Jewish Philosophers on Reason and Revelation

Footnotes of Jewish philosophers on reasons and revelations are erroneous summaries. Reason and revelation are sources of different truth. They are inconsistent or complementary. This article attempts to answer these ancient questions from the perspective of the Jewish pluralism. I think that the two most important representatives of the Jewish main thought school, the rationalist Maimonides, Moses Mendelsohn and Hermann Cohen, and the fundamental view of anti-rationalist Judah Hallevi and Solomon Levi Steinheim I will mention.

Philosophy - tradition includes a method of religion or ultimate reality, unrelated to the events of the Bible but unrelated to events, rather than the basis of a revelation-based approach, rather than the Bible, rather than the Bible Yes. World and experience, Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Kant, Heart Shawn, Alfred North Whitehead - History, but not cross section. Theology of the Old Testament was discovered in the confession of the Old Testament God's activity in history is the most legitimate form of the Old Testament theological discourse and therefore God, Psalm, and JEDP theology. There is no need to summarize. It only understands the process.

Apocalypse The Apocalypse is the only book that is difficult to explain in the New Testament. There are several reasons. First, there is a very different interpretation of the overall timing of the book. Some people think that most people are pure history. Some people think much of the future. Second, the Apocalypse has many hints on the Old Testament. Implication is a phrase and reference in the Old Testament, and no one clearly states that he quoted the Old Testament. So, when John refers to the Old Testament, he is not usually saying that you are doing this. Third, the use of symbolic words in the Apocalypse is more than in other parts of the Bible. Apocalypse is a literary form known as the end of the world

Philosophical theory believes that God exists (or must exist) and is independent of the teachings and revelations of a particular religion. Some philosophical experts convinced the existence of God through philosophical controversy others believed that they had religious beliefs that they could not need or be supported by rational arguments. Theological non-cognitiveism considers religious languages, in particular words like "god" (the capital), cognitively meaningless. It is cited as evidence that there is no such thing as "god", hence it is the basis of atheism. There are two main arguments: Kenilsson uses semantic verifiable theory to conclude that religious languages ​​are meaningless as it proves weak atheism because it can not be proved