Abrahamics have a shaky history.Jews:>Most of the OT characters are believed to be made up, and many of the stories like the flood are stolen from older literature like Utnapishtim>There are of course several versions of the OT as wellChristian:>Most historians believe some of Paul's letters were the first books of the NT in real life>But Paul is just a random Jew who used to hunt early Christians and claims he had a vision of Jesus that converted him, then he started teaching and writing letters to everyone >The oldest letter from Paul is around 20 years after Jesus diedThat is suspicious, it is like, suppose nobody made any videos about 9/11 until 2021 and the first video about it was some former Muslim talking about how he had a vision about 9/11 and now he is spreading the news far and wideIslam:>600 years later, some guy suddenly starts preaching that he saw the truth about all this stuff, right around the time his rich influential wife had died and he inherited all her money and power>The claim is that Jesus was never crucified (even though the crucifixion is one of the most historically sound events in history) and that Abraham went to Saudi Arabia to build the Kaaba (there is no evidence this happened either)>the entire religion appears to be a merger of arab polytheism and judaism and christianity, polytheist concepts like Djinn and the kaaba, and the hijab are retained, and even the polytheist god Allah is merged with the Jewish god yahweh>in polytheist arabia they had a god named allah who was one of the most important ones but the polytheistic allah had three daughters named menat, allat, and al-uzza, and in the quran he claims that these are not his daughters and they were falsely associated with him
>>18691010That's zeus btw
Just about all major religions are heavily syncretic, yeah.
>>18691010>Abrahamics have a shaky history.
>>18691133You laugh but he's a brahmin of his religion. Meanwhile the jews are of yours
>>18691071So lying about things and passing them off as your own history is syncretism, interesting.
What I've learned about biblical scholarship the more I've learned about it: Scholars rarely have any counterevidence to doubt the historicity of the Bible. The vast majority of their "evidence" is "source criticism" which is just reading the Bible and coming up with theories of how it was written. The Bible is often tacitly singled out as if it's the only ancient text that isn't a historical source. Every other ancient text is used as a piece of evidence for ancient history because obviously it should be, but the Bible isn't allowed to count as evidence unless another text corroborates it.Scholars' elaborate theories of how the Bible was redacted are like Magic Eye; you really have to concentrate really hard before you can kind of make it out and it sort of makes sense. They are impossible to verify or falsify and they are ultimately totally subjective. On the other hand, the Bible's own account of itself is perfectly simple and makes sense.In the end, scholarly theories about the development and composition of the Bible are attempts to give it a political origin. But the most plain thing about the Bible is that it is about God. The various political interests are all given mixed characterizations; none of them comes out clean. Even the Davidic dynasty is given a deeply negative portrayal, except as its imagined perfect instantiation in the distant future, the Messiah. The Bible is not political. It's a religious book with religious origin and religious end. Now, if the authors of the Bible wrote it in reflection upon the questions of deepest and most personal importance to them, how could their answers be based on facts they knew to be fabricated?
>>18691149lol
>>18691135>t. Shudra
>>18691069Why does Yaweh try to imitate Zeus? Why does Yaweh imitate Zeus so poorly?
>>18691186Excellent post>The vast majority of their "evidence" is "source criticism" which is just reading the Bible and coming up with theories of how it was written>Scholars' elaborate theories of how the Bible was redacted are like Magic Eye; you really have to concentrate really hard before you can kind of make it out and it sort of makes sense. They are impossible to verify or falsify and they are ultimately totally subjectiverunning into this wall and realizing this and it being a hurdle I couldn't get past, and still can't get past when debating such things with fans of secular historians and their narratives, is part of what made me start becoming inclined to view the Bible as true.>On the other hand, the Bible's own account of itself is perfectly simple and makes sense.And the archaeological evidence itself is actually in line with said account if you don't try to force it to fit the secular narratives.
>>18691010Your points against Judaism an Christianity are correct. However:>right around the time his rich influential wife had died and he inherited all her money and powerHe taught for many years before his wife and uncle died. Also what "power" did he inherit from her? He was invited to Medinah as an arbiter. That's where his power came from.>The claim is that Jesus was never crucified (even though the crucifixion is one of the most historically sound events in history)No it's not? It's the most documented thing about Jesus's life. Not one of the most documented in history. Wtf. Also god can allegedly do anything easily. Like fake a historical event.>Abraham went to Saudi Arabia to build the Kaaba (there is no evidence this happened either)We can't establish that Abraham was real at all. So why do you expect the Muslim story to be more historically sound? It's fake events on top of a fake character. C'mon.>the entire religion appears to be a mergerYes it is. Otherwise it wouldn't be successful. All religions do this so they can win converts with preestablished ideas.>in polytheist arabia they had a god named allahYes and he was also considered to be the same character as the Abrahamic god. So it doesn't matter really.Do your research on Islam before starting a retarded thread pls.
>>18691010It's all made up bullshit, hence why you have to take a leap of faith to believe any of it
>>18691186>>18691259Are you just ignoring the older flood myths or the lack of a real exodus when asserting the bible as truthful?
