why would God reveal himself in texts?

[Etritonakin]

Non sequitur


We know mythology when we see it and when evidence shows it is mythology. People that determine this actual have REAL educations on the topic, and much is such a certainty it is not up for debate by people who have no education at all on the topic

That did not address my post.

Well-educated people can be wrong -and education is nothing compared to experience.

It's not as if the well-educated, knowledgeable and intellectually immovable of any time period have stood the test of time, is it? Damned few!

 

[outhouse]

who in the future would have 'personal bias', unfounded 'faith', etc... -the one who disbelieved because there was no direct evidence -or the one who believed because they had indirect evidence?

What part of Non sequitur don't you understand?

 

[Etritonakin]

What part of Non sequitur don't you understand?

Not having a "real" education, I have never actually dealt with it -so.... if you would like to explain how it relates to my post, that would be great.
If not, cool. Looks like alphabet soup to me. I'm fairly intelligent, but my vocabulary is quite limited.

It seemed you were not applying it to what I wrote -hypothetically -but the overall, actual situation -at least as you perceive it.

The most ironic aspect of this discussion is that things of biblical proportions are happening all over the world right now -and individuals with great educations -yet lacking evidence -haven't got a clue.
They are increasing, and many people are rather freaked out when they do begin to experience what is already happening -and don't really know what to make of it all.
That is especially true for those who have not studied scripture -but many who have and do not understand it are perceiving things the wrong way.

I have experienced things of biblical proportions -but know it means nothing to you at present.

There is some really freaky stuff going on! Some of it is also pretty nasty, so ignorance is definitely bliss in that way.

We can't help but see from our own perspective -and... if one has no evidence, they have no evidence -or no reason to believe what they cannot see to be true. No harm, no foul.

I can't remember not having "faith" -though not as it is commonly defined -so it is weird to try to think from your perspective -but I have known people who believed (or disbelieved) as you do -and were eventually dumbfounded.

Anyway -proof's in the puddin' -if things get freaky, just remember that if everyone kept the commandments, the world would be a paradise.

 

[Akivah]

So you can Fake Jesus, you can fake Muhammad and the kuran but you can't fake national revelation?
You can fake everything even in modern times if you have the will and the skill.

North Korea they think the dear leader is sent from heaven.
Medjugorje is a fake and million of people all around the world are falling for it.
Japan, until ww2 they tought the emperor was a god
Greece and Argentina, they tought their economy was good till the day they woke up and found themselves pennyless.

now imagine what can you make people believe in a time when you are a King, you claim to derive your authority from god,, the only source of information is actually you, and people can't even read.

All of the "revelations" above are of one person attempting to convince others of their divinity. No one can really know if its truth. As you've stated, none of those "revelations" have stood the test of time. As soon as the yoke is lifted from their backs, the belief dies. But Judaism's national revelation is unique in the world. The text of the Torah states D e u t 5:4 Face to face, the Lord spoke with you at the mountain out of the midst of the fire: No people would ever accept a story that they themselves witnessed a miraculous event unless they had really done so. If G-d wants to start a religion, then the best way is by presenting Himself to the entire nation, not just through a text that somebody wrote. If Moses made the whole thing up, then his story would've died with him.

Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy. What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as the Torah says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us – who are all here alive today."

Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.

 

[outhouse]

Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.

That is the pseudohistorical myth.

 

[cambridge79]

Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.

And christianity is the personal eyewitness of people watching Jesus resurrecting. But apparently those eyewitness can be dismissed in your view, but somehow a myth that is 3300 years old put into words by direct will of the king of the time, that one MUST have happened.

consider also the miracle of the dancing sun at Fatima. According to you that can't be faked cause it was a massive thing. Yet you ignore it and dismiss it anyway.
You assume, like me, that what those thousands of people claimed to have seen apparently was something else otherwise it would be the proof that christians are right and jews are wrong. But again when it comes to people living 3300 years ago what's written there can't be anything else than the truth That's not a consistent way to see the world.

 

[Koldo]

All of the "revelations" above are of one person attempting to convince others of their divinity. No one can really know if its truth. As you've stated, none of those "revelations" have stood the test of time. As soon as the yoke is lifted from their backs, the belief dies. But Judaism's national revelation is unique in the world. The text of the Torah states D e u t 5:4 Face to face, the Lord spoke with you at the mountain out of the midst of the fire: No people would ever accept a story that they themselves witnessed a miraculous event unless they had really done so. If G-d wants to start a religion, then the best way is by presenting Himself to the entire nation, not just through a text that somebody wrote. If Moses made the whole thing up, then his story would've died with him.

Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy. What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as the Torah says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us – who are all here alive today."

Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.

There are certainly many possible explanations. For instance, I can't reject a claim being made about me if I am a dead man.

 

[Akivah]

And christianity is the personal eyewitness of people watching Jesus resurrecting. But apparently those eyewitness can be dismissed in your view, but somehow a myth that is 3300 years old put into words by direct will of the king of the time, that one MUST have happened.

From what I know of that event, nobody actually saw jesus rise from the dead. It was just 1-3 women that saw an empty tomb.That is somewhat different from millions of people personally experiencing G-d.

consider also the miracle of the dancing sun at Fatima. According to you that can't be faked cause it was a massive thing. Yet you ignore it and dismiss it anyway. You assume, like me, that what those thousands of people claimed to have seen apparently was something else otherwise it would be the proof that christians are right and jews are wrong. But again when it comes to people living 3300 years ago what's written there can't be anything else than the truth That's not a consistent way to see the world.

I just read about the miracle of the sun at Fatima. I don't deny the actual event as reported on Wikipedia. Most of the people in attendance saw some sort of optical event. I don't see what connection this optical event has to G-d. No one reported hearing a message from G-d. There seems to be a disconnect between the children who reported seeing a lady and to the crowd which only saw balls of light. Plus, the people in attendance already believed in jesus. They weren't convinced into believing based on this event.

Your statements have no comparison to our national revelation. Ours still looks to be unique. We accepted G-d not based on texts, but on our national revelation.

 

[Akivah]

For instance, I can't reject a claim being made about me if I am a dead man.

This doesn't make much sense. The Hebrews that originally accepted the Torah (which said they were witnesses) were living and had witnessed G-d's revelation to the Nation.

 

[Koldo]

This doesn't make much sense. The Hebrews that originally accepted the Torah (which said they were witnesses) were living and had witnessed G-d's revelation to the Nation.

How do you know the witnesses were alive and in agreement with what was written ?

 

[Akivah]

How do you know the witnesses were alive and in agreement with what was written ?

It's logical.

The participants must have seen and talked about what they had seen. So when a text is presented describing such an event, we don't dispute it because we have already verbally heard the stories, which were passed down to their descendents.

Alternatively, I couldn't say "Koldo, your ancestors were citizens of Atlantis. They personally witnessed it sinking beneath the ocean and escaped from it". I have a book right here in which that event is printed and it reads that your ancestors were witnesses. Your proper reply is that no one ever relayed such a event to you before. You would be right to reject a text that says that.

It is totally opposite in our case. We have a text that says our ancestors witnessed G-d at Sinai. We don't dispute it because we've already heard about it from those that lived before us.

 

[cambridge79]

From what I know of that event, nobody actually saw jesus rise from the dead. It was just 1-3 women that saw an empty tomb.That is somewhat different from millions of people personally experiencing G-d.



I just read about the miracle of the sun at Fatima. I don't deny the actual event as reported on Wikipedia. Most of the people in attendance saw some sort of optical event. I don't see what connection this optical event has to G-d. No one reported hearing a message from G-d. There seems to be a disconnect between the children who reported seeing a lady and to the crowd which only saw balls of light. Plus, the people in attendance already believed in jesus. They weren't convinced into believing based on this event.

Your statements have no comparison to our national revelation. Ours still looks to be unique. We accepted G-d not based on texts, but on our national revelation.

se you know all those details of the sun miracle and you dismiss it. seems legit.

Yet

you know only the details that the man who wrote the account in the bible wants you to know.
We don't know if the objective of that man was to sell the idea of god, maybe that day there were million of people present, maybe just 10% of them claimed to have heard god.
Maybe the man who wrote the account was among this 10% therefore it was in his own interest to write down that everyone saw what he saw. And here we have the national revelation.
But in this case you keep aside your skepticism and you dismiss the very same arguments that you use to dismiss the credibility of other events that can't be true according to your religion.
Do we have some other report of one of those presents at the event from some other book? no we don't.
You seem to be extremely sharp when analizing and therefore dismissing other claims, but when it comes to the claim you want to be true, no details needed, no skepticism required, it's there so it must be true cause you need it to be true. Doesn't seem consisten or fair to me.

 

[Koldo]

It's logical.

The participants must have seen and talked about what they had seen. So when a text is presented describing such an event, we don't dispute it because we have already verbally heard the stories, which were passed down to their descendents.

Alternatively, I couldn't say "Koldo, your ancestors were citizens of Atlantis. They personally witnessed it sinking beneath the ocean and escaped from it". I have a book right here in which that event is printed and it reads that your ancestors were witnesses. Your proper reply is that no one ever relayed such a event to you before. You would be right to reject a text that says that.

It is totally opposite in our case. We have a text that says our ancestors witnessed G-d at Sinai. We don't dispute it because we've already heard about it from those that lived before us.

Which means that somewhere along the line there could be one individual who fabricated the whole story and it was accepted as true because he was an elder.
The same story was then passed down to everyone which explains why you have only one narrative.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's logical.

The participants must have seen and talked about what they had seen. So when a text is presented describing such an event, we don't dispute it because we have already verbally heard the stories, which were passed down to their descendents.

Alternatively, I couldn't say "Koldo, your ancestors were citizens of Atlantis. They personally witnessed it sinking beneath the ocean and escaped from it". I have a book right here in which that event is printed and it reads that your ancestors were witnesses. Your proper reply is that no one ever relayed such a event to you before. You would be right to reject a text that says that.

It is totally opposite in our case. We have a text that says our ancestors witnessed G-d at Sinai. We don't dispute it because we've already heard about it from those that lived before us.

We also have a text that says eyewitnesses saw Greek gods instigate the Trojan War and then take sides and help its combatants. Why should your eyewitness account be given any more weight than that one?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Your statements have no comparison to our national revelation. Ours still looks to be unique. We accepted G-d not based on texts, but on our national revelation

How is it they accepted God? They were worshipping a golden calf when Moses returned, so how impressed were they? The only ones who accepted it were those spared by Team Moses after all the bloodshed for those who liked cows better.

 

[LuisDantas]

'Why would God reveal Himself in Texts'?

Why not?

Mostly because it does not work.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

God chose to reveal himself with words that people could understand. Somebody obviously thought it was a good idea to write them down so they could be shared with others

 

[cambridge79]

God chose to reveal himself with words that people could understand. Somebody obviously thought it was a good idea to write them down so they could be shared with others

and those words are so understandable that inside every religions there are currents and denominations fighting each others.

 

[Akivah]

How is it they accepted God? They were worshipping a golden calf when Moses returned, so how impressed were they?

According to the Hebrew bible, only about 3000 people worshipped the golden calf out of the two-three million people that were at Sinai. Your error comes from paying more attention to a movie named "The Ten Commandments", than the actual bible.

 

[Akivah]

We also have a text that says eyewitnesses saw Greek gods instigate the Trojan War and then take sides and help its combatants.

Do the descendants of those people still worship those gods?