#personal revelation

[thorn-1n-the-flesh]

[gothicapologist]

"I promise that the soul that will venerate this image will not perish. I also promise victory over enemies already here on earth, especially at the hour of death. I Myself will defend it as My own glory." - Jesus to St. Faustina, Divine Mercy in My Soul (Notebook I, Entry 48)

[person-of-varying-obsessions]

A Revelation

After starting my playthrough of Danganronpa V3 with the Japanese voices instead of English Dub (just because I was curious), I heard this little gremlin's voice and thought: "No way..."

So I looked it up, and SURE ENOUGH!-

They're both voiced in Japanese by Hiro Shimono!

The worst part was that, during my time getting all of the Good Endings in Nightshade, I literally had the thought that Kuroyuki was like Kokichi in that he was essentially a purple gremlin (though not in the same way, obviously). And I had no idea how accurate that thought was going to be until today...

[bookish-bi-mormon]

I was liking this talk but now I feel like he's putting too many restrictions on personal revelation. Ask God whatever you want, His answer for you might be different than what people have told you.

[loveerran]

I find the phrase cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) to be relevant to why I hold qualitative religious experience to be a valid method of personal discovery.

My experiences with deity are, qualitatively, so much more important, meaningful and greater than all other experiences in my life that they do not fit within the same frame of reference. The brightest, best and most spiritual moments of my life are shadows by comparison. I do not need to accept the witness of others because I am an independent witness.

Having found that thing which is qualitatively best in such a degree, it is reasonable for me to base my life and actions around it.

It makes sense for me to encourage others to find this treasure for themselves the same way I found it. Through qualitative, subjective, personal experience. My experiences came as I studied, pondered, prayed and sought the light in profoundly personal ways. And that means it is not intellectually dishonest for me to espouse the same course to others.

There are many competing religionists with different tenets seemingly in conflict with one another. In our LDS tradition, Joseph Smith found himself in need of answers. I believe he had an experience with God because I recognize the language he used and feel that relationship to my own experience. Joseph’s experience, my experience and the experiences of many others demonstrate that deeply flawed individuals may seek and gain this knowledge. Our witnesses show that your truly marvelous experience may come from bypassing the mortals, including ourselves, and going straight to God (or, if you prefer, the light - or another placeholder for that which is Good).

Therefore I encourage everyone to search, ponder and pray with real intent, rather than seeking only through logic and objective, quantitative analysis. Not that such things are evil in and of themselves, but rather that they miss the mark. If you want to get hit by a spiritual train, you need to be standing on the track the train is running on.

[averydrawscomics]

InFallible 48 - Girls’ Camp! Revelation from Gut Almighty

[eli-kittim]

Is Paul a Witness to the Historical Jesus?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

——-

Paul: The Visionary Witness

Paul is the earliest New Testament writer. And there is compelling textual evidence for concluding that Paul’s witness to Christ is exclusively based on visionary experiences (see Acts 9.3-5; Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Cor. 12.2-4). Critical scholarship would unequivocally concur that Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. Yet on the very basis of his own personal revelations, which exclude human sources, Paul’s knowledge of Christ surpassed that of his contemporaries. In Gal. 1.11-12, Paul makes it abundantly clear that he’s not a reliable witness to the historical existence of Jesus. He writes:

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,

that the gospel that was proclaimed by me

is not of human origin; for I did not receive it

from a human source, nor was I taught it,

but I received it through a revelation of

Jesus Christ.

Along similar lines, the German New Testament scholar and historian, Gerd Lüdemann, from the University of Göttingen, ascribes the belief in Jesus’ resurrection primarily to Paul’s visions. In his book (“The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology,” Translated by John Bowden [London: SCM, 1994], 97, 100), he writes:

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a

vision described in Greek by Paul as

ophehe——‘he was seen.’ And Paul himself,

who claims to have witnessed an

appearance asserted repeatedly ‘I have

seen the Lord.’ So Paul is the main source

of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the

belief in resurrection.

——-

Bart Ehrman Says that Paul Tells Us Nothing About the Historical Jesus

Bart Ehrman, who is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, once wrote on his blog:

Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the

events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird

to people, but just read all of his letters.

Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,

casting out a demon, doing any other

miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other

leaders, teaching the multitudes, even

speaking a parable, being baptized, being

transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being

arrested, put on trial, found guilty of

blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate

on charges of calling himself the King of the

Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a

very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us

about.

Even Kurt Aland——the German Bible scholar who founded the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, and one of the principal editors of the Nestle-Aland-Novum Testamentum Graece——went so far as to question the historicity of Jesus. In his book (“A History of Christianity,” vol. 1 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], p. 106), he writes:

the real question arises . . . was there really

a Jesus? Can Jesus really have lived if the

writings of his closest companions are filled

with so little of his reality . . . so little in them

of the reality of the historical Jesus . . . .

When we observe this——assuming that the

writings about which we are speaking really

come from their alleged authors——it

almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere phantom.

No wonder, then, that in his magnum opus (the Epistle to the Romans) Paul sets about describing the gospel of Christ NOT as a biography or an objective historical account but rather as a *revelation* that has been “promised beforehand” through the agency of the Holy Spirit (1.1-3 NRSV):

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be

an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,

which he promised beforehand through his

prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel

concerning his Son.

——-

Conclusion

Gerd Lüdemann, professor of History and Literature of Early Christianity, concluded an essay——(“Paul as a Witness to the Historical Jesus” in R. Joseph Hoffman, “Sources of the Jesus tradition: separating history from myth” [Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2010], p. 212)——with the following sentence:

In short, Paul cannot be considered a

reliable witness to either the teachings,

the life, or the historical existence of

Jesus.

Christianity preserved the apocalyptic literary tradition of Judaism and reevaluated it in light of its own messianic revelations. The New Testament refined this type of literature as it became the vehicle of its own prophetic and apocalyptic expressions. Apocalypticism, then, not historiography, is the *literary style* of the New Testament, which is based on a *foreknowledge* of future events that is written in advance! It is therefore thought advisable to consider the collection of New Testament writings as strikingly futurist books (see Lk 17.30; Heb. 1.2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; 2 Pet. 1.19; 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 19.10d; 22.7, 10, 18, 19)!

——-

[lunarmoment]

Character Descriptions

I have trouble picturing faces. This is true in writing, in reading, and in hearing people tell stories. I’m not quite sure why I struggle with it - I’m pretty observant! - but most of the time if I’ve never seen a person, they walk around in my mind as a vague, half-formed face.

I was afraid for a long time this made me a bad reader or, worse for someone with dreams of being an author, a bad writer. I feel like I can just barely reach out and touch them; some moments, fractions of moments really, their faces rise in perfect clarity, but with a flicker they’re gone. It’s a specific snapshot instead of a dynamic image. Oftentimes I just throw in a couple random descriptors and have faith people will be able to figure it out for themselves. Everyone else is good at it, right? They’ll just think I know exactly what I’m talking about and picture whatever they see fit. Great!

The thing is, even though I can’t imagine their faces, I’ve never had any trouble recognizing who they are - my characters or other people’s. There had always been this weird disconnect between not having a visual but having a feeling, a distinct knowledge of who they are as a person, and I couldn’t figure it out. That is until I revisited a passage from A Wrinkle in Time.

I read this book when I was 10 years old, and this passage has stuck with me for the 13 years since. For context, Meg and her friends landed on a planet inhabited by blind creatures. They do not have/understand/need sight at all, and one of them asked Meg to describe the three people they’re looking for.

Meg tried. Blunderingly. Fumblingly. At first she described Mrs. Whatsit and her man’s coat and multicolored shawls and scarves; Mrs. Who and her white robes and shimmering spectacles; Mrs. Which in her peaked cap and black gown, quivering in and out of body. Then she realized this was absurd. She was describing them only to herself. This wasn’t Mrs. Whatsit or Mrs. Who or Mrs. Which. She might as well have described Mrs. Whatsit as she was when she took on the form of a flying creature of Uriel.

“Don’t try to use words,” Aunt Beast said soothingly. “You’re just fighting yourself and me. Think about what they are. This look doesn’t help us at all.” 

Meg tried again, but she could not get a visual concept out of her mind. She tried to think of Mrs. Whatsit explaining tessering. She tried to think of them in terms of mathematics. Every once in a while she thought she felt a flicker of understanding from Aunt Beast or one of the others, but most of the time all that emanated from them was a gentle puzzlement.

“Angels!” Calvin shouted suddenly from across the table. “Guardian angels!” There was a moment’s silence, and he shouted again, his face tense with concentration, “Messengers! Messengers of God!”

There it is! The essence of them! That’s how I know my blob forms of Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which! In a way, I have the opposite problem of Meg. I can’t imagine their jaw shapes or noses for crap, but I know my vague shadow is a guardian angel, or a mentor, or a trouble maker, or a manipulator, or a hero. This passage struck me because it’s exactly what I struggle with, and even as a fourth grader reading this book for the first time, I knew that. In fact, I had just finished reading Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events. The 2004 movie played out the first three books then stopped - in perfect form, when I read the first three, I pictured the Baudelaire children as the actors, and then for the rest of the series I had my vague shadow people lightly based off the cover art. It stressed me out. Was I stupid? Unimaginative? Broken?

This passage told me no, I’m not stupid or wrong. My mind just works a little differently. I’m more like Aunt Beast than Meg, and this is the only piece of media I can think of that so clearly and beautifully draws out that distinction. This not at all to say visual descriptions are bad or wrong or unnecessary - in fact, they’re quite important - but if you’ve ever doubted yourself because you can’t imagine the intensive details of a knight’s armor or the exact criss-crossing of wrinkles on someone’s face, it’s fine. You’re not a bad writer; you don’t have a bad imagination. You’re just like Aunt Beast.

Maybe I am alone in this, or a minority, or maybe a majority in a world that’s convinced me everyone can imagine visual descriptions perfectly and in great depth, but this passage is extraordinarily comforting to me. And maybe it will be for you too.

Happy writing, everyone!

tldr; You’re not a bad writer/reader for not being able to imagine things in great detail. You just know your characters as guardian angels instead of women in men’s coats and colorful shawls. Not everything comes naturally, and you shouldn’t let that scare you.