Board index ‹ Bible

[Newbie]

Why is it that all religions rely on humans to transmit God's teachings through preachers instead of delivering the message directly ?

[jimwalton]

I don't think that if someone told you these golden tablets were dropped from the sky you would believe it. Case in point: the Mormons claim that, and non-Mormons think it's lunacy. Second, I don't think that if someone told you they heard a voice from the heavens you would believe that either, because you couldn't verify it, nor could anybody else. What kind of "directly" do you want?

[Newbie]

I want a communication that adresses, at best, every human in the world directly, with the same message. The communication would have to be idependently verifiable, its content clear, and probably be recorded - this would make twisting the message impossible. Anyway, it has to be clear that an agent (god) is actually communicating, there are different ways this could be done. We have to be able to tell the difference between a "genuine communication with god" and "this guy / these guys are making shit up".

[jimwalton]

Christians believe that's exactly what the Bible is. First, since it is written it can address every human in the world directly with the same message. As far as independently verifiable, the Bible is unique among the religious books in the prophecies there and the fulfillments of them. At least one of the reasons for the prophecies is to substantiate that it wasn't just made up, but clearly a divine agent communicating. It was recorded in writing—the only available means of recording for millennia. As far as being clear that an agent is actually communicating, the writers of the Bible claim that God was talking to them, and they back it up with the prophecies or miracles that weren't clever magic tricks that give evidence of what they were saying. Then, of course, Christians would also say that Jesus himself was the final "verification," doing things that only a God could do, out in public, in front of hundreds or thousands of people. But, a Christian might feel, none of this is good enough for you. You want something else. There have been voices from the sky, verifiable claims, written records, visitations, miracles, visions, and eyewitnesses. But, you say, "divine silence."

[Newbie]

Well thanks for laying out the argument! Of course it only works if you accept the a-priori belief that the Bible is true & Jesus was resurrected etc. The problem of course is to show that those claims are actually true, which I think is not possible / has not yet been achieved. Quite to the contrary, I think there are many reasons to reject those assumptions.

[jimwalton]

I don't see it as a priori at all. To me it makes sense to approach the Bible as we do any other text, whether history, science, or biography. They are all interpretive works based on observation, corroboration, and the weight of evidence. Read two biographies of Abraham Lincoln and you'll get two different pictures. Talk to two astronomers about the recent images from the Hubble telescope, and you'll hear different interpretations. Any credibility of the Bible has to be found in the same standards of criteria: reliable observation, corroboration of thought and eyewitness accounts, historical (geographical, etc.) reliability, logical sense and reason—all contributing to weight of evidence. The same goes for the resurrection of Jesus. Since it is presented as a historical event, it is not accepted a priori, but on the same weight of evidence as the exploits of Alexander the Great or the historicity of the Battle of the Bulge. If someone were to march you through the Bible, they could show you an ancient civilization at Babylon (Gn. 11), lifestyles similar to the Patriarchs (Gn. 12-25), an empire in Egypt (Gn. 39-50), a king named David (recently dug up and identified), etc. As far as the resurrection of Jesus, John approaches his account like a lawyer, laying out evidences: stone rolled away, tomb empty, eyewitness sightings, etc. I'm not convinced that the problem is to show that those claims are actually true. There are literally thousands (tens of thousands?) of items of historical, geographical, and logical accuracies in the Bible. I think for the Bible and the resurrection to be reasonably and logically dismissed, you would need to present the "many reasons to reject those assumptions." I think we could have a fun discussion.