If religions like Buddhism and Hinduism came before Judaism and Christianity, then why is Christianity the one true religion?


#1

I’ve always wanted to know this.

I can never give a good answer to my non-christians friends about this.


#2

Uh, perhaps because there isn't any relationship between a religion's truthfulness and the order in which is appears on the planet.


#3

[quote="Ben_Sinner, post:1, topic:274669"]
I've always wanted to know this.

I can never give a good answer to my non-christians friends about this.

[/quote]

What makes them think that Hinduism and Buddhism are true simply because they came before Judaism and Christianity?

I think that's a silly argument.

Christianity is the true religion not because it came first, but because it* came from God*. And the evidence, to me, is convincing enough to believe it to be true. The Old Testament prophets, the accuracies of the biblical accounts (eyewitness accounts), extra-biblical corroboration, and also a confirmation of faith from God. It is this that makes Christianity true to me. What do I care if it didn't come first?

Hinduism and Buddhism are also not the first religions. Animism is generally considered first. But they are not false because they were not first.


#4

If Judaism was the first true religion (starting with adam and eve), then that means the decedents ended up branching off and starting their own religions.


#5

Judaism did not start with Adam and Eve.


#6

It's a flawed argument. Even if Christianity appeared first that early arrival in itself wouldn't be enough to say that Christianity is the true religion.

However, later timing can be problematic if one religion bases itself on a(n) earlier religion(s). It's definitely a problem for Christianity, and also (arguably more so) for Islam, because both of them support their validity with prior revelations/covenants but appear to dismiss those prior revelations. Of course for believers there's no contradiction.


#7

[quote="FabiusMaximus, post:3, topic:274669"]
What makes them think that Hinduism and Buddhism are true simply because they came before Judaism and Christianity?

I think that's a silly argument.

Christianity is the true religion not because it came first, but because it* came from God*. And the evidence, to me, is convincing enough to believe it to be true. The Old Testament prophets, the accuracies of the biblical accounts (eyewitness accounts), extra-biblical corroboration, and also a confirmation of faith from God. It is this that makes Christianity true to me. What do I care if it didn't come first?

Hinduism and Buddhism are also not the first religions. Animism is generally considered first. But they are not false because they were not first.

[/quote]

:thumbsup:


#8

[quote="1ke, post:5, topic:274669"]
Judaism did not start with Adam and Eve.

[/quote]

Ok. Then God's religion, whatever you want to call it.


#9

If Judism didn't start with Adam and Eve than when did it start?


#10

[quote="Ben_Sinner, post:1, topic:274669"]
I've always wanted to know this.

I can never give a good answer to my non-christians friends about this.

[/quote]

Our Faith began here:

[15] I will put enmities between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

The Faith of the Patriarchs was in that Promise. It was and is the Faith we have and proclaim, though for us it is no longer looked to as being yet to come, but we understand it as having been fulfilled in Christ.

The Apocalypse alludes to this again,

[1] And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: [2] And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. [3] And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: [4] And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. [5] And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

[6] And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days. [7] And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: [8] And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. [9] And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. [10] And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night.


#11

[quote="ChibiViolet, post:9, topic:274669"]
If Judism didn't start with Adam and Eve than when did it start?

[/quote]

The exact answer isn't that clear-cut--some will say with Abraham's covenant with God, and others will say in after Israel's exodus in Egypt, in the Sinai.


#12

The first Covenant with God and man was Adam's. The next was Noah's, then Abraham's, then Moses' then David's then the fulfillment of all past covenants in Christ in the New and Everlasting Covenant.

I may be missing a few but Judaism was the continuation of many prior covenants and so certainly not the first expression of God's Religion.


#13

[quote="ChibiViolet, post:9, topic:274669"]
If Judism didn't start with Adam and Eve than when did it start?

[/quote]

With the Mosaic Covenant.


#14

[quote="ChibiViolet, post:9, topic:274669"]
If Judism didn't start with Adam and Eve than when did it start?

[/quote]

As a people, with Abraham.

As a religion, with Moses.


#15

They didn’t even start as a people with Abraham. Both the Edomites and the Arabs were from Abraham. While the Edomites eventually converted, and were assimilated into Judaism, the Arabs did not.

Even then the people of Moses would have called their religion the Hebrew Religion, Judah being only a tribe. The use of Judaism began just before the Second Temple period, when a need arose to distinguish the religion of the Jews and the Samaritans, both of whom claimed to follow the ancient Hebrew religion.


#16

Neither Buddhism or Hinduism came before the early Judaism, and Christianity is the fulfillment of that early Judaism.

Link!


#17

[quote="Nine_Two, post:15, topic:274669"]
They didn't even start as a people with Abraham. Both the Edomites and the Arabs were from Abraham. While the Edomites eventually converted, and were assimilated into Judaism, the Arabs did not.

[/quote]

I always wonder why people just make this assumption about Arabs? I can get if the assumption was simply that Abraham himself was from one of the (many) Semite peoples or even from Arabs, considering the area he originated from- afterall, he belonged to a people, was not born in a vacuum. But why assume that Arabs as a whole are descended from him? Just because Muslims claim this as part of their efforts to legitimize their religion and prophet (by connecting it directly with Abraham)?

The only genetics studies done only show that Semites are genetically related- Akkadians (Assyrians and Babylonians), Eblaites, Ugarites, Canaanites, Phoenicians (including Carthaginians), Hebrews (Israelites, Judeans and Samaritans), Ahlamu, Arameans, Chaldeans, Amorites, Moabites, Edomites, Hyksos, Arabs, Nabateans, Maganites, Shebans, Sutu, Ubarites, Dilmunites, Maltese, Mandaeans, Sabians, Syriacs, Mhallami, Amalekites and Ethiopian Semites ( Amharic, Tigre and Tigrinya). They ALL have a common ancestry- discovered in genetics, but known through common sense. After all, people of one race can be expected to have a common ancestry however far back it may stretch.

So I'm curious why people just assume that Arabs are Ishmaels' descendants? :shrug: The only person that ever claimed this was Mohammed, after he came into contact with Judaism and Christianity, as late as 1400 years ago. There's ZERO evidence that Arabs or any of the non-Jewish Semites even knew who Abraham or Ishmael was, so the idea that they could trace their ancestry to him is ridiculous to me and only sounds like something Moh'd came up with to connect himself with the Abrahamic faiths so as to claim continuity therefrom/therewith.


#18

[quote="Marybeloved, post:17, topic:274669"]
I always wonder why people just make this assumption about Arabs? I can get if the assumption was simply that Abraham himself was from one of the (many) Semite peoples or even from Arabs, considering the area he originated from- afterall, he belonged to a people, was not born in a vacuum. But why assume that Arabs as a whole are descended from him? Just because Muslims claim this as part of their efforts to legitimize their religion and prophet (by connecting it directly with Abraham)?

The only genetics studies done only show that Semites are genetically related- Akkadians (Assyrians and Babylonians), Eblaites, Ugarites, Canaanites, Phoenicians (including Carthaginians), Hebrews (Israelites, Judeans and Samaritans), Ahlamu, Arameans, Chaldeans, Amorites, Moabites, Edomites, Hyksos, Arabs, Nabateans, Maganites, Shebans, Sutu, Ubarites, Dilmunites, Maltese, Mandaeans, Sabians, Syriacs, Mhallami, Amalekites and Ethiopian Semites ( Amharic, Tigre and Tigrinya). They ALL have a common ancestry- discovered in genetics, but known through common sense. After all, people of one race can be expected to have a common ancestry however far back it may stretch.

So I'm curious why people just assume that Arabs are Ishmaels' descendants? :shrug: The only person that ever claimed this was Mohammed, after he came into contact with Judaism and Christianity, as late as 1400 years ago. There's ZERO evidence that Arabs or any of the non-Jewish Semites even knew who Abraham or Ishmael was, so the idea that they could trace their ancestry to him is ridiculous to me and only sounds like something Moh'd came up with to connect himself with the Abrahamic faiths so as to claim continuity therefrom/therewith.

[/quote]

I'm almost certain it was a tradition that preceded Islam itself.

As for Abraham, he was a Chaldean, if I'm not mistaken.


#19

Looked it up. The Book of Jubilees, an extra biblical book which predates Islam, makes mention of this. It is possibly where Mohammed took the idea from, although not necessarily.


#20

[quote="1ke, post:14, topic:274669"]
As a people, with Abraham.

As a religion, with Moses.

[/quote]

For the most part, I would agree, but I think it's important to note: the line between religion and belonging to a people was and remains rather fuzzy in Judaism, and the notion of people-hood wasn't really reinforced until the Exodus and Sinai experiences.

[quote="Nine_Two, post:15, topic:274669"]
They [Jews - OQ Judaism ] didn't even start as a people with Abraham. Both the Edomites and the Arabs were from Abraham. While the Edomites eventually converted, and were assimilated into Judaism, the Arabs did not.

[/quote]

Well, you do have Yemeni Jews.

Well, even though Esau, Ishmael and Isaac were essentially the same people by being of Abraham's household, they inherit specific promises, and these inheritances, the question of who's entitled to them, affect how they're treated in the household. Both Ishmael and Esau are distinguished in the unity of Abraham's household because of their inheritances.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.