The problem in Christianity and Islam compared to Judaism

[AdirTuval]

I heard some argument against Christianty (and Islam) and I didn't know what to respond:

Some people claim that Judaism is more reliable faith than Islam and Christianity because of the fact that Judaism is the only religion that claim God has revealed himself in front of many people on Mount Sinai. However Christianity is less reliable because the story of Jesus and his miracles occoured in front of small group of people. Same thing with Islam: It is claimed that God speak to Muhammad in private, but not if front of other people.

The argument: Judaism must be the true religion because there is no chance that so many people will believe in a story which includes some many eyewitnesses unless it is true.

In contrast to that, Islam and Christianty could be lies because there is a possible chance that people will believe in stories that happened in front of small group of people.

I'd love to hear your opinion about this argument.
(And sorry for my bad English! )

 

[Colter]

I heard some argument against Christianty (and Islam) and I didn't know what to respond:

Some people claim that Judaism is more reliable faith than Islam and Christianity because of the fact that Judaism is the only religion that claim God has revealed himself in front of many people on Mount Sinai. However Christianity is less reliable because the story of Jesus and his miracles occoured in front of small group of people. Same thing with Islam: It is claimed that God speak to Muhammad in private, but not if front of other people.

The argument: Judaism must be the true religion because there is no chance that so many people will believe in a story which includes some many eyewitnesses unless it is true.

In contrast to that, Islam and Christianty could be lies because there is a possible chance that people will believe in stories that happened in front of small group of people.

I'd love to hear your opinion about this argument.
(And sorry for my bad English! )

Sure, during the Babylonian captivity the elite Hebrew priest class rewrote the history of the so called Israelites, they converted ordinary secular history into a miraculous fiction. They went on a national ego trip in response to their wounded pride at having lost their national identity. They developed a "chosen people" attitude that has put them at odds with the "Gentile dog" world that surrounds them.

Upon returning to Jerusalem those new writings became the Hebrew scripture, giving Jews a distorted idea of their history and further contaminating the Christian worldview.

The Saini volcano was still active during the times that the fleeing slaves from Egypt were encamped there under the leadership of the great reformer Moses. Yahweh, the God of fiery Saini was just one of many nature Gods of the nomadic tribes in the region but that was the name they settled on. Fear of fiery Saini lead to the reverence of Moses and his new reforms, which in turn lead to the exaggerated stories of God developing all of Judaism on Saini.

The Hebrew alphabet was still in development as late as 900 BC, long after Moses lived, so whatever Moses wrote would have been transcribed. But at best the OT books date to the captivity period when everything was consolidated into a package story for the Jewish audience.

In the gospel of Jesus God is not merely a national God, he is personal to each individual. All men are the Sons of God and by faith we may realize this ennobling truth.

 

[AdirTuval]

Sure, during the Babylonian captivity the elite Hebrew priest class rewrote the history of the so called Israelites, they converted ordinary secular history into a miraculous fiction. They went on a national ego trip in response to their wounded pride at having lost their national identity. They developed a "chosen people" attitude that has put them at odds with the "Gentile dog" world that surrounds them.

Upon returning to Jerusalem those new writings became the Hebrew scripture, giving Jews a distorted idea of their history and further contaminating the Christian worldview.

The Saini volcano was still active during the times that the fleeing slaves from Egypt were encamped there under the leadership of the great reformer Moses. Yahweh, the God of fiery Saini was just one of many nature Gods of the nomadic tribes in the region but that was the name they settled on. Fear of fiery Saini lead to the reverence of Moses and his new reforms, which in turn lead to the exaggerated stories of God developing all of Judaism on Saini.

The Hebrew alphabet was still in development as late as 900 BC, long after Moses lived, so whatever Moses wrote would have been transcribed. But at best the OT books date to the captivity period when everything was consolidated into a package story for the Jewish audience.

In the gospel of Jesus God is not merely a national God, he is personal to each individual. All men are the Sons of God and by faith we may realize this ennobling truth.

So you say that God hasn't actually revealed himself on Mount Sinai and the whole story is just a myth created by the Jews in order to cure their wounded pride?
It is completely absorbed to believe that a whole nation one day change their history just to cure their wounded pride. After all, the people know it's a lie. An entire generation will tell lies to his children lies?

 

[RDKirk]

I heard some argument against Christianty (and Islam) and I didn't know what to respond:

Some people claim that Judaism is more reliable faith than Islam and Christianity because of the fact that Judaism is the only religion that claim God has revealed himself in front of many people on Mount Sinai. However Christianity is less reliable because the story of Jesus and his miracles occoured in front of small group of people. Same thing with Islam: It is claimed that God speak to Muhammad in private, but not if front of other people.

The argument: Judaism must be the true religion because there is no chance that so many people will believe in a story which includes some many eyewitnesses unless it is true.

In contrast to that, Islam and Christianty could be lies because there is a possible chance that people will believe in stories that happened in front of small group of people.

I'd love to hear your opinion about this argument.
(And sorry for my bad English! )

The validity of all of those stories rests on those who accepted them and repeated them. There is no more validity in someone telling you that "ten people saw this" than there is in someone else telling you "one hundred people saw this." Either way, the validity of the statement rests on the reliability of the reporter.

 

[xTx]

.

 

[Albion]

I heard some argument against Christianty (and Islam) and I didn't know what to respond:

Some people claim that Judaism is more reliable faith than Islam and Christianity because of the fact that Judaism is the only religion that claim God has revealed himself in front of many people on Mount Sinai. However Christianity is less reliable because the story of Jesus and his miracles occoured in front of small group of people. Same thing with Islam

I don't know how that line of thought makes any sense. God being on Sinai aside, Jesus--who was God in the flesh--walked, talked, and taught in front of large crowds for perhaps three years before his death, and was well enough known and accepted that the Roman authorities thought he had to be gotten rid of before he became the leader of a political revolution.

 

[BL2KTN]

So the argument is more people supposedly saw a miracle from Yahweh at Mount Sinai than people saw Yeshua perform miracles? And Mohammad was a murderous pedophile with no more credibility than Joseph Smith, so let's not even worry about that one.

The problem is this:

The two major religions you are contrasting witnesses between, are both recorded at an extremely sub-par level. A football game between two losing teams in the 80's is much better recorded than the supposed revelation of Yahweh to mankind. That's not very impressive or convincing.

 

[Colter]

So you say that God hasn't actually revealed himself on Mount Sinai and the whole story is just a myth created by the Jews in order to cure their wounded pride?
It is completely absorbed to believe that a whole nation one day change their history just to cure their wounded pride. After all, the people know it's a lie. An entire generation will tell lies to his children lies?

No, not the whole story, I believe the incarnate Melchizedek did establish an agreement with Abram who was credited with blind faith. Abarm was a great man. But the entire point of his blind faith was for the coming Son. Between Abraham and Jesus a great deal of "speculation" and superstition influenced the thinking of the Jews as a people. They created a religion out of being "selected" to receive the Son, it sort of went to their heads so much so that by the time the Son came they were conceptually unprepared for him.

The Kingdom of Jesus was spiritual, the king is God ruling in the heart of ALL mankind. I'm sorry, really I am, the Jews have made tremendous contributions in many fields to the world, wonderful people, but you became segregated and lost your way and your original purpose.

By confusing and rejecting your sacred calling, the work was given on to other people.

 

[juvenissun]

I heard some argument against Christianty (and Islam) and I didn't know what to respond:

Some people claim that Judaism is more reliable faith than Islam and Christianity because of the fact that Judaism is the only religion that claim God has revealed himself in front of many people on Mount Sinai. However Christianity is less reliable because the story of Jesus and his miracles occoured in front of small group of people. Same thing with Islam: It is claimed that God speak to Muhammad in private, but not if front of other people.

The argument: Judaism must be the true religion because there is no chance that so many people will believe in a story which includes some many eyewitnesses unless it is true.

In contrast to that, Islam and Christianty could be lies because there is a possible chance that people will believe in stories that happened in front of small group of people.

I'd love to hear your opinion about this argument.
(And sorry for my bad English! )

If a person is smart, he should know that seeing is not believing. It takes much much more than just seeing to have faith in a religion.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well maybe the story was that 'many, many years ago, this happened', rather than 'a few years ago this happened... ask these people'.

People might accept that this story happened a long time ago. Either they might think the story was revealed, or (through many generations) assume that story was historically passed down (even if it wasn't).

 

[lesliedellow]

The fact that Jesus had an inner core of twelve disciples, chosen by himself, does not mean that they were the only followers he had. In fact, the New Testament makes it pretty clear that was not the case. We even know the name of one disciple - Ariston - who is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I heard some argument against Christianty (and Islam) and I didn't know what to respond:

Some people claim that Judaism is more reliable faith than Islam and Christianity because of the fact that Judaism is the only religion that claim God has revealed himself in front of many people on Mount Sinai. However Christianity is less reliable because the story of Jesus and his miracles occoured in front of small group of people. Same thing with Islam: It is claimed that God speak to Muhammad in private, but not if front of other people.

The argument: Judaism must be the true religion because there is no chance that so many people will believe in a story which includes some many eyewitnesses unless it is true.

In contrast to that, Islam and Christianty could be lies because there is a possible chance that people will believe in stories that happened in front of small group of people.

I'd love to hear your opinion about this argument.
(And sorry for my bad English! )

My opinion is simple... Argument ad populum is not a valid argument.
It doesn't matter if 1 person or 20.000 people make the claim. Claims fall and stand on their own merrit.

Having said that, the idea that the god in judaism revealed himself to X amount of people is just another claim.

Think about it... suppose that I claim that Elvis is still alive.
I suppose (hope) that you won't believe me.

Would it really matter to you if I told you that I was the only one who saw him or if I told you that 1000 other people saw him as well?

Would the addition of "1000 other people saw him to" really raise the credibility of my claim or the likelyhood that Elvis isn't dead?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't know how that line of thought makes any sense. God being on Sinai aside, Jesus--who was God in the flesh--walked, talked, and taught in front of large crowds for perhaps three years before his death, and was well enough known and accepted that the Roman authorities thought he had to be gotten rid of before he became the leader of a political revolution.

Yet, not a single Roman found it worth the trouble to write about him.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you say that God hasn't actually revealed himself on Mount Sinai and the whole story is just a myth created by the Jews in order to cure their wounded pride?
It is completely absorbed to believe that a whole nation one day change their history just to cure their wounded pride. After all, the people know it's a lie. An entire generation will tell lies to his children lies?

Why not? And who said that it was "invented" in the generation that it alledgelly happened in? I'ld say it's a lot more likely that by the time the myth was introduced, it already pretended to have happened "long ago".

You can see similar examples of such things in other civilisations and cultures. The most famous one probably the Roman empire.

Do you know what the common belief was concerning the founders of Rome?
You should read up on Remus and Romulus...

Romulus and Remus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have christians in this forum who never met Jesus, never met his witnesses, never saw any of the events in the bible....and they still believe.

You have muslims in this forum who never met their prophet Mohammed, never saw him speak to god, never witnessed any events in the Koran.

Is it really that difficult to understand that thousands of years ago, some jews were told the story of mount Sinai, they were told it happened to thousands of jews long before their time, and they believed it?

What you should be focusing on is the common thread between these stories...they all tell that those who believe are "special" in some way. People want to believe it...so it's an easy story to sell.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yet, not a single Roman found it worth the trouble to write about him.

Not only the Romans...someone on this forum created a thread that linked to a article about a new book claiming some 126 noteworthy authors of the time decided he wasn't interesting enough to warrant even a footnote.

Evidence of absence...

 

[lesliedellow]

Yet, not a single Roman found it worth the trouble to write about him.

Why the hell should they? Any records the Roman civil service kept of executions in first century Palestine would have been long since lost, and the only other people who might have interested enough to write about a first century preacher are his followers.

In any case it is not even true that no Roman wrote about him; Tacitus wrote about him. And just to forestall the usual "Tacitus wasn't an eye witness," so what? Just how many Roman writers do you imagine would have been traipsing around Palestine behind Jesus?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why the hell should they? Any records the Roman civil service kept of executions in first century Palestine would have been long since lost, and the only other people who might have interested enough to write about a first century preacher are his followers.

In any case it is not even true that no Roman wrote about him; Tacitus wrote about him. And just to forestall the usual "Tacitus wasn't an eye witness," so what? Just how many Roman writers do you imagine would have been traipsing around Palestine behind Jesus?

I suppose that all depends on how much of the events of the N T you believe actually happened....

 

[Tinker Grey]

The fact that Jesus had an inner core of twelve disciples, chosen by himself, does not mean that they were the only followers he had. In fact, the New Testament makes it pretty clear that was not the case. We even know the name of one disciple - Ariston - who is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament.

I thought it was Rufus.

 

[lesliedellow]

I thought it was Rufus.

No, definitely Ariston.