Agreed, all 'revelation' regarding polytheistic religions, or all 'revelation' to individuals (like Mormonism and Islam) fails.  But you argue that the Bible (which is totally different than Islam and polytheism in this way- its scripture was revealed to over 40 authors, and its events revealed to thousands upon thousands throughout history) is inherently contradictory?  Man, it's amazing that this argument, though never successfully substantiated, has lasted for so long.

You accept the flaws in all other religions and deny them in yours.  All other religions come from false revelations.  Yours alone originates in true revelation.  Or so you say.  The story is the same with believers of all the false religions, too, so your position isn't any more reasonable than those who believe falsely.

Regarding contradictions in the Bible, it is no different from all the other religions, although Jewish Biblical contradictions are probably better researched than those of other religions, given the numbers of scholars devoted to interpreting Hebrew and 1st century Christian scripture.  Here are two web pages that list hundreds of well-known Biblical contradictions.  

101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible

Jim Meritt's A List of Biblical Contradictions

Biblical apologists have many innovative ways of explaining them away, but the sheer number is rather overwhelming.  Here is a Christian web site that admits the contradictions and attempts to defend against them:

Bible Contradictions and Other Bible Difficulties

Yes, i claim that my 'religion' originates in true revelation.  But my claim is slightly more reasonable because
a. christian revelation deals with only one God and

One god, two gods, three gods...  What difference does it make?  Why does that make your religion any more reasonable than competing religions with more gods?  Indeed, the Hebrews believed in the existence of other gods until roughly the 6th or 7th centuries BC.  They only fully adopted monotheism when Cyrus vanquished the Babylonians.  Before then, they were monolatrists, believing that Yahwe should be worshipped to the exclusion of other gods, not that the other gods did not exist.

b. because it is upheld by a consistent tradition of revelation carried over thousands of years and between many different authors.  
No other religion can claim those two points... that i know of.

I know of others with even longer traditions.  For example, the Sumerians  had the Gilgamesh epic, with its much more detailed description of the flood.  Their tradition informed the later Akkadians, who formed the first semitic empire on the ashes of the Sumerians.  They, along with other semitic groups, adopted elements of the Sumerian religion, which, in turn, became the basis for parts of the Hebrew Bible, a mixture of Hebrew folklore and court records for the brief Solomon-David period of the Hebrew empire.  I don't consider the Hebrew tradition to be anything near as elaborate, consistent, or old as the Hindu Vedic tradition, which maintained elements of the Indo-European pantheon that served as the basis for the Greek and Roman religions.  After all, the Hebrew tradition was formed from a traditional "covenant" (legal contract) between Abraham and his personal god.  Such covenants were not uncommon between semites and their gods.  The deal was that Abraham would worship Yahwe exclusively of other gods.  In return, Yahwe would protect Abraham and his progeny.  No big deal.

And yes, there are many counfusing parts of the bible that many people fail to understand.  They sometimes call them contradictions, but just cause they call them contradictions doesn't mean they really are.

Ditto for the Upanishads.  Ditto for the Book of the Dead.  Ditto for all the other religions.  Do you really think that your religion is all that unique?

Quote from: Copernicus

One god, two gods, three gods...  What difference does it make?  

Incredible difference.  Read Plato.  One God is much more reasonable than more than one.  Any monotheistic religion instantly gets more 'reasonability points' than a polytheistic religion.

You have reaffirmed your belief that monotheism is more reasonable than polytheism, and you have cited a Greek philosopher who advanced that position.  (And monotheism was not a new idea in Plato's time.  It went back at least to ancient Egypt.)  Can you explain to me why YOU think monotheism is more "reasonable" than polytheism?  After all, Christians believe in all sorts of spiritual beings--angels, demons, saints.  Many Christians even pray to saints and angels.  That certainly isn't much different from having lesser gods in a pantheon.  I see no significant difference except in what you choose to call a "god".

Quote

Indeed, the Hebrews believed in the existence of other gods until roughly the 6th or 7th centuries BC...

An unsubstantiated claim, and further, totally irrelevant.  Distant history of what one group may or may not have believed has little relevance to the truth or falsity of the claims i am making about the validity of Christian/hebrew revelation.  Peoples' beliefs do not dictate what is true or not.

This claim has been substantiated for those who care to look at the evidence.  See, for example, Gordon and Rendsburg's classic historical work The Bible and the Ancient Near East.  And how can you dismiss this as irrelevant to a discussion?  We were discussing a point that you yourself injected into the discussion:  "because it is upheld by a consistent tradition of revelation carried over thousands of years and between many different authors."  Evidently, that tradition was not so consistent.

Quote

I know of others with even longer traditions...

All of those are polytheistic, thus failing my point a, and thus irrelevant.

Revelation is revelation, whether one god or twenty gods are involved.  You've not proven your point, and you seem even to have recognized the irrelevance of your point b.

Monotheism and consistent, diverse authorship.  No other religion that i know of can claim those.

Inconsistent, diverse authorship, as I've already pointed out.  And the Hebrews were not the only group in the Achaemanian Empire to move towards monotheism.  Even Marduk was touted as the supreme "good god" for a period of time.  Zoroastrian dualism, yet another competing chain of "revelation", was the catalyst that eventually turned subject nations in their empire towards evangelical monotheism.

Also, of interesting note, many of the disciples/apostles of Christ were killed for claiming to have seen him risen from the dead.  Would you follow something you knew to be untrue to the death?  Neither would they.  The only reason they persisted to the death was because they knew the truth.  This is further evidence for the validity of Christian revelation- God revealing himself in the form of a man named Jesus.  Show me another religion where men went to death for something that concrete- having said they saw a man come back to life.

Is it your position that the 9/11 suicide-terrorists "knew the truth"?  Do you believe that WWII Japanese kamikaze pilots destroyed themselves because they knew that Hirohito was a god?  History is full of fanatics who have been willing to die for false religious beliefs.  Your argument doesn't make sense.

1.  Muslims have been known to go to death for a private revelation.  Sorry, but private revelation is much poorer than corporate revelation.

How so?  In any case, Christianity is based on private revelation as much as the other religions.

2.  Hindus have many authors to their scriptures.  Sorry, but they believe in many competing gods, and that is much less logical than a single God.

Nonsense.  Hindu scripture differs not at all from the Hebrew tradition in terms of its history of different authors contributing critiques and redactions.  If anything, the Hindus had devised far more elaborate means of transmitting their scripture in both oral and written traditions.  

3.  Buddhists... mostly don't believe in any God /gods.

False.  Buddhists mostly don't worship gods.  Most Buddhists believe in gods and spirits.

4.  Most ancient religions are incredibly polytheistic, and the greek and roman pantheon in particular was very competitive.  Sorry, but that's totally illogical.  Cool stories, but metaphysically irrational.

Actually, the belief that there was one supergod behind all the others was quite common in ancient times.  It was a natural step to demote the demigods to saints and angels.  Christian traditions rest solidly on the pagan ones that came before.

Now actually to get back to your point of the Hebrews believing there were many gods but one to be praised above all others.  That is not so far off.  There are many competing spirits in this world.  Some call them angels or demons, or other names.  You may dismiss this idea out of hand, but it is true.  But there is only one God-with-a-capital-G, only one right, and effectively the other gods pale in comparison and really disappear when compared to the One God.  So if this is what you meant about the Hebrews past, then such a belief is true.  I don't know if they really believed it, but that's not so far off.

The Yahwist tradition was monolatrous.  The believed in other gods but worshipped Yahwe to the exclusion of those others.  Under Egyptian and Persian influence, they came to see Yahwe as the only god.  The Devil was modeled on the Persian concept of Ahriman, who was ther evil alternative to their good god, Ahura Mazda.  Basically, the Hebrews stopped treating their version of Ahriman as a god that was on equal footing with the good god.

Geegee, it was a history written by theists.  Had they been atheist materialists such as the Charvakas in India, they would not have professed belief in gods or souls.

No.  Atheists have always been in the minority.  But atheism has been with us from the beginning of recorded history.  A certain percentage of the population has always had doubts about the existence of gods.

No other religion? What about Judaism? What about Islam?

Both those religions would claim to be "more reasonable" than Christianity since neither requires a belief in a mystical three-person godhead or in an unlikely resurrection or (in the case of Judaism) in any other miracles performed by Jesus.

Christianity affirms the truth of all the events occurring in the Jewish scriptures.  Nor would miracles be a basis for placing Judaism above Christianity since Judaism has examples of miracles in the OT.  The main issue between the religions would be the interpretation of OT prophecy and the validity of the NT documents.

As for Islam, there is no contest between it an Christianity.  Christianity relies upon documents written by multiple people over a large period of time, the documents generally report events close in time to their occurrence, and they involve eyewitness testimony or people who have talked to the eyewitnesses.  Various miraculous occurrences described in the documents were witnessed by numerous people.  The documents also involve prophecy that is later fulfilled.  Islam, on the other hand, depends entirely on the credibility of one guy, Mohammed.  His "revelation" is based on information supposedly relayed by the angel Gabriel.  He could be an eyewitness to the angel, but to nothing else in his testimony.  So, for a variety of reasons, Christianity's historical backing is far stronger.

cimics wrote:
Christianity affirms the truth of all the events occurring in the Jewish scriptures.

Tellingly, not according to the Jews themselves -- and it is their scripture.

What event in the Jewish scriptures do the Jews say that Christianity does not affirm as occurring?

Nor would miracles be a basis for placing Judaism above Christianity since Judaism has examples of miracles in the OT.

Christians accept all Jewish claims of miracles that are described in the Old Testament. Jews accept all Christian claims for the miracles related in the OT because Jews make the same claims. However, Jews do not accept Christian claims for miracles that are reported to have happened, according to Christian legend, primarily in the first century and primarily within the Jewish community itself!

That's not entirely accurate.  The Talmud refers to Jesus as a sorceror.  http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=8530

But as I have already acknowledged, the validity of the NT is in dispute between these two religions.  This is a very specific dispute between two very closely related religions.  That dispute can be addressed on its merits and is far different in kind from the objection Jason was levelling at the nonmonotheistic religions.

Probability theory tells us that a single claim is more likely to be true than is that claim plus any other claim. This means the Jewish claim for miracles is more likely to be true than is the Christian claim.

No it doesn't.  Two claims backed with historical support are no more likely to be false than a single claim backed with historical support.  You are simply misusing the notion of probability.

cimics wrote:
As for Islam, there is no contest between it an Christianity. Christianity relies upon documents written by multiple people over a large period of time, the documents generally report events close in time to their occurrence. . .  

This is just false.

Christianity relies upon anonymous authors with the exception of Paul who write about the approximate 30-year life of an itinerant Jewish rabbi in Rome-occupied Judea who allegedly has supernatural powers. This alone, to an unbiased mind, makes the Christian account more unbelievable.

You're wrong.  John specifically identifies himself as the writer of his gospel.  Peter identifies himself in his two letters.  James and Jude identify themselves as well.  Scholarship and tradition attribute documents to Matthew, Mark and Luke.

cimics wrote:
and they involve eyewitness testimony or people who have talked to the eyewitnesses.

Since the NT was written by anonymous authors, with the exception of Paul, how do you know that they were eyewitnesses to anything. And what was Paul himself an eyewitness to? To a mystical vision of someone whom he had never laid eyes on in real life?

John, Matthew, and Peter were among Jesus' original 12 apostles.  James and Jude were disciples alive at the time (possibly Jesus' brothers).

What's more, there is not a single "eyewitness" account of the resurrection in the entire Bible! Here we have a supernatural event upon which some say the entire Christian faith is constructed and this supernatural event is accepted upon no more than the written hearsay of anonymous authors.

The apostles, including Matthew, Peter, and John, saw the crucifixion.  They later saw Jesus alive.  So that makes John and Matthew accounts written by the eyewitnesses themselves.  Mark was Peter's pupil and so it is reasonable to believe that his account came from Peter, another eyewitness.  

cimics wrote:
Various miraculous occurrences described in the documents were witnessed by numerous people.

According to your faith alone. You have no evidence to support this claim.

I have the gospels.  Two are written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John).  One is written by a pupil of another eyewitness (Mark).  And one was written by a physician/historian alive during the first century who conslulted witnesses (Luke)

cimics wrote:
The documents also involve prophecy that is later fulfilled.

Example? One will do.

The book of Daniel has a number of things that have come to pass.  (The rise of the Greek and Roman Empires, Alexander the Great, Antiochus Epiphanes, and of course, Jesus' arrival and death).  Jesus prophesied about the destruction of the temple.

cimics wrote:
Islam, on the other hand, depends entirely on the credibility of one guy, Mohammed.

Muhammed was a man; Jesus was allegedly both man and god. This alone makes the claim for Muhammed's existence the stronger of the two.

Of course Mohammed existed.  The question is the reliability of his writings  Utilizing your own criteria, Mohammed got his material straight from the mouth of an angel -- i.e. it all has an allegedly supernatural source and not witnessed by him personally.  The gospel accounts, on the other hand, involve information that was actually witnessed by mortals.

*Ding* You're right.   Almost all of the apostles fled and didn't see the crucifixion, although they would certainly have been aware at some point that it had occurred.

Copernicus,

The main reason that people come to believe in gods is not revelation, but tradition--the accident of being born into a region that accepts that revelation and nothing else

How does this warrant the conclusion that God is likely to not exist or does not exist?  If granted, all you've got is an opiniated statement that people come to believe in God through tradition.  Maybe one of the traditions is foundationally correct.  Your argument is:

P1:  If people believe in Gods through tradition, therefore God is likely to not exist.
P2:  People believe in Gods through tradition.
C:  Therefore, God is likely to not exist.

You've got to provide a linkeage between "people believe in God through tradition" to "God is likely to not exist".  I see no justification for it.

Plus, you have to admit that this is an argument against a religious God and not the theistic God.  Even if I grant the whole kit-and-caboodle you've still got to deal with the theistic God (that being, a personal, conscious, changeless, causeless, and immaterial) not existing.

All religions originated at one geographical point and spread from there. If any revelation had been from a true god or gods, one might reasonably expect parallel versions of the religion to arise in different locations independently of each other

In regards to Christiniaty, it arose where Jesus existed, so it is expected to arise at one geographical point and spread from there.


-Elisha