Divine revelation

[shunyadragon]

I believe I have. The Word of God is all that which is inspired by God and written down and preserved through the ages, comprising the Old and New Testaments. I've said this already, and am not sure how I could be any clearer. Perhaps you can tell me precisely what it is that you're looking for in this definition?

Could you be wrong about this?

On what basis do you make such a claim?

[NormATive]

No one is claiming that men did not physically write down the text.

Ergo: words of men. You keep proving my point, Blackie.

Now, why is it every time I read your posts, I imagine this short little dude speaking in an artificially deep voice.

"Thus spoke Mr. Blackie. ...cough...sputter..."

NORM

[Mr. Black]

Could you be wrong about this?

No.

On what basis do you make such a claim?

Revelation from God. Would you say that it's impossible for God to grant epistemic certainty to His own creatures?

What is your rational foundation for that question of yours?

[Mr. Black]

Ergo: words of men.

This is a rank non-sequitur. Words of men does not = merely the words of men.

You keep proving my point, Blackie.

No, I keep pointing out that there are two facts at play in the Christian worldview: (1) God inspiring men to write down His Word, and (2) Men writing it down. You make note of the 2nd and then act as though that precludes the first---but that's the very thing in question. Are you saying that it's impossible for an infallible God to inspire fallible men to write down exactly what He wants written down?

Now, why is it every time I read your posts, I imagine this short little dude speaking in an artificially deep voice.

Don't know and don't care.

On what basis do you that the New Testament was written merely by men, and not by men who were inspired by God?

[NormATive]

On what basis do you that the New Testament was written merely by men, and not by men who were inspired by God?

I've already answered this many times: because we know their names. Men wrote the Christian Testament. You are merely deceived into believing that they are "inspired," but it doesn't change the fact that mere mortals wrote your scriptures.

On the other hand, G-d wrote the Pentateuch. Are you going to deny that? Why would G-d want to write anything through mere men? Isn't it YOUR theory that men are totally debase and liars? What's to keep them from making up a bunch of heresies (like polytheistic triune dogmas) and saying they were "inspired?"

No, G-d wouldn't do that.

So, are you saying you are basing all of your knowledge on possible lying men?

Tragic.

NORM

[NormATive]

Next thing you know, he's gonna say something like he "knows" they were inspired because the Bible tells him so - the Bible part written by those same men!

NORM

[Doug Shaver]

Next thing you know, he's gonna say something like he "knows" they were inspired because the Bible tells him so

I don't think so. I think that's the core presupposition of presuppositionalism. But he'll set me straight if I'm mistaken.

[Scrawly]

Norm in Leon's thread where he asked if one could believe God exists, you stated:

"Yes, if God acted as he did all throughout the Tanakh and Christian Testaments, one might be able to have faith in such a being. But, since he lost all of his super powers, there is no basis in believing in your god or any other for that matter. The gods these days seem so powerless and impotent."

Yet in this thread you seem quite apologetic in your defense of the true God as revealed in the Tanakh.

Why the sudden change?

[shunyadragon]

Norm in Leon's thread where he asked if one could believe God exists, you stated:

"Yes, if God acted as he did all throughout the Tanakh and Christian Testaments, one might be able to have faith in such a being. But, since he lost all of his super powers, there is no basis in believing in your god or any other for that matter. The gods these days seem so powerless and impotent."

Yet in this thread you seem quite apologetic in your defense of the true God as revealed in the Tanakh.

Why the sudden change?

NormAtive is describing a consistent problem with the belief in God(s) as described in ancient scriptures and worldviews, and of course, the ancient worldviews of our physical existence that comes along as archaic baggage. The hands on manipulative God(s) of the Tanakh and the Christian Scriptures is obviously an ancient human view of God(s). In today's world there is no relevance for the ancient God(s), nor witness that these hands on miracle working God(s) exist. This is why atheists and agnostics are justified in their objections to the existence of these Gods. I do not believe these Gods exist, but I believe a 'Source' some call God(s) does exist from a more universal perspective.

IF God exists, then these ancient world views of God, as well as the others of ancient culture all over the world throughout history represent an evolving human view of God and God's relationship with humanity and Creation. This is the Baha'i view of God.

My challenge to Normative is; 'Why he believes in Judaism, yet rejects the existence of the God(s) of Judaism that form the foundation of their belief?'

[NormATive]

Norm in Leon's thread where he asked if one could believe God exists, you stated:

"Yes, if God acted as he did all throughout the Tanakh and Christian Testaments, one might be able to have faith in such a being. But, since he lost all of his super powers, there is no basis in believing in your god or any other for that matter. The gods these days seem so powerless and impotent."

Yet in this thread you seem quite apologetic in your defense of the true God as revealed in the Tanakh.

Why the sudden change?

I'm trying to prove a point regarding the presuppositional Van Til approach of Mr. Black. Jewish apologetics are famous for that line of reasoning. And, they have more of a leg to stand on, because they claim that G-d itself wrote the Pentateuch, not through "inspired" intermediaries.

Personally, I am non- theist. The only faith group that will allow non-theists to participate is the Jewish community.

NORM

[shunyadragon]

Personally, I am non- theist. The only faith group that will allow non-theists to participate is the Jewish community.

NORM

Not so, the UU allow non-theists and is a faith group. The Jewish community remains specifically a faith based group with God, and the Tanakh at its foundation.

The Baha'i Faith allows an agnostic world view.

[Mr. Black]

Next thing you know, he's gonna say something like he "knows" they were inspired because the Bible tells him so - the Bible part written by those same men!

I know the Bible is inspired due to God's revelation and the internal evidence of the text itself, granting immediate epistemic certainty. The outward demonstration of that being that being that, when you reject the biblical worldview, you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity, and to argue against it you have to appeal to, and depend on principles which only the worldview you wish to refute can account for.

Personally, I am non- theist.

Oh really? So you've been wasting my time throughout this entire conversation arguing for a position you don't even believe in? That's intentionally deceptive. It also changes things.

Proverbs 1:7 says the fear of the Lord is the beginning (not the end result) of wisdom and knowledge, and Colossians 2:3,8 say, respectively, that (1) all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ, and that (2) if you have a philosophy of life that's rooted in the "elementary principles of the world" rather than a philosophy of life that's rooted "in Christ" you end up being robbed of those treasures.

With that in mind, how does your non-theist worldview stack up to the biblical challenge? Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?
And keep in mind that any reply that ignores this challenge begs the question by assuming (rather than proving) that knowledge is possible apart from the biblical God.

[Mr. Black]

I don't think so. I think that's the core presupposition of presuppositionalism. But he'll set me straight if I'm mistaken.

You'll have to forgive me here, but I'm not sure what you're saying. It sounded like you started off disagreeing with him, but then went on to say that what he said is actually the core presupposition of my view...???

[NormATive]

My challenge to Normative is; 'Why he believes in Judaism, yet rejects the existence of the God(s) of Judaism that form the foundation of their belief?'

I think that Judaism has evolved to a point where it is no longer necessary to believe in the deity described in the earliest texts. I think this G-d is created in the minds of those who conceived it.

Judaism as a "system" works because it is focused on being good neighbors (obviously, I'm not speaking for the Zionists here), and living a life that embraces all of humanity and the total human experience.

NORM

[NormATive]

Not so, the UU allow non-theists and is a faith group. The Jewish community remains specifically a faith based group with God, and the Tanakh at its foundation.

The Baha'i Faith allows an agnostic world view.

Well, I'm a member of a local Jewish community, they know I am non-theistic, and they accept me as I am. No one is trying to convert me. As long as I pay my tithe, do the work of the community, support the youth of the Shul, wether or not I believe in a supernatural deity is beside the point.

I'm not the only one, either.

I have many friends in the UU church as well as some among the Baha'i, but I'm not into crystals and chanting and all that other mystical stuff. Secular Judaism is a happy place for me. Culturally, I "get" all the feasts and celebrations and rituals, so the learning curve is easy.

NORM