• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

the right religion

Abrahamic faiths are most often the ones to claim to be right or true. Especially Christianity and Islam. Both say they have proof. So which proof is right? There's no way of knowing. How is the bible in any way more real and true than the Quran or vice versa. What makes the Bhagavad Gita not true?

Try post 2226 in this thread and post any comparable list from either the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita. It really isn't that hard to determine the one with by far the most reliable and extensive textual attestation if you are willing to investigate. It is harder to go from the most likely to the absolute truth of that realigion but that is where God comes in.
I'm sure that just about every religion out there has their go-to list of term papers and text books citing what they consider evidence for their particular religion's validity. That's not proof of God, that's just proof that religious tribalism is alive and well here on planet earth. :)

Personally, as someone who ditched adherence to man-made religion in exchange for one-on-one relationship with the Divine, I'm inclined to believe that the term "right religion" is an oxymoron. Just speaking for myself, if it's religion, it ain't right. :D


 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Historians Scholars and legal professionals can be wrong,after all there are Scholars of Hinduism,Islam,Christianity and so on,which of these are right?.
Of course they can be wrong. However the more there are, and the more reliable and plentiful the information the more trust worthy. In other words there are many accepted scholarly procedures (historical method, independant witness testimony, etc...) for establishing reliability of texts. The bible exceeds all other contemporaries and even many later texts. It even far exceeds what can be reasonably expected. The same standards that show the bible as highly reliable render all but Judaism and somewhat less Islam as devoid of virtually all authenticity markers.

There are no double standards here,i very much doubt the existence of the popularised Arthur,still at least Humans are good at writing good stories.
Nobody believes Arthur as in Excaliber - Merlin and Camelot existed. I meant Xerxes, Ceasur, Plato, Socrates etc.... They are all taught as factual and have only the smallest fraction of the textual integrity the bible has as evidence.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Of course they can be wrong. However the more there are, and the more reliable and plentiful the information the more trust worthy. In other words there are many accepted scholarly procedures (historical method, independant witness testimony, etc...) for establishing reliability of texts. The bible exceeds all other contemporaries and even many later texts. It even far exceeds what can be reasonably expected. The same standards that show the bible as highly reliable render all but Judaism and somewhat less Islam as devoid of virtually all authenticity markers.

Nobody believes Arthur as in Excaliber - Merlin and Camelot existed. I meant Xerxes, Ceasur, Plato, Socrates etc.... They are all taught as factual and have only the smallest fraction of the textual integrity the bible has as evidence.

Thats interesting,i think the difference between the people you have cited and Jesus is that only one was the Son of God in the story.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Thats interesting,i think the difference between the people you have cited and Jesus is that only one was the Son of God in the story.
That would only be meaningful if the textual record concerning him was no better that any other ancient figure. Since we demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims and the bible supplies just that many times over I do not see a contention here. Did you see the comparison chart for the textual tradition of the bible vs all other major works of antiquity I posted? It not only is better by many many times over that of any other work, I believe that it is greater than all the others combined. Extrordinary evidence indeed.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
That would only be meaningful if the textual record concerning him was no better that any other ancient figure. Since we demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims and the bible supplies just that many times over I do not see a contention here. Did you see the comparison chart for the textual tradition of the bible vs all other major works of antiquity I posted? It not only is better by many many times over that of any other work, I believe that it is greater than all the others combined. Extrordinary evidence indeed.

Sorry i don't see any extraordinary evidence,i think i'll leave it there.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Sorry i don't see any extraordinary evidence,i think i'll leave it there.
Apparently you missed all the posts where I compared the textual evidence for the bible with all other ancient works and the bible has several hundred times as much as well as my witnesses to miraculous events. You are probably making a common mistake. You are waiting for proof. Since God demands faith and gives more than enough evidence for that (as evidenced by billions of believers) than is necessary and proof negates the need for faith, then you might be waiting a long time. Anyway appreciate your repectful discourse.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
That would only be meaningful if the textual record concerning him was no better that any other ancient figure. Since we demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims and the bible supplies just that many times over I do not see a contention here. Did you see the comparison chart for the textual tradition of the bible vs all other major works of antiquity I posted? It not only is better by many many times over that of any other work, I believe that it is greater than all the others combined. Extrordinary evidence indeed.

no it doesn't.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Apparently you missed all the posts where I compared the textual evidence for the bible with all other ancient works and the bible has several hundred times as much as well as my witnesses to miraculous events. You are probably making a common mistake. You are waiting for proof. Since God demands faith and gives more than enough evidence for that (as evidenced by billions of believers) than is necessary and proof negates the need for faith, then you might be waiting a long time. Anyway appreciate your repectful discourse.

can you define textual evidence?
 

camanintx

Well-Known Member
I have actually read that book. Have you? That was a long and tedious read. He was an eye witness to less than 1% of the events he records. Many of them were not even on the same land mass as he was.
Whether he got them right or not, the point is he wrote about them at the time they happened. The earliest of the gospels is believed to have been written in 50 AD, almost a whole generation after the events took place.

I am aware of a grand total of two Hindus who burned themselves. I am sure there are more but nowhere near the numbers of Christian Martyrs. I think you missed the point anyway. I said that these early eye witnesses would have known that Jesus was not divine and would have not given their life for what they knew was a lie if that was the case. That can't be said for Hinduism.
One's willingness to die for their beliefs does not validate those beliefs. Is the fact that hundreds of people killed themselves at Jonestown evidence that Jim Jones was divine?

There are two problems, however. First, is it credible that the Romans would require people to be registered in their hometowns? A provincial census decree from Egypt dated AD 104 required absentees to return to their hometowns to be registered. The decree reads,
Gaius Vivius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt [says]: seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.
There is no reason the Romans would not have followed a similar procedure a century or so earlier in Judea.
When Was Jesus Born? The Census | Dr. Platypus
Well, now historians have found that in A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census."
What Was Taxation Like During Jesus' Days on Earth? - TeachingTheWord Ministries - Equipping the Scripture-Driven Church
"Because of the approaching census it is necessary that all those residing for any cause away from their homes should at once prepare to return to their own governments in order that they may complete the family registration of the enrollment and that the tilled lands may retain those belonging to them" (p. 73)
Bob,
I cannot find the example of a period census that required returning to their homes I mentioned but wil keep looking.
I've highlighted the parts where these decrees required people to return to their OWN homes, not to the home of their fathers. If Bethlehem was Joseph's home and where Jesus was born, why was he not called Jesus of Bethlehem?

Not when it comes to the fall of empires or the destruction of a nations pre-emanate status from a certain date forever more. Nor the fact that Israel became a nation again on a certain day or that they would not be overcome after that day. This defies logic when you consider they have been attacked by their Nabors repeatedly which outnumber them by approx. 80 - 1. Before you say it they did it several times without outside help and even with help they were vastly outnumbered and should have been overcome. I have seen a battle report in a documentary about the 6 days where a commander recorded the change in the situation on the 4th day as an unexplainable miracle in the battle report. Nor the splitting of Alexander’s empire into 4 parts and what each parts role would be in detail for years. Trying to explain away over a thousand prophecies just seems desperate. In fact many scholars say the only thing necessary to prove the bible is prophecy alone.
Are you still under the impression that people back then counted a year as 360 days instead of 365?

Are you suggesting that the accurate description of hydrological cycles is chance? Or that there are currents in the bottom of the oceans was luck? Or that air has mass and weight was a fluke?
Are you suggesting that people couldn't grasp the obvious, even if they didn't understand the mechanisms involved?
Job 36 said:
27 “He draws up the drops of water,
which distill as rain to the streams[c];
28 the clouds pour down their moisture
and abundant showers fall on mankind.
29 Who can understand how he spreads out the clouds,
how he thunders from his pavilion?
30 See how he scatters his lightning about him,
bathing the depths of the sea.
Is any of this not obvious to someone who pays attention?
Psalm 8:8 said:
The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
Are you suggesting that people living on the Mediterranean coast would not have noticed the currents which carried their boats in the same direction regardless of which way the wind was blowing? Humans have been sailing since before they could write. Maybe they weren't as ignorant as you think.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
no it doesn't.
Possibly the greatest legal mind in human history on evidence presentation (Simon Greenleaf) thinks it's more than enough and has more than enough reliability for even modern Jurice Prudence. He ought to know he literally wrote the book on it. I think I will go with him and the countless other great legal minds that have said the same thing.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Whether he got them right or not, the point is he wrote about them at the time they happened. The earliest of the gospels is believed to have been written in 50 AD, almost a whole generation after the events took place.
What do you consider a generation? This is 17 years. Textual critics say that as long as it is written within the lifetimes of witnesses it is reliable unless proven otherwise. They also say it was written far to early for myth to have developed which did happen in Gnostic texts later on.


One's willingness to die for their beliefs does not validate those beliefs. Is the fact that hundreds of people killed themselves at Jonestown evidence that Jim Jones was divine?
You are still missing the point. These early Christians would have known Jesus was not divine and that none of these things ever happened if that was the case and so would have died for a known lie not a belief which makes no sence especially since there were no monetary rewards or other earthly incentives. The others you mention could not have known their beliefs were false. The very early Christians would have.

I've highlighted the parts where these decrees required people to return to their OWN homes, not to the home of their fathers. If Bethlehem was Joseph's home and where Jesus was born, why was he not called Jesus of Bethlehem?
The first part is irrelevant and the second is deperately trivial. The name of where you spent the majority of your youth was where the culture considered you of.

Are you still under the impression that people back then counted a year as 360 days instead of 365?
I do not remeber making any comments that addressed this. The prophecies are accurate within Hebrew dateing methods so I do not get the point.

Are you suggesting that people couldn't grasp the obvious, even if they didn't understand the mechanisms involved?
It is not obvious air has weight, or life depends primarily on the blood. This can be seen be the facts that even fairly modern scientist and physicians didn't know this. It is certainly not obvious that there are deep ocean currents or paths in the sea. Or what about mountains at the bottom of the ocean. This is from Jonah's whale experience.
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet have you brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God." [Jonah 2:6][/SIZE][/FONT]​
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Is any of this not obvious to someone who pays attention?
I do not know why making a bad counter claim concerning one issue in a dozen is a meaningful tactic of bible critics. Since many of the scientific truths were denied or unknown in muc h more modern times they are hardly obvious. Here are the verses that are used to justify these claims: Either way the Bible accurately portrays of this cycle 2500 years before it was widely accepted. Note the following passages:
  • [SIZE=-1]For He draws up the drops of water, they distill rain from the mist, which the clouds pour down, they drip upon man abundantly. [Job 36:27,28] [/SIZE]


    [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name. [Amos 9:6][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]It has only recently been learned that most clouds are formed by ocean evaporation, but again the Bible had it right centuries ago: [/SIZE][/FONT]​
  • [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; to the place from which the rivers come, there they return again [Ecclesiastes 1:7]". [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The complex nature of how water is supported in clouds despite being heavier than air is clearly implied when God declared to Job [Emphasis Added][/SIZE][/FONT]​
  • [FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"Do you know how the clouds are balanced, those wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge (Job 37:16). [7a][/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Scientific Facts in The Bible[/SIZE][/FONT]

Are you suggesting that people living on the Mediterranean coast would not have noticed the currents which carried their boats in the same direction regardless of which way the wind was blowing? Humans have been sailing since before they could write. Maybe they weren't as ignorant as you think.
I was in the Navy for 9 years and know more than most what currents are about and how the wind usually dominates the current for sailing vessels.

It was not until the mid-nineteenth century that the connection was made regarding currents (literally “paths”) in the sea and the statement from the Psalms a thousand years before Christ. In 1860, a pioneer in oceanography, Matthew Fontaine Maury, called attention to the fact that the ocean was a circulating system. His book on physical oceanography is still a highly regarded source of information on this science.

The man who is traditionally credited with the discovery with of these paths is: At one time, when Commodore Maury was very sick, he asked one of his daughters to get the Bible and read to him. She chose Psalm 8, the eighth verse of which speaks of "whatsoever walketh through the paths of the sea," he repeated "the paths of the sea, the paths of the sea, if God says the paths of the sea, they are there, and if I ever get out of this bed I will find them."
Matthew Fontaine Maury "Pathfinder Of Sea" Psalms 8

The oldest written reference to ocean wide currents I could find is: Also, Ponce De Leon wrote about the Florida current in the early 1500s, about 300 years before Maury
"Matthew Maury and the Paths of the Sea"

They may go back quite a bit further but the written record peters out until you get back to the OT.

This site shows how most of the scientific claims in the bible were unknown until recently and even shows what that ignorance cost us.
Scientific foreknowledge in the Bible
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
please... by all means, will you define it for me?

I have forgotten the topic. Let's see: Testimonial evidence that exists in written form. The same as is used thousands of times everyday in courts and historical research.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
I have forgotten the topic. Let's see: Testimonial evidence that exists in written form. The same as is used thousands of times everyday in courts and historical research.

so why are the lost gospels not considered testimonial evidence in written form?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
curious, why just thomas?
Well as Sojourner seemed to suggest it has more credibility than any other. I like to examin less more deeply than more things in a shallow manner so lets pick one. I also happened to research it in particular somewhat recently. If you think there is a more authentic or reliable "lost Gospel" then we can discuss it. However I can't effectively discuss all of the false gospels ever written.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Well as Sojourner seemed to suggest it has more credibility than any other. I like to examin less more deeply than more things in a shallow manner so lets pick one. I also happened to research it in particular somewhat recently. If you think there is a more authentic or reliable "lost Gospel" then we can discuss it. However I can't effectively discuss all of the false gospels ever written.

is this on another thread?
 
Top