Old Testament

The Old Testament is widely accepted to have reached its current form in the 6th Century BCE - around the time of the Babylonian Exile. It is increasingly inaccurate as we go back in time from there, with David and Solomon's kingdom being hopelessly exaggerated at best, and the Conquest, Exodus, Flood and Creation totally fictional.

There are already many religions. When you ask which one to follow, the crucial question for me is which ones are man-made and which one, if any, are God-made. You should follow the one that God has ordained and ignore all the ones that have been made up by people. In the Bible we read how God called Abraham and told him to leave his homeland of Ur and travel to the land he promised to give to his descendants. Then, hundreds of years later, God called Moses to lead Abraham's descendants out of Egypt. Moses himself never entered the promised land, but Joshua led the descendants of Abraham across the River Jordan into the promised land, and so on... - KraZyWG

The religion God's given us via Abraham, Moses and the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) is the only one that enables us to get right with God and find forgiveness of sin. - KraZyWG

It clearly states in the Qu'ran that the process of founding Islam was initiated by god. In fact - Muhammed was initially quite resistant to it (Had to be held down by an angel.) So...is this evidence for the veracity of Islam? I'm confused. Also...wasn't Mormonism iniated by god burying some golden plates and a pair of magic specs in a field in New York state? - Edward the Bonobo

New Testament

The New Testament does not provide convincing evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus since it consists of anonymous documents (some based on each-other) written decades after the facts by non-eye-witnesses. Both Testaments conflict with other historical sources which are more reliable.

In Luke's announcement of Jesus' public ministry (Luke 3:1), he mentions, "Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene." Scholars questioned Luke's credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a ruler of Chalcis who ruled from 40-36 BC. However an inscription dating to the time of Tiberius, who ruled from 14-37 AD, was found recording a temple dedication which names Lysanius as the "tetrarch of Abila" near Damascus. Luke is also well-known for mentioning the Roman governors and Jewish priests accurately, no mean feat, since they are complex sequences, and titles frequently changed. - wigginhall

Here's what I found when I checked this out. It is likely that Abilene and Chalcis are the same place, so we are talking about a problem with dates, not with locations - no-one's ever disputed Luke got the location right. We know of Lysanias from the writings of Josephus, who is the source for the date of death of 36BC. The inscription you mentioned is fragmentary, and includes a partial word that is 'August Lords' or something similar. This title was given to Tiberius and his mother Livia during the time they ruled together, AD14-29. So far so good. But a similar title was also given to Livia and her husband Augustus when they ruled together, from 38BC to 14AD (yes, the same Livia - she co-ruled for over 60 years and was in her 80s when she died). Since the Lysanias that Josephus mentioned died in 36BC, that would fit neatly with the inscription dating to 37 or 36BC, in the reign of Augustus and Livia, when Josephus tells us that Lysanias was ruling Abilene/Chalcis. Why, then, would we think that a second person called Lysanias ruled the same place many years later, other than to avoid the conclusion that Luke made an error? In that same verse you've highlighted (Luke 3:1), he claims that Annas was high priest at the same time as Pilate was governor. Annas ruled (if that's the word for a priest) c.6-15 AD, whereas Pilate came to power in c. 26 AD. So there is a problem with Luke's scholarship here. In the very next verse, he claims that Annas and Caiaphas were both high priest - not only was this office never held jointly, but Caiaphas didn't become high priest until 18 AD. - Giford

Christian Theology

If Jesus died, was reborn, and finally ascended into Heaven to assume his place as one of the Big Three, a fundamental tenet of Christian belief is that all three persons of the Trinity are co-equal and co-powerful [...] So if God the Son shares equally the three primary attributes of godhood - that he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, then by virtue of the third of these he's been here all the time - that's what omnipresence means. So He never really "went away", and therefore how can he be said to be "coming back" in any meaningful sense? He is already here. AgProv

Naturally I've thought about this many times over.
The bible teaches that Jesus endured scorn, beatings and crucifixion, and that this was done to atone for our sins. Now, this would imply that there was no alternative, otherwise what would be the point of Jesus suffering so terribly if we could be saved through being a decent person, doing charity work, etc... Peter, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus said of Jesus: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." KZWG

Muslim Scripture

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said, The 'time' will not come before the
Euphrates uncovers a mountain of gold, for which people will fight.
Ninety-nine out of every hundred will die, but every one among them will
say that perhaps he will be the one who will survive (and thus possess the gold). Perhaps black liquid gold ? - warner

Surah 112 - Al Ikhlas THE PURITY OF FAITH

Say: He is God, the One and Only;

God, the Eternal, Absolute;

He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

And there is none like unto Him. - warner

Reading List

The Case for Christ - Lee Strobel

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why - Bart D Ehrman

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

How to Make a Prophecy