All the evidence points to Christianity being the true religion. Agree?

Question

According to archeological evidence, monotheism existed before polytheism. The first religions were monotheistic.

Writing dates back to around 3,500 B.C. Abraham was said to have lived between 2,000 and 1,800 B.C. depending on your sources.

There is plenty of evidence during that 1,500 year gap that shows there were people worshipping only one God in that area.

The Bible has been shown to be the most accurate book when it comes to the historical events.

There were multiple witnesses to the miracles of Jesus as is recorded in the Bible. No other religion claims multiple witnesses and can be backed up by MULTIPLE writings. There isn't just ONE account of Jesus in the New Testament. There are MULTIPLE books by multiple authors.

Do you agree?

Answer 1

No. Not only is your religious history a total fabrication, but your reliance on circular logic is ludicrous. There is no evidence of any "true" religion.

ADDENDUM

"I do agree, and believe science can back it up."

ROTFLMAO! Thanks for the comic relief.

Answer 2

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Please excuse my laughter. Your question is just too funny and I really can't help myself. Please lest me finish chuckling and then I will tear your pathetic argument to shreds. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"The Bible has been shown to be the most accurate book when it comes to the historical events."
As compared to what? The other "Holy Books?" Claiming that is like saying that it is safer to jump in front of a moving subway than off the roof of the Empire State Building. NONE of them are accurate. The Bible is a work of fiction. The reason that there are multiple authors agreeing is simple. And it doesn't help your argument.

In the mid-300's CE, the Vatican decided to do a revision of the Bible and make an "official" one. To do this, however, they had to decide on official teachings they wanted them to support, which they voted on. The main decision was the divinity of Christ. They couldn't agree whether they wanted Jesus to be God or just a man. The vote was close, but they decided to have him be a God. The next order of business was to get rid of all if the Scriptural writing that contradicted this decision. At the time, about 400 or so Biblical works, both Old and New Testament, were ciculating around the Roman Empire. These were gathered by the Church and filtered through. Those that went along with the divine-Christ idea were kept, while the others were burned. This narrowed the number down to our modern Bible of 27 New Testament books and 45(I think) in the Old Testament. These remaining were revised and then translated from Hebrew or Greek or Coptic or whatever they were in to Latin. Unfortunately, a lot was lost in this revision. For example, the word that was translated into "virgin" that described Mary was really Hebrew for "young girl." That just means she was about 13 or 14 when she got married. Nothing to do with not having sex. Although the Immaculate Conception is the basis of Christian belief and apparently confirms that he was more than a man, the original Bible writings claimed no such thing.

That is why today finding original Scriptures not included in the "official" Bible creates so much controversy. They contradict what the Church has attempted to teach for the last sixteen or seventeen hundred years.

Also, where do you get your information on monotheism existing before polytheism? One, that is untrue, and two, that doesn't make Christianity the one "true" religion (that is an oxymoron). Islam, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism are all monotheistic as well.

If you doubt anything I said, do research yourself. Look up the Council of Nicea. National Geographic had a great article on "unofficial" Scriptures being found around the Mediterranean. It might be a good idea to learn Hebrew as well and actually read original Bible texts. That should clear some of your "reasons" up.

Answer 3

Disagree. On the question, at least.

All evidence points to Christianity being the creation of all the before religions put together.

Most - if not all - christian holidays either overlap or follow up on Celtic, Norse or Roman holidays - because people refused to stop celebrating it.

Examples; Christmas, All Saints' day, Easter, ...

Writing doesn't necessarily date back only to 3,500 BC. It was simply the earliest evidence of writing that was found that dates back to that date. Writing could have been in existence for centuries even millenia before and the evidence might just have been lost. And how does Abraham fit in with the earliest ever found evidence of writing?

Where is that evidence of monotheistic activity between 3,500 BC and 2,000 BC? From what I recall, most civilisations - primitive and only small - worshipped idols. Different idols for different purposes. Those idols were not represented by conscious beings every time. They just represented whatever they were worshipped for.

"The Bible has been shown to be the most accurate book when it comes to the historical events." - Global floods and the Earth being only 6,000 years old? Excuse me while I try not to giggle...

"There were multiple witnesses to the miracles of Jesus as is recorded in the Bible. No other religion claims multiple witnesses and can be backed up by MULTIPLE writings. There isn't just ONE account of Jesus in the New Testament. There are MULTIPLE books by multiple authors."

WHERE ARE THOSE OTHER BOOKS?!

As a quote that I've noticed in this section a lot, says; "The burden of evidence is on the person making the statement". And you, my dear, have made the statement but have failed to produce the evidence. Where is it?

So, no... I still don't agree.


*edit*

"I do agree, and believe science can back it up."

This calls for Vodka-infused oranges.

Answer 4

Um, no. Evidence is quite clear on the monotheism/polytheism thing. The oldest monotheism we know of was the short-lived religion of Akenaton in Egypt. Before that, Egypt was clearly polythiestic. So was Sumeria, from which we also have quite a bit of written evidence. This is first year "Intro to World History" information.

Your analysis of evidence is also faulty. Most of the miracles in the NT are recorded by people who were not even present. Hence, they are not witnesses. And while these sources SAY there were multiple witness, that's hearsay because they weren't even there. Someone just told THEM that there were witnesses. Hearsay is not historical evidence.

There are numerous things in the Bible that there is no evidence for, such as the massacre of the innocents. One would think that would make it into the historical record. One of the reasons we're not even sure when Jesus was born is because the events as described don't cleanly point to any specific year. Different details point to different years. Which certainly doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist; it just says people didn't have their facts quite straight because they were writing after the fact, and it certainly flies in the face of your claim that the Bible is historically accurate.

Answer 5

Archeological evidence says that animism and, later, hinduism, were the first religions. Even in the early biblical writings there are multiple gods that people were worshipping.
There is evidence of both monotheism as well as polytheism in that area during 3500 and 1800bc
A history book or an encyclopedia are far more accurate than a bible when it comes to historical events.
there were writers who claimed to have multiple witnesses to jesus' miracles. Since these writers were, of course, biased it is logical to assume (given no historical evidence contrary) that they simply claimed such events took place. Since the writers were writing a minimum of 20 years following the death of jesus, it is preposterous to say that they actually knew and remembered each event as it happened and recorded it accurately without bias. Further, there are, in fact, other religions and heroic figures who have miracle stories associated with them.....Appolyonius of Tyana for starters, who was well written about in his time.....and also performed many miracles.

Answer 6

Interesting that you use an argumentative style favored by Paul in many of his letters. By definition a religion is characterized by the inclusion of dogma and the incorporation of some sort of supreme or "otherworldy" beings that have, or had, some influence over earthly and particulary human affairs. Thus, all religions are true religions by definition. If you are really asking if Christianity is the correct understanding of the relationship between the supreme being and humanity, the answer is no. Gentile Christianity is the product of Pauls' ministry, not Jesus', and should be correctly called Paulianity. Paul did not "bring" Christianity to the gentiles so much as invent it for them. A close reading of Pauls' conversion and subsequent communications with Jesus reveals no witnesses to these events that can be substantiated except through Pauls' own account. One must choose between Paul and Jesus. If you choose Jesus only, the pertainant writings are only Mathew, Peter, James and The Relavation. By doing so, questions about "true" religions become moot because you gain the tools, through Jesus' instruction and example, for personal enlightenment (tools which Paul took great pains to take away). Sidebar: The Revelation should be read in the context of its' time only.
I won't comment on the validity of your other statements, as they are irrelevant in light of the teachings of Jesus. His is a very simple truth in and of itself, and thus very hard to embrace and live. Most people prefer the pretenses and trappings (dogma) of religion. Its' the easy path, for the fearful masses and has created the world of strife we live in.

Answer 7

the first religions were goddess-oriented, so where does that leave your big daddy?

did abraham write something i'm unaware of? the earliest writings have been left by polytheistic cultures.

many tribes had only one god, but acknowledged the gods of other tribes. true monotheism first appeared in eqypt under ankhenaten. it is highly likely that this is the source of the abrahamic god.

the most accurate books when it comes to historical events are the roman histories. egyptian and sumerian history writings have also been widely supported by archaeology for being accurate. the bible isn't even in the middle of the field.

the miracles of jesus were not recorded by a single contemporary witness. none of the writings about jesus were recorded by eye witnesses. the silence of contemporary writers [and there were many in the area] is damning. there are multiple writings about many religious figures, not just jesus, and many religions considered the written word to be profane.

i agree that these arguments have been presented numerous times, and no one has been able to provide any new concrete evidence. obviously the bible has recorded historic events. it was the hebrew's cultural record, and they witnessed these events and passed them down orally until they were finally written down. the spiritual content of the bible has not been proven, only its references to actual people and places and certain historic events.

Answer 8

According to archeological evidence the oldest religions were polytheistic and were centered in ancient Rome and Ancient China. Pictorial diagrams show these God's on walls of what are believed to be ancient living grounds (mostly caves). The Bible shows some accurate historical events but other events that are impossible (such as Jonah in the whale), Jonah would of been swallowed and completely digested within about 3 hours, Zoological studies have proven this. There were also thousands of witnessess to the miracles performed by Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers and many prophecies made by other "prophets" unrelated to christianity have come true.

Answer 9

Oh lordy lordy lordy, have you got it wrong.

"The Bible has been shown to be the most accurate book when it comes to the historical events."

Apart from being proven inaccurate about historical events, time periods, cultural references and mathematical laws.

"There were multiple witnesses to the miracles of Jesus as is recorded in the Bible. No other religion claims multiple witnesses and can be backed up by MULTIPLE writings."

Of course there are. Do some research.

"There is plenty of evidence during that 1,500 year gap that shows there were people worshiping only one God in that area."

Again wrong. Look up "Baal" for one.

Answer 10

Polytheism was present long before monotheism. I don't know where you get your history from but you should check your facts. As to Jesus, the only source that mentions Jesus other than the bible (a prejudiced source) was the Jewish historian Falvius Josephus and he only mentioned Jesus in passing. Do some real research before you make such bold statements. You are wrong on most of the points that you present.

Answer 11

Lol, Do I agree?

Wow, this thread contains more lies than I have seen in a long time. The debate ended a long time ago, and it has been long established that religion first evolved as polytheistic and pantheistic. Even Hinduism is older than Judaism by a good margin. Monotheistic religions are very new in the evolution of religion.

And to your original question, no, the OT has been ripped apart more than any other religious text when taken anywhere near a literal realm.

As for evidence, yes, actually, Krishna in Hinduism was born of a virgin and is supported by many writings in Hinduism. In short, you can't use information in a text to prove things in the same text. That is elementary logic. No one knows who wrote the majority of the NT, study how it was put together, and themultiple early sects of Christianity...