation, this adaptation of existential meaning to individual perspectives.

 

[Terry Sampson]

we have to recognize this is the age of unity, that the whole human species is one family and the earth is our home.

And we need the Baha'u'llah to tell us that? Or we're supposed to believe that the Baha'ullah is the physical manifestation of a divine revelation just because he said that humans are one family and earth is our home?

Apparently we do. We still have racism, war, pollution, separation of city, state and countries.
I would think that it would be good if a Manifestation of God have to let us know that the human species is one family.

Well, this is your lucky day. I'm here to tell you that the human species is one family, the earth is our home, and I am the divine manifestation that you believe came in the 1800s. Just call me Baha'u'llah 2.0 or 2 for short. I know a thousand years haven't passed yet, but as a divine manifestation, I have the authority to abrogate any and all laws, so I've abrogated the Baha'i prohibition on a return in less than 1000 years for the specific purpose of bringing my message to this generation personally.

Regards,


cc:
@Vinayaka
@Aupmanyav

P.S. Let all the Hindus know, I'll be stopping by to share my message soon.

 

[shunyadragon]

Precisely, thank you. Why believe a proposition that has no objective verifiable evidence for it?

. . . because I believe that the nature of our physical existence is not ultimately 'precisely.'

I don't choose my beliefs, but I also don't claim God does not exist. I simply don't believe he does exist because, as you said, there is no objective verifiable evidence for him.

First, if God is God, God would not likely be 'he' or 'him.' You brought up an important point whether God exists or not is based on 'faith' and 'belief.'

Yes, the evidence for God would be subjective, and believing in the evidence of the spiritual nature of our existence. As a Baha'i lok for what is the consistent spiritual nature of humanity, and the science of our physical existence. Humanity has an evolving changing nature of knowledge beyond the older and more limited view of ancient religions, and I believe that our spiritual nature will evolve beyond the present Baha'i perspective of Progressive Revelation.

I do acknowledge that your view, which appears to be a strong agnostic belief, is viable based on the evidence, but nonetheless I believe in a spiritual dimension of human nature and the nature of our physical existence.

Sure, and if I'm a fortune teller you should ask me for winning lotto numbers. But the point is, you have no reason to think I actually am a fortune teller, so why would you?

Indirectly the above is one of the reasons I could not believe in the God of individual religions, because like 'fortune tellers' they are not particularly accurate, nor do they reflect a universal perspective of the nature of human experience, nor the nature of our physical existence. If God exists God the attributes of God would reflect the universal nature of our physical nature and human experience, and not one cultural view of God.

 

[Vinayaka]

Well, this is your lucky day. I'm here to tell you that the human species is one family, the earth is our home, and I am the divine manifestation that you believe came in the 1800s. Just call me Baha'u'llah 2.0 or 2 for short. I know a thousand years haven't passed yet, but as a divine manifestation, I have the authority to abrogate any and all laws, so I've abrogated the Baha'i prohibition on a return in less than 1000 years for the specific bringing my message to this generation personally.

Regards,


cc:
@Vinayaka
@Aupmanyav

P.S. Let all the Hindus know, I'll be stopping by to share my message soon.

Oh yeah, I'll be sure to let all my friends know. Since there are always several doctors at the temple I go to, I'll go out singing, "They're coming to take me away today, they're coming to take me away today."

Ganesha will do his usual chuckle though, so it's all good.

 

[shunyadragon]

I've tried to see how this could be true without changing the meaning of the words in the Torah. And I cannot do it. Do you think it makes sense for G-d to completely do a 180 degree turnaround?

It sounds like you are saying this?

First G-d says "Follow all these rules, or else your children are going to be punished in creative and horrible ways". That's Torah.

Then G-d says "OK. I wasn't clear about that. Forget all that. Here is your messiah, now you don't need all those commandments. And you will now be rewarded for it." That's the New Testament.

Am I understanding?

IMO, that's a 180 degree shift. That's not progress. It's regression. It's back tracking. It's going a totally different way. Contradiction.

I'm sorry, I simply cannot see how Christianity is anything other than a reversal of Judaism and that's not progress. At least not to me. Progress builds on the foundation, beautifies it, maybe. But it doesn't knock down the foundation ( AKA the commandments ) and start over with just a few. That's not progress. And if it is, it's not what was described in the Torah as the function of the Messiah.

First I do not believe God does 180's in Progressive Revelation. A careful evaluation of the different religions does reveal a consistent evolving pattern, which in each progressive Revelation reflects the spiritual advancement of humanity from different ancient cultural perspectives. What is most often the avoided reality is that the beliefs of ancient religions do contain very human cultural attributes and beliefs of their perspective. IF God exists it is illogical and unreasonable that the ultimate nature of God would reflect these very human cultural beliefs in the scriptures and traditions of ancient religions that also reject a more universal perspective of the relationship between God humanity and Creation.

A very good example is the nature of the religion of Judaism, which represents a strong tribal and cultural identity, and not a strong God centered belief grounded in Revelation. The widespread agnosticism, and common atheism in Judaism reflects this perspective. Midrash and the physical relationship among Jews often plays more a role in Jewish culture than scripture, and the Revelation described in the Tanakh.

Question: How many Jews actually believe that the Tanakh:reflects an actually history of the Hebrews, Revelation and nature of God?

 

[sealchan]

"they want to protect their own beliefs and understanding of their religion or worldview".

That's basically tribalism which is the problem that the world have right now.

We have to learn to find truths where ever they are.

In my life I have found the deepest spiritual guidance from studying Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell who might be considered a Jungian. So I suppose I would say the Carl Jung was a recent manifestation of God who through his "teachings" puts all prior revelations into a more profound and modern context. Perhaps his greatest teaching would be to find ones own spiritual path within ones self by listening to those other voices within you

 

[Left Coast]

First, if God is God, God would not likely be 'he' or 'him.'

Sorry, what are God's preferred pronouns most likely to be?

You brought up an important point whether God exists or not is based on 'faith' and 'belief.'

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but no, God's existence is not based on our belief. Whether God exists is an independent question from whether we believe in her/him/it/them. "Faith" is a word that either means "believing without good evidence" (in which case, it's a bad idea), or "trust" in which case it should be proportional to the evidence we have (and if we have no objective verifiable evidence, our trust should be really low).

Yes, the evidence for God would be subjective, and believing in the evidence of the spiritual nature of our existence.

So again I ask: why would you be convinced of something when you know the evidence for it is purely subjective? Is it a good idea to come to our beliefs about reality based purely on our subjective perceptions that can't be objectively verified?

As a Baha'i lok for what is the consistent spiritual nature of humanity, and the science of our physical existence. Humanity has an evolving changing nature of knowledge beyond the older and more limited view of ancient religions, and I believe that our spiritual nature will evolve beyond the present Baha'i perspective of Progressive Revelation.

I do acknowledge that your view, which appears to be a strong agnostic belief, is viable based on the evidence, but nonetheless I believe in a spiritual dimension of human nature and the nature of our physical existence.

This tells me what you believe, but not why. How do you determine what is the "consistent spiritual nature of humanity," and what does that even mean?

Indirectly the above is one of the reasons I could not believe in the God of individual religions, because like 'fortune tellers' they are not particularly accurate, nor do they reflect a universal perspective of the nature of human experience, nor the nature of our physical existence. If God exists God the attributes of God would reflect the universal nature of our physical nature and human experience, and not one cultural view of God.

If you're Baha'i, sorry, you do believe in the god of an individual religion shaped by a specific cultural view. What is the "universal perspective of the nature of human experience" and "the universal nature of our physical nature?" If we have a physical nature, that nature is...physical. So is God physical?

 

[dybmh]

First I do not believe God does 180's in Progressive Revelation. A careful evaluation of the different religions does reveal a consistent evolving pattern, which in each progressive Revelation reflects the spiritual advancement of humanity from different ancient cultural perspectives. What is most often the avoided reality is that the beliefs of ancient religions do contain very human cultural attributes and beliefs of their perspective. IF God exists it is illogical and unreasonable that the ultimate nature of God would reflect these very human cultural beliefs in the scriptures and traditions of ancient religions that also reject a more universal perspective of the relationship between God humanity and Creation.

A very good example is the nature of the religion of Judaism, which represents a strong tribal and cultural identity, and not a strong God centered belief. The widespread agnosticism, and common atheism in Judaism reflects this perspective. Midrash often plays more a role in Jewish culture than scripture.

Question: How many Jews actually believe that the Tanakh:reflects an actually history of the Hebrews, and nature of God?

Super thought provoking... ShunyaDragon, thank you for this.

"A very good example is the nature of the religion of Judaism, which represents a strong tribal and cultural identity, and not a strong God centered belief."

My vote: there is a very very strong God centered belief in Judaism. But maybe it's not something that is obvious? I don't know. If you need evidence of this God centered belief, look at the then entire mythos surrounding the divine names. Also from a cultural perspective. But you'd need to be in the culture, among "Torah Observant Jews" in order to know what I'm talking about. I'll try and offer some examples... but, just being honest, I don't know if you'll believe me.

If you were to spend time in a Torah Observant community, there is no doubt, God is central. Often a letter or flyer, brochure, pamphlet... anything that is written... there will be 2 little letters at the top. B"H. That means Baruch HaShem. And guess what? It's the first thing at the top of the page on many ( like I said ) letters, flyers, brochures, pamphlets, etc... Baruch HaShem is easiest understood as "Thank G-d." So Torah Observant Jews do not want to write anything without Thanking G-d first.

Same thing with the expression "Ha'As V'Shalom". Which roughly translates to "G-d Forbid". Any time anything is mentioned out-loud which could be perceived as a negative outcome, the word's Ha'as V'Shalom are appended to the end of the sentence.

Example: "I'm worried about failing my math test, Ha'as V'Shalom".

These phrases are literally spoken all the time. Not to mention that anytime someone asks "How are you" "How are your kids" or anything asking about anyone's well fare, the answer is often "Baruch HaShem" both in the positive and in the negative. The only difference is in inflection. A person Thanks G-d for good, just as much as a person Thanks G-d for the not so good. There's a cute story about this... maybe it's just a joke... but essentially the joke is that a Rabbi was returning from a trip, takes a Taxi home, and strikes up a conversation with the Taxi driver. The entire conversation is the Rabbi asking the Taxi driver about his life, and the Taxi driver always relies the same way, "Baruch HaShem ( with a happy tone in their voice )" "Baruch HaShem ( with a more pensive/unsure tone in their voice )" or "Baruch HaShem ( with a more disappointed tone in their voice ).

It goes something like this:

Rabbi: "Chayim, I haven't seen you in ages How Are You?"

Chayim: "Baruch HaShem. "

Rabbi: "Oh dear, Everything OK at work?"

Chayim: "Baruch HaShem"

Rabbi: "You're not sick or anything, Ha'as V'shalom"

Chayim: "Baruch HaShem"

Rabbi: "Your wife and family?"

Chayim: "Baruch HaShem"

etc....

Now.... this is an extreme example, it's a joke. And full disclosure, my exposure and experience in and among Torah Observant Jews is limited to a specific group of Haredim. And the segment of my family which are Modern American Orthodox Jews. So, YMMV. It would probably be weird for me to start answering Baruch HaShem to every question asked. But the words "Thank G-d" "G-d willing" "G-d forbid" are all still quite common even among my Modern Orthodox family members.

But, this happens to me all the time, ShunyaD. All the time. When my Haredi friends ask me how I am, my family, whatever. ( This happened last week BTW ) I always answer Baruch HaShem, and then they respond, "Baruch HaShem." That's how it is.

There's another example.... this one is even better than the cultural euphemisms I just spoke about.

Have you ever heard of the expression a "G-d Fearing Jew"? Did you know that there's some interesting halacha about this. An oven for baking Kosher bread... needs to be turned on by a G-d Fearing Jew. I think a scribe must be a "G-d Fearing Jew". The Hazan ( aka the Cantor ) for ritual services... G-d Fearing Jew. Blowing the Shofar.... a G-d Fearing Jew.... I think this is in the law. I'm not a Halachic scholar... I'm just an amateur enthusiast. But, my friend... G-d is central in Judaism. I am not allowed to blow the Shofar or lead services even though I am 100% Jewish. I probably couldn't be a Kosher Butcher or a Kosher baker... because I am not a G-d Fearing Jew. Do you see what I mean?

You may not believe any of this... and if you don't... I don't blame you.

And then there's the stories of great Tzaddikim ( Righteous / Pious people ). And the stories of the great sages... and all the wonderful funny and light-hearted jokes and stories. All of these have G-d as central in Judaism. All of it. If you want. I'll go through my collection of stories of Tzaddikim. I can try to find a few examples for you. But you should know... these books I'd be looking in, they're children's books. Bedtime stories, and such.. This is how "Torah Observant Jews" raise their kids. They don't read them Harry Potter. They read them stories of great, pious, righteous, G-d Fearing, G-d Loving folk. Sometimes the stories have a wise Rabbi as the protagonsit. Sometimes the hero of the story is a Fool. But always.... Always.... G-d is central.

I could continue to come up with examples that come from the culture. From the language, from the art, stories, etc.... This is called Minhagim. The Customs. And you should know that among Haredi ( at least the ones I know ) Minhag is just as important as Halacha. And the Minhag is overflowing with expressions of G-d's central position in Judaism.

So, I can tell you, from experience, that G-d is 100% central in Judaism. But only a small subset of Jewish people practice Judaism this way today. I'm not sure how you want to approach that fact. In my opinion, I like to imagine that the my friends who are Haredi represent an authentic version of Judaism which has not changed much over the last 5000+ years. Is that foolish, childish, optimism? Maybe... But these are closed communities that reject assimilation.

You asked: "Question: How many Jews actually believe that the Tanakh reflects an actually history of the Hebrews, and nature of God?"

Today? Very very few. That's really all you or anyone can say for sure. Right? But that in no way means that Jewish Theology is lacking a "strong G-d Centerd belief" as you put it. That's baloney. I'm sorry. Don't be confused by the way most Jewish people **practice** Judaism. Jewish Theology and Culture has a strong central belief in G-d. It's just not apparent from the outside.