Religion when did it really start?

[Crossfire]

Hi;
I am a very new Christian and I am currently researching and learning the bible. I was told by my father who does not believe that Judaism was not the first religion and to find out what was out there. I have search and search and the very first religion out there was Hindu, not Hinduism of today but Hindu from Veda it is about 5000BC and it was not a religion from what I have read from about 6 - 10 different informational sites, that ancient Hindu people believed in One god who they called Brahman, Brahman was the universal soul, supreme soul he has no form and is the creator of all existing. They believed that Brahman was present being in all human spirits and cannot be destroyed by weapons or burnt by fire. Ancient Hindus do not convert others to their beliefs as it was just a way of life. They also believed that if that whenever the righteousness declines and sins overcome the world then God will reincarnate himself on earth and restore righteous.

Because Hindu does not convert others, others then came along and started to add their beliefs and Hinduism changed and develop into what we see today. As Hindusim today does not have a single founder, a specific theological system, a concept of deity, a single holy text, a system of morality, central religious authority or a concept of a prophet yet the ancient Hindu believed is one god and that was Brahman.

My question is does any one have any other facts that may challenge this theory of mine as I want to ensure that I am on the right track.

Actually Judaism wasn't the first religion. It officially wasn't established until the ministry of Moses. Many religions predate Judaism however just because they are older doesn't validate their authenticity. The God of the bible is a very relational God. Historically, God dealt with men on an individual basis long before he ever dealt with mankind on a corporate level. In fact, He still deals with us on an individual basis to this day.

 

[RedTent]

=Crossfire; Actually Judaism wasn't the first religion. It officially wasn't established until the ministry of Moses. Many religions predate Judaism however just because they are older doesn't validate their authenticity. The God of the bible is a very relational God. Historically, God dealt with men on an individual basis long before he ever dealt with mankind on a corporate level. In fact, He still deals with us on an individual basis to this day.

If we think in terms of ism’s and religion, we are not thinking of learning of God from God. God chose a group of people to teach about Him, God chose Moses as the go between Him and the people God wanted to be taught. To make that into a statement about the start of religions is adding man made clichés.

 

[wattie]

There was NOTHING before the Hebrew Monotheistic belief.

All borrowing for religions comes from other religions borrowing from the Old Testament and the New Testament.. not from the NT and OT borrowing from anything before it.

Have a read of Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell and read some conservative biblical scholars findings...

Main point of the findings is that the biblical account is so straightforward and unadorned and all other relgious texts contain hyperbole..exaggeration.. interpolation and legend!

Jesus seminar folks-- starting off on an anti-supernatural bias before even studying history.

And the same goes for many liberal scholars.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Noah understood and listened to God, but most of his descendants didn’t. As an example, Noah had a great grandson named Nimrod who was the head of his large tribe, or nation. He declared himself a sort of God of a new manmade idea of God using the sun as a deity. Nimrod is mentioned in scripture as a great hunter, but it is in other writings that his religion is told about. He made Sunday the day of worship, or the day of the Sun.

actually nimrod isn't mentioned in any other ancient text other than the bible...so all we can know about nimrod is in the bible...we know nothing about his religion...

unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation about nimrod out there...most of it goes back to a book of agenda driven pseudohistory from the 1800s...

 

[Red33]

The first born of Adam was Cain and he worshiped God by making an offering of the fruit of the ground that God rejected and had no respect. Cain was wroth and killed his brother Abel. I think that was the first religion that came from man and God rejected it. It was first class humanism and the fruit of it was murder, just like the devil, a murderer from the beginning. I am sure that the devil had something to do with Cain's offering knowing it would be unacceptable just like the iniquity that God found in him.

It was unacceptable and God rejected it and in the garden Satan tried to impute his iniquity to the women through the wisdom of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Cain certainly thought his offering was a good offering and never dreamed that it would be rejected, especially coming from the work of his own hands. This is when religion began, when man began to offer what he thought God would be honored by through his own works. Saul tried keep the best of the spoil to offer it to God when he was suppose to destroy it and God rejected him from being king.

The only thing that we can offer in worship to God is the blood of His Son and nothing else. Everything else will be unacceptable and rejected and when that happens we will get angry and think that God does not love us and that He favours others over us. Then we will live in isolation with a complex and never want to be a part of the body of Christ because they don't understand what we are going through. They have never been where I have been. That may be true, but who wants to be where your at anyways or in your shoes of being disapproved by God. You can have it because I don't want anything to do with it and I am not sentimental either.

 

[SantoSubito]

There was NOTHING before the Hebrew Monotheistic belief.

All borrowing for religions comes from other religions borrowing from the Old Testament and the New Testament.. not from the NT and OT borrowing from anything before it.

Have a read of Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell and read some conservative biblical scholars findings...

Main point of the findings is that the biblical account is so straightforward and unadorned and all other relgious texts contain hyperbole..exaggeration.. interpolation and legend!

Jesus seminar folks-- starting off on an anti-supernatural bias before even studying history.

And the same goes for many liberal scholars.

Thats somewhat impossible. Considering the Pentateuch wasn't written until the second century BC it's impossible for other religions to have borrowed from it.

 

[wattie]

Well, yes that was when it was written down.. but the events of it and the original sources of it go right back to the beginning.

If someone doesn't accept the biblical record of history.. then they need to find equally or more reliable sources of history on the same information.

Liberal scholars don't do this.. they find historical records that generally aren't as reliable as the bible manuscripts themselves.. and again.. most start with an anti-supernatural bias before even looking at history.

Anyway.. so what I am saying is that the events went as they were in the bible, and the borrowing came from what was happening. The biblical record - recorded it accurately.. others borrowed and twisted this record or were exaggerating on what was going on.

for example..

some liberal scholars claim that the book of Moses was written by many authors.. not by Moses himself. Why? Because of the different names for God used and the alternate uses of narratives.

Sounds like they may be on to something.. BUT

The divine names of God in the OT are different ways of describing God's relationship to man.. how He has interacted with men.. which can easily be attributed to one author.. for eg..

Elohim.. is mostly used to talk about God in the most broad and general sense

Jahweh is mostly used to talk about God in his dealings with men

Also.. when people do split the book up into different authors making it.. the book then makes no sense! It only makes logical sense if it were made by one author.. Moses.

So this is one example.. and there are many more - that testify to the bible being accurate in it's own history and claims.

 

[Spartacus1122]

Yes, God is love but He hates sin. The wages of sin is death. If you are not forgiven of your sins (born again) while you are still alive then there is no second chance once you're dead. All who die rejecting Christ's gift of salvation will suffer the wrath of God. This is why there is a hell (originally intended for the devil and fallen angels, but now increasing in size to accommodate disobedient men). Those who have rejected His gift will be judged and suffer eternal damnation.

Right, I understand that.

But to be born from another faith and cultural background does not equal to rejecting God/Christ.
Therefore, before Judaism and Christianity, and beyond, it is impossible to think that God would simply condemn all outside of the faith to eternal damnation.

If that was the case, then there are far more souls in hell than in God's kingdom, and if one believes in the original battle between Satan and God, then the former would have far more "troops" for a second clash. Right?

Whatever you are, God loves you, whether you are aware of His existence or not.
If you consciously reject Him, then it's a whole different story.

 

[Katy-follower]

Oops just saw the quote and what you were referring too yep I see what your saying now.

Sorry, I got sidetracked with the other post. Will respond to your original post soon

 

[Katy-follower]

Right, I understand that.

But to be born from another faith and cultural background does not equal to rejecting God/Christ.
Therefore, before Judaism and Christianity, and beyond, it is impossible to think that God would simply condemn all outside of the faith to eternal damnation.

If that was the case, then there are far more souls in hell than in God's kingdom, and if one believes in the original battle between Satan and God, then the former would have far more "troops" for a second clash. Right?

Whatever you are, God loves you, whether you are aware of His existence or not.
If you consciously reject Him, then it's a whole different story.

There is only one way. You have to be born again (not through baptism). Link --> What does it mean to be a born again Christian?

Religion is a deception of the world. It's manmade. Just like restaurants. They keep popping up all the time. Religions have different doctrines and they are not biblical. He has provided a way.. the narrow way, which is not the popular way of the world. When a person favors their own way they are rejecting Him and they are being proud, not humbling themselves. They are saying they don't need Him and saying that Christ died in vain because they try to choose a different way. Do you see? Man is sinful. If you are not covered with the blood of the lamb, you are carrying the debt of your sin and the wages of sin is death. We are living in the new covenant. I've told you that you need to be born again.. if you choose to ignore that (you can check what I say in the bible i- John 3) then you are rejecting the truth yourself.

God is love but he hates sin. If a person rejects His gift of salvation (he sent his son to die in our place!) they are choosing to remain in that sin and they are sending themselves to hell. That earlier scripture I posted about the narrow road demonstrates that those on the narrow road (entering heaven) are few but there are many on the broad road heading for destruction. The majority of people are favoring the broad road when they need to be on that narrow road. Very few are submitting to God but many are choosing their own way.

If a person is not born again they will not see heaven. God rebukes the proud and gives grace to the humble. A child can find God but a person that is proud and relying on his own wisdom of the world does not humble himself to God because he depends on his own wisdom and chooses his own way and thinks he knows the right way. Earthly wisdom counts for nothing. It's through faith.

 

[Katy-follower]

I thought Nimrod was the first king/ruler on earth (descendant of Cain - don't quote me on that, need to check it). He rebelled against God and started Pagan Babylon. Will reply in more detail soon. Need to sleep now, lol.

 

[RedTent]

Has anyone here made a serious effort to learn how the ideas of men contaminated the scriptures? I have. What a sorry story! We still have writings of the early Christian Fathers, the laws Constantine made, the agendas of the first Christian Councils. They are filled with using scripture to advance their own goals, twisting it to fit their needs.

 

[Crossfire]

I thought Nimrod was the first king/ruler on earth (descendant of Cain - don't quote me on that, need to check it). He rebelled against God and started Pagan Babylon. Will reply in more detail soon. Need to sleep now, lol.

Yes Nimrod was the first to declare himself a king-like figure and the first to capture slaves however, he wasn't a descendant of Cain but rather he was the son of Cush who was a son of Ham, a son of Noah and brother Canaan who received Noah's curse because of Ham's foolish actions. Apparently this line of the family was very rebellious toward God.

Nimrod is believed to have been the one who founded the ancient Sumarian religion.

 

[squidget]

when did religion start ?
first one must define religion and that is mans attempt to justify himself as righteous to GOD or a deity.
the first account i know of this happened in eden when adam and eve made themselves clothing of fig leaves because they saw they were naked.
that is the start of religion interesting it is also the time sin entered into this earth, before that there was only communion between man and GOD

 

[Crossfire]

actually nimrod isn't mentioned in any other ancient text other than the bible...so all we can know about nimrod is in the bible...we know nothing about his religion...

unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation about nimrod out there...most of it goes back to a book of agenda driven pseudohistory from the 1800s...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you're actually wrong about this one Rachel. Nimrod was a key figure in the book of Jasher, an ancient Hebrew text mentioned in both the books of Joshua & Samuel. I actually got my hands on an English copy of it several years ago for research. The book is pretty out there and reminded me somewhat of tales found in the book of Enoch. While I wouldn't take the book of Jasher too seriously, it is a very ancient text where much of the traditions involving Nimrod originated.

"Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?"--Joshua, x. 13
"Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher."--II. Samuel, i. 18

 

[SantoSubito]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you're actually wrong about this one Rachel. Nimrod was a key figure in the book of Jasher, an ancient Hebrew text mentioned in both the books of Joshua & Samuel. I actually got my hands on an English copy of it several years ago for research. The book is pretty out there and reminded me somewhat of tales found in the book of Enoch. While I wouldn't take the book of Jasher too seriously, it is a very ancient text where much of the traditions involving Nimrod originated.

"Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?"--Joshua, x. 13
"Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher."--II. Samuel, i. 18

As far as we know the book of Jasher from then doesn't exist. There are multiple books and rabbinical treatises titled Sepir Ha Yasher, but no copy of any of the various works titled Sepir Ha Yasher until the 12th Century AD.

 

[JaumeJ]

As far as we know the book of Jasher from then doesn't exist. There are multiple books and rabbinical treatises titled Sepir Ha Yasher, but no copy of any of the various works titled Sepir Ha Yasher until the 12th Century AD.

There is mention of the Book, Yasher, in the Word. This should be Authoritative for starters, and the Rabbinical references are to the Sefer Yasher, which means the Book of Yasher. The Holy Scriptures should count as the Authority. For me It does.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Thats somewhat impossible. Considering the Pentateuch wasn't written until the second century BC it's impossible for other religions to have borrowed from it.

the other religions imitated the historical narrative recorded in the bible even before it was actually written down by moses...

for example there is one important clue that shows that the sumerian and babylonian creation myths were borrowed from the biblical history

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I thought Nimrod was the first king/ruler on earth (descendant of Cain - don't quote me on that, need to check it). He rebelled against God and started Pagan Babylon. Will reply in more detail soon. Need to sleep now, lol.

nimrod was a son of cush...making him a grandson of ham and a great grandson of noah...so he wasn't related to cain

he was a mighty warrior who founded a kingdom in shinar or babylonia...he established the cities of babylon and uruk and akkad and possibly also a city called calneh

in shinar he was apparently the one who instigated the building of the tower of babel

either before or after the confusion at babel he went to assyria and founded the cities of nineveh and kalhu and resen and possibly also a city called rehoboth ir

we don't know for sure if paganism actually existed at that point in history though...the first biblical references to paganism come a few hundred years later

that is basically all that is know about nimrod...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you're actually wrong about this one Rachel. Nimrod was a key figure in the book of Jasher, an ancient Hebrew text mentioned in both the books of Joshua & Samuel. I actually got my hands on an English copy of it several years ago for research. The book is pretty out there and reminded me somewhat of tales found in the book of Enoch. While I wouldn't take the book of Jasher too seriously, it is a very ancient text where much of the traditions involving Nimrod originated.

"Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?"--Joshua, x. 13
"Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher."--II. Samuel, i. 18

this so called book of jasher is actually a medieval forgery...it was easily identified as a forgery when it was first published in 1625 because it refers to european cities using medieval place names transliterated into hebrew...

it is not the same book as the book of jasher mentioned in the bible...basically it is a work of fiction that was deliberately made to include the two quotations from the book of jasher that are provided in the bible...

real ancient texts outside of the bible make no mention of nimrod at all...for example he does not appear in any of the ancient sumerian and babylonian king lists...