Here's some thoughts from me: Many questions go through the head of Christians and non-Christians alike, about the claims of Christianity. How can the Christian be right? Many religions claim to be true, but what makes Christianity true while the others remain false? First I should clarity what is meant by the term 'religion'. I regard a religion as a "personal or institutionalized system grounded" in certain beliefs. So different sects of Christianity, or even Christianity as a whole, can be considered a institutionalized system grounded in certain beliefs, namely that the Bible is the Word of God, and that what is found within it is true. Islam, and the sects found within, can be considered an institutionalized system grounded in certain beliefs. The same goes for Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Now, what is meant by the phase "certain beliefs"? These certain beliefs are simply how the religion answers some of the most important questions one ponders. Questions such as: "Where did I come from?" "Is the universe all there is?" "What/who is 'God'?" and "What is right and wrong?" Each of the above religions answers these major questions in differing ways. And I suppose the answers given to these major questions dictate how the more minor questions are answered. Every now and then we may run into a person who claims to have no religion of any kind--he has somehow managed to completely divorce himself of anything that even remotely resembles a religion. But can this be true? Is it possible for a person to hold to no religion at all? Perhaps this fellow is a scientist, and only looks at the evidence. He's of the evidentialist sort, and believes it improper to hold to any belief without sufficient evidence. When asked where we came, from, he may reply that given the evidence it seems to him that we are the product of evolution. When asked who or what God is, he may reply that the evidence leads him to believe that there is no God, at least in any Christian sense of the word. The point is, this fellow does have a religion that answers the major questions, and not only this, but his religion also dictates what he does and doesn't do throughout his duration as a practitioner of his religion. We could, for example, observe him almost dogmatically choosing not to pray, because his religion tells him there is no God worthy of his prayers. So, while he may not hold to any 'mainstream' religion, he does hold to a sort of religion that is his guidance in life. Now that it has been established that everyone has a religion of some sort, it's time to address the truthfulness of religious claims. Everyone's religion makes certain claims about reality, but which one is correct? One person may opt to take the easy way out by asserting that all religions are true. But can this be the case? Many religions make contradictory claims; perhaps one claims that there are many gods, while another claims there is but one. Both of these claims cannot be true, either one is false and the other is true, or they're both false. Either way, both claims cannot be true. With this in mind, we can eliminate the possibility of all religions being true since many claims of competing religions contradict each other. So from this we know that it is entirely possible for Christianity to be true, and all other religions with contrary claims to be false. We also know it's entirely possible for Christianity to be false. Now, since we know it's possible for Christianity to be true, we can now ask is it probable. For this, we can examine the source of Christian claims, the Bible... to be continued after I've had some sleep ...
Now admittedly, there is more than one way to examine the matter at hand. One could examine Christianity's claims to see if there are any inconsistencies with itself, and with reality. Does Christianity, for example, state that stealing is both wrong and right, or that the sun is made gold? One could also show the truth of Christianity by attempting to show the impossibility of the contrary; that no other religion is consistent with what we find in reality. But the route I'll take is the easiest and a classic method. First I will examine the Bible to determine if it is reasonable to believe that it is a reliable source--if it can be trusted. In the past, before there was a printing press, 'books' had to be hand copied. When events were significant, many hand copies, or manuscripts, were produced. The more manuscripts generated, the greater the circulations and geographical spread, and the wider the public's knowledge of the events recorded. As time went on, manuscripts would begin to wear which meant that new copies needed to be made, and as the newer copies began to wear, copies of those would also need to be made, and so on. When we look at the manuscripts, there are some important features that ones can look at in determining the reliability of them. One such feature worth looking at the date of the earliest manuscript in possession, and another being the number of copies in possession. I'll take for example Tacitus' Annals. We know of 20 manuscript copies in existence, with the earliest copy being about 1,000 after the events were originally recorded. But how is this significant to the Bible, and more specifically the New Testament? When we look at Tacitus' Annals we see that its authenticity is not doubted by scholars. Now, when we move to the textual evidence of the New Testament we see that it has about 24,000 manuscripts with the earliest dating around 25 years after the original manuscript was penned. In fact we could go on to compare many other writings from other writers such as Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus, Catullus and Sophocles, whose textual evidences range from 3 to 193 manuscripts with a laps of 1,400 to 1,600 year from the event to the earliest manuscript copy. Now examining this evidence, it seems clear, at least to this author, that the New Testament is far superior, and that it's authenticity cannot be denied without first denying the authenticity of other writings which are currently accepted on far less evidence. It seems to me that the large number of manuscripts means that the events that took place where highly significant, and that the copies were highly circulated. On the other hand the early dates on the earliest manuscripts would mean it was nearly impossible for anyone to manipulate the text since any changes would have been met with much opposition. Imagine someone today writing a book where it was stated that Martin Luther King Jr. was a significant player in the KKK movement, killing and oppressing blacks to advance it's cause. Such a book would be immediately challenged, and it would not receive widespread recognition or circulation (at least as a credible source). There are many who were alive during Martin Luther Kings day, that are still alive today. The same holds truth for the New Testament. Some were still either still alive and could attest to what was written, or they had knowledge of what had happened. So the fact that there were large numbers of manuscripts produced and circulated with the earliest not long after the original was written, and the original being written not long after the events recorded took place, seem to suggest that the Bible can be trusted as a reliable source. But I'll take a closer look at other features in a next installment. But for now we can see from part one that everyone has a religion, and from part 2 that, so far, claims made in the religion called "Christianity," seem to come from a reliable source.
Every religion has as much documentation - if not more so - that christianity... the point of religion is not that it's scientifically proven but rather that it's believed in... and here's a thought... who's to say that all these gods and deities aren't all the same person, and the Koran and Bible are just different versions of the same guy?
Well, the Quaran teaches to kill anyone that is not muslim, The Bible does not teach anything like that. The quaran was written by one guy. The religion of Islam was created by one man. However, let's say you are right. That both religions worship the same God. Well, that still doesn't mean anything, because Christ(who was a real person who really did live on this planet and really performed miracles witnessed by many people in God's name) said "I am the way, the truth, and the light, and no man shall enter into heaven except through me". Taking into consideration what Christ did and what he taught and the miracles he did in God's name, you can see that Christianty is the way. I am not going to sit here and argue with you over who is right in their beliefs and who is wrong. Jesus said he is the way, so I will go with what He said.
I'm uncertain as to what you mean by "documentation." Nevertheless, the quantity of "documentation" does little to prove the truth of falsehood of a religion, so this is actually irrelevant. If science actually has the ability to "prove" anything, much less it own process. At any rate, I think science actually only plays a very small part in "proving" Christianity since much of Christinaty is based in history and not in experimentation. Well cerridwen, different religions offer contradictory claims, and two contradictory claims cannot both be true.
