Well, then I suppose that by your standards every faith is a revealed faith if its sacred text mentions any sort of "god" as ever saying anything. However, I am not here to argue Hinduism. If you believe that your faith is not objectively any better than Hinduism, then I will leave you to it. :)
FK: "The shaman didn't have God-breathed words."
How do you know that?
Maybe it's just an eyes and ears thing. :) I believe the Bible is unique in that it could not possibly have been produced by men just writing down their personal thoughts. Since we are worlds apart on even that, it is no wonder that there is no argument to you that "God-breathed" actually has any real meaning. Since you DO believe that the Bible was just written down by well meaning men, then how could it be any better to you than any other text which actually WAS just written down by men? :) It can't on its own. That only leaves the Church as a source of truth, with the Bible being a dusty and flawed reference book. I think many people take that approach.
Revealed faith is any faith based on one or more individuals' experiences of what they perceived as some deity revealing itself to them.
However, I am not here to argue Hinduism. If you believe that your faith is not objectively any better than Hinduism, then I will leave you to it.
Obviously I do believe that Orthodoxy is not the same as Hinduism, but I can't say that it is objectively better; only subjectively, as a matter of my preferece. While both preach love and mercy, do no harm, etc. Christianity brings God to a human level where we can see Him and imitate Him. And that is a matter of personal preference, something I am much more comfortable with than with some animal-like deity with 12 arms.
I believe the Bible is unique in that it could not possibly have been produced by men just writing down their personal thoughts. Since we are worlds apart on even that, it is no wonder that there is no argument to you that "God-breathed" actually has any real meaning
Rather than saying the Bile is unique, the Old and the New Testaments are rather unique and rather unlike each other. The God of the OT and the God of the NT are also quite unlike each other. You prefer to treat the as equal, even the Gospels.
To me, Gospels are what Christianity is all about. They contain OT references that we need to know. They speak of Christ's ministry. Take out the Gospels and you have no Christianity, Christ in the OT notwithstanding. I am a Christian, a follower and imitator, bad imitation as it may be, of Christ. He is my Lord and God, and I believe in what the Gospels say He said.
Speaking of which, I have read your link to "Christ in the OT" and I disagree with most of the examples. Besides, given the sheer volume of the OT, the examples given are far and few in between.
That only leaves the Church as a source of truth, with the Bible being a dusty and flawed reference book. I think many people take that approach
Whether it is the Church or the Bible "authenticating itself" it is a matter of how we see things. We in the Apostolic Churches see the Church built on the Bible and what was taught by the Apostles to their successors. The Church is a living history.
Your side throws out a portion of what the early Church considered the Bible it was built on, and denies Apostolic succession. Then you tell us that our Church is "flawed!"
Instead, you offer a Book (replacing the Greek OT used in more than 3% of the cases in the NT and replace with it the Hebrew version) which is by no means always consistent or free or errors, and tell us that it is the "pristine" word of God. In fact, some on your side, tell us that it is the Word of God (namely Christ Himself!).
Our communities use different scriptures, teach different atonement, different salvation, different communion, yet we call on the same God, and use the same scripture (more or less)!
There are no 33,000 opinions what gravity is, FK, because there is little doubt what it does. But there are 33,000-plus denomination of Christianity because no one agrees what it does!