The problem with 'revelation' as authority

Buddha Dharma · Feb 18, 2018

Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.- Thomas Paine, Age of Reason Part 1/Section 1

I've often wondered how one should answer Paine on his objection to accepting revelation, or if monotheists have given much thought to his view?

socharlie · Feb 18, 2018

Buddha Dharma said:
Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.- Thomas Paine, Age of Reason Part 1/Section 1

I've often wondered how one should answer Paine on his objection to accepting revelation, or if monotheists have given much thought to his view?

Not history but a guide to improve consciouness. It may be that the story is archetypical invention to teach childlike people with evil minds to respect others to have mercy.

Sunstone · Feb 18, 2018

We humans routinely make judgements about whether or not to believe something is true on the basis of a single person's testimony. That is, we assess their trustworthiness. Consequently, it is possible to argue that the fact someone is trusted by most of his or her close associates is to some extent evidence that what they say is truthful. But how good is that evidence? How reliable is it? That's the $64,000 question.

columbus · Feb 18, 2018

The concept of "prophet", whether the ancient people referred to specifically that way or modern people claiming to have a Message from God has long struck me irrational and primitive.

I can understand why primitive people believed in "revelation", God sending a message to a human who was expected to pass it along to others. They had no concept of mass communications. The idea that God could simply tell everyone whatever He wanted us all to know was simply beyond them.

But it isn't anymore. It's obvious to everybody that an omnimax entity doesn't require human beings to speak for Him. So revelation is just a primitive human construct, nothing to do with God.
Tom

Sunstone · Feb 18, 2018

I associate revelation with social control. The notion that only one person (and his or her close followers) have access to important truths, and that everyone else must rely on them for knowledge of those truths, seems to me to be little more than a scam to create and justify a parasitical elite.

Katzpur · Feb 18, 2018

Buddha Dharma said:
Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.- Thomas Paine, Age of Reason Part 1/Section 1

I've often wondered how one should answer Paine on his objection to accepting revelation, or if monotheists have given much thought to his view?

What you've said makes sense. The thing with revelation is that most people who believe "second-hand revelation" have determined beforehand that the individual receiving the revelations has been chosen by God to receive them and pass them on, in other words, that he is "God's chosen prophet." I'm not arguing for or against that concept, just explaining it. Think back to the Old Testament prophets. That's pretty much how things worked back then. Once a person was believed to be a prophet, people looked to him to communicate God's words to them.

The LDS Church today claims continuing revelation to a living Prophet, but Mormons also believe the God reveals Himself to other individuals, depending upon what their role is within the Church or the family. In other words, I could receive revelation pertaining solely to me or -- if I was a mother of young children -- to them, since their welfare was my responsibility. An LDS Sunday School teacher could receive revelation regarding the needs of her Sunday School class, for instance how to approach a difficult topic. An LDS Bishop could receive revelation that is pertinent to his ward (i.e. congregation) but not to the other wards comprising his stake (similar to a diocese). The LDS Prophet receives revelation that concerns the Church as a whole. No other member of the Church (not even one of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church) may do so. The thing is, each member is supposed to pray for confirmation that any revelation received on his behalf by someone in a leadership position over him is, in fact, from God. We are to believe what God teaches us. Sometimes he uses men to convey his messages to us, but He is the only one who, ultimately, can speak to each of us with authority.

whirlingmerc · Feb 18, 2018

Buddha Dharma said:
Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.- Thomas Paine, Age of Reason Part 1/Section 1

I've often wondered how one should answer Paine on his objection to accepting revelation, or if monotheists have given much thought to his view?

That is also a matter of miracles that validate what is said

Amos: The Lord Roars and The Lord Restores

sun rise · Feb 18, 2018

I agree with Paine. Some take it further, like Kabir who says something similar with a different frame-of-reference. To tie the two together, "Don't blindly accept second-hand revelation. Search your heart because the truth is inside you". The quote:

Hari in the East, Allah in the West— so you like to dream. Search in the heart, in the heart alone: there live Ram and Karim! Which is false, Koran or Veda? False is the darkened view.2 It's one, one in every body! How did you make it two? Every man and woman born, they're all your forms, says Kabir.

Grandliseur · Feb 18, 2018

Buddha Dharma said:
When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so.

When someone claimed to speak in the name of God, Jehovah, (Yahweh) those who did so wrongly were truly punished. As it happens to be, exactly this case came to be at the hand of Korah and those who followed him:

Numbers 16:1-3 16 And Ko′rah the son of Iz′har, the son of Ko′hath, the son of Le′vi, proceeded to get up, together with Da′than and A‧bi′ram the sons of E‧li′ab, and On the son of Pe′leth, the sons of Reu′ben. 2 And they proceeded to rise up before Moses, they and two hundred and fifty men of the sons of Israel, chieftains of the assembly, summoned ones of the meeting, men of fame. 3 So they congregated themselves against Moses and Aaron and said to them: . . .

As became obvious, God demonstrated very clearly why they had to take the word of Moses for him being God's spokesman.

Numbers 16:4-7 4 When Moses got to hear it he at once fell upon his face. 5 Then he spoke to Ko′rah and to his entire assembly, saying: “In the morning Jehovah will make known who belongs to him and who is holy and who must come near to him, and whoever he may choose will come near to him. 6 Do this: Take fire holders for yourselves, Ko′rah and his entire assembly, 7 and put fire in them and place incense upon them before Jehovah tomorrow, and it must occur that the man whom Jehovah will choose, he is the holy one. That is enough of YOU, YOU sons of Le′vi!”

The result:

Numbers 16:24-27 . . .around the tabernacles of Ko′rah, Da′than and A‧bi′ram!’” 25 After that Moses got up and went to Da′than and A‧bi′ram, and the older men of Israel went with him. 26 Then he spoke to the assembly, saying: “Turn aside, please, from before the tents of these wicked men and do not touch anything that belongs to them, that YOU may not be swept away in all their sin.” 27 Immediately they got away from before the tabernacle of Ko′rah, Da′than and A‧bi′ram, from every side, and Da′than and A‧bi′ram came out, taking their stand at the entrance of their tents, together with their wives, and their sons and their little ones.

Numbers 16:31-35 31 And it came about that as soon as he had finished speaking all these words, the ground that was under them began to be split apart. 32 And the earth proceeded to open its mouth and to swallow up them and their households and all humankind that belonged to Ko′rah and all the goods. 33 So down they went, and all who belonged to them, alive into She′ol, and the earth went covering them over, so that they perished from the midst of the congregation. 34 And all the Israelites who were round about them fled at the screaming of them, for they began to say: “We are afraid that the earth may swallow us up!” 35 And a fire came out from Jehovah and proceeded to consume the two hundred and fifty men offering the incense.

So, do you think the case was made as to having to listen to the voice of Moses?!

Buddha Dharma · Feb 18, 2018

socharlie said:
Not history but a guide to improve consciouness. It may be that the story is archetypical invention to teach childlike people with evil minds to respect others to have mercy.

Seems you're conceding to Paine's point, when you reduce revelation to something for the child-like.

Valjean · Feb 18, 2018

whirlingmerc said:
That is also a matter of miracles that validate what is said

Amos: The Lord Roars and The Lord Restores

Don't all cultures and religions have their miracles?

Buddha Dharma · Feb 18, 2018

Katzpur said:
The LDS Prophet receives revelation that concerns the Church as a whole. No other member of the Church (not even one of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church) may do so. The thing is, each member is supposed to pray for confirmation that any revelation received on his behalf by someone in a leadership position over him is, in fact, from God.

I'll admit that is an interesting position to take. I wonder what Paine would have thought of it? He lived prior to the establishment of Mormonism.

Buddha Dharma · Feb 18, 2018

whirlingmerc said:
That is also a matter of miracles that validate what is said

Amos: The Lord Roars and The Lord Restores

That only validates the existence of the miraculous, unless you can demonstrate the miracles claimed in other religions are less valid.

Buddha Dharma · Feb 18, 2018

Grandliseur said:
So, do you think the case was made as to having to listen to the voice of Moses?!

No I don't. I think Paine would counter that we're only being told these things by the same source being called into question. The Bible being used to validate the Bible won't convince anyone besides Christians.

Grandliseur · Feb 18, 2018

Buddha Dharma said:
The Bible being used to validate the Bible won't convince anyone besides Christians.

That is a different pickle entirely.

Buddha Dharma said:
When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so;

The claim was made between the sons of Moses and the people back then. This issue was raised and God gave them a fearsome sign to indicate what his will was.

In this we see that they had other authority telling them that they were obligated to believe Moses. Their situation was experienced and they lived through these events. We read about them.

Buddha Dharma · Feb 18, 2018

Grandliseur said:
That is a different pickle entirely.

The claim was made between the sons of Moses and the people back then. This issue was raised and God put gave them a fearsome sign to indicate what his will was.

In this we see that they had other authority telling them that they were obligated to believe Moses. Their situation was experienced and they lived through these events. We read about them.

Right according to?

Grandliseur · Feb 18, 2018

Buddha Dharma said:
I think Paine would counter that we're only being told these things by the same source being called into question.

Buddha Dharma said:
Right according to?

But, realize what your claims are ! They are based on Paine's statements about him countering that they were only told by the same source being called into question. He questioned the need of Israel to listen to Moses.

Buddha Dharma said:
When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so;

Then he uses that to show that we only have the writings:

Buddha Dharma said:
and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.- Thomas Paine, Age of Reason Part 1/Section 1

So, his first claim was false. His next claim has some validity. To get into that is a larger subject as to why we should accept scripture.Here we have the believer who accepts archaeology, prophecies, the witness of the people in scripture.

socharlie · Feb 18, 2018

Buddha Dharma said:
Seems you're conceding to Paine's point, when you reduce revelation to something for the child-like.

In a way, I used bogeyman story to go explain my kids why they should not open the door strangers...

Trailblazer · Feb 20, 2018

Buddha Dharma said:
Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.- Thomas Paine, Age of Reason Part 1/Section 1

I've often wondered how one should answer Paine on his objection to accepting revelation, or if monotheists have given much thought to his view?

I have given a lot of thought to this because I have heard this argument from Paine many times from atheists on other forums who are averse to the idea of Messengers of God. The psychology underlying this kind of thinking is obvious. I consider it the argument of a petulant child who thinks he is entitled to get a direct revelation from God just because he wants one.

I see no reason why God should reveal a whole religion to everyone on earth. This is completely unnecessary and illogical, when God can reveal it to one Messenger/Prophet and others can read what He wrote. Of course God can reveal whatever He wants to whomever He wants, but God is under no obligation send personal messages to everyone on earth. One reason God does not do so is because not everyone is deserving of a message from God. They have to be worthy and the way they prove their worthiness is to use their own innate intelligence to determine if God exists.

“— after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner;”

Okay then don’t believe it, go ahead and miss out on the Will of God just because you want your own personal message... God does not care if you reject His Messengers because God is fully self-sufficient, far above the need for any of His creatures, or their belief in Him or His Messengers.

LuisDantas · Feb 20, 2018

Sunstone said:
I associate revelation with social control. The notion that only one person (and his or her close followers) have access to important truths, and that everyone else must rely on them for knowledge of those truths, seems to me to be little more than a scam to create and justify a parasitical elite.

I concur.

Even taking for granted that such a thing as a legitimate divine revelation exists and is communicated to a specific human being, it stands to reason that the true challenge would be in the proper transmission.

In practice, such has indeed been the case - and not surprisingly, all the more so for the doctrines that emphasize the importance and legitimacy of their revelations.

I don't think the actual origin of any doctrine is nearly as important as the quality of its transmission - which must by necessity include the means and the motivation for actually improving and correcting the doctrine as it is transmitted, if it is to remain valid and useful along the years.

The problem with 'revelation' as authority

Dharma Practitioner

Active Member

De Diablo Del Fora

yawn <ignore> yawn

De Diablo Del Fora

Not your average Mormon

Well-Known Member

The world is on fire

Well-Known Member

Dharma Practitioner

Veteran Member

Dharma Practitioner

Dharma Practitioner

Dharma Practitioner

Well-Known Member

Dharma Practitioner

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Aura of atheification