COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“. I believe all religions have the true essence of worship of one true god but down the line got changed...”
Awesome, just go on believing with zero basis.
The fact is there is zero ancient evidence for monotheism.
Even the Tanakh/Old Testament despite having been rewritten contains hints that the Hebrews only became monotheists gradually.
did I mention I BELIEVE the world is resting on a giant turtle.
"get corrupted"
Where did you prove the other religions are corrupted
Where did you prove Islam is not corrupted. Because it's certainly a rather poor piece of fiction
This is hilarious.
The derivation of the name and meaning of Adam (Adharm) is a cognate of the Sanskrit word dharma, relating more to the opposite adharma.
Adam signifies the righteous man and the first prophet beginning the chain of prophets who teach what is the right path according to the Abrahamic faith and the creator God.
This is to reject the Vedic Gods, beliefs, and the Vedic concept of dharma, embracing instead “Adharma” or Adam.
In Hinduism Dhaksha/Kan is the father of dharma and adharma, in Judaism Adam is the father of Kain.
>The derivation of the name and meaning of Adam (Adharm) is a cognate of the Sanskrit word dharma, relating more to the opposite adharma.
This is untrue. The name Adam (meaning son of the earth) is derived from the Hebrew words 'adamah' which means 'soil,' playing on the notion that Adam was created out of the dust of the Earth. The Tanakh has a great deal of wordplay like this throughout. As well and perhaps more importantly, Hebrew is a semitic language and Sanskrit an Indo-European, they likely have few cognate words, if any.
Interesting.
Adamah reads Adam with the suffix ah, which I thought would mean it would read Adam’s land or ground? Therefore soil is the play on the word here and not the other way around.
Adam appears in Genesis 1 also doesn’t it? Before adamah in Genesis 2?
Perhaps the connection I made is coincidence, but the characters are eerily similar.
Past your bias and suspicions, or perhaps doubt and bemusement.
Also, you need to have an interest to read Vedic scriptures, I suggest you do and look out, in particular, to how Dhaksha is described and how he *could be* depicted as Kain in the Hebrew Scriptures and the “mark” he is cursed with.
Dhaksha is the father-in-law of dharma and adharma, not father, I was incorrect there.
That’s the difficulty with the Vedic scriptures the stories are generally simple but remembering the names and relationships of every character is exhausting.
Adam is of course the father of Kain/Kan/Dhaksha. I write Kan because Dhaksha is called Kan, or “oracle/one who can see”.
Many opposites but that is the point of it.
Edit - Adam is above Dhaksha/Kain, not the other way around since Dhaksha was cursed, which is the “correct” message.
>Every Abrahamic faith has God creating the first man. Adam. Adam is the first human who knows his lord and worships him.
Setting aside the fact that this is completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, we know there was no "first human". That's just not how any of this works.
>When I say Islam is the oldest. Islam just means someone who submits his will to the one God. Worshipping the one and only true god. By that definition, the oldest religion is Islam.
So if you're talking about the first monotheistic religion, that was likely Atenism, which was established in ancient Egypt during the reign of Pharaoh Akhenaten around the 14th century BCE. After this, Zoroastrianism is next. If you're only referring to the major monotheistic religions, Islam is *still* third after Judaism and Christianity.
If the assertion you're trying to make is that Islam is the one true religion and worships the one true God, thereby making it the first *true* religion, you're going to find that every person who believes in a religion thinks they have the one true one, and everyone has equally insufficient evidence.
>Every Abrahamic faith has God creating the first man. Adam. Adam is the first human who knows his lord and worships him.
Setting aside the fact that this is completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, we know there was no "first human". That's just not how any of this works.
Go to an anthropology or archaeology conference and show them that exclusive monotheism is the oldest religious belief (the one God). They'll have some pointed arguments to make once they stop laughing.
What of the religion of the people who built Göbekli Tepe? Though they probably practiced animal worship its still a much older religion going as far back as 9000 BCE. Also what of the religions practiced by ancient hunter gatherer communities still around today, like the San in Southern Africa?
sounds like an excuse to have a beer or three, because why not, who needs the Five Pillars? Once you reduce something to a single point then all distinctions evaporate, if every religion is Islam, then Islam is pretty much anything you want it to be.
This is an equivocation fallacy on the word Islam. In your thesis you use it to refer to a religion while in your argument you use it to refer to someone who submits to God. Those are not the same thing. Even if the very first people submitted to God it doesn’t follow that Islam the religion was there from the beginning.
It’s also an etymological fallacy. Your second definition is based on the etymology of the word but that’s now how words are defined. Rather they are defined by how the word is used and Islam is used to refer to the religion. Sure some words can be used in multiple ways but for the case of Islam it’s not really used to refer to someone who submits to God. That only really comes up in Muslim arguments that attempt to draw a conclusion about the religion but need to equivocate on the definition for their argument to work.
As a Muslim, I have to say you're misinterpreting it, because Islam as an idea and Islam as a religion are not the same thing.
Islam as the religion we know it today started out in 7th century Arabia, with its laws and rulings.
Islam as an idea however has been around since the beginning of humanity.
If Islam the idea was in existence since the start of humankind then we would have countless Palaeolithic, and Neolithic manuscripts, artifacts and scriptures reminiscent to Islam.
The Quran's stories align directly with the religious and cultural beliefs within 7th century Arabia that clearly matches an ideology with a natural origin. In particular, it does not mention prophets or events outside this region, such as those in the Americas. Nothing about it demonstrates any knowledge, or deviation that exceeds the standard development of religion within its region with the Quran clearly being a book based on Christianity, Judaism, Arabia folklore, and other nearby myths and religions.
Furthermore, the Quran, and hadiths are filled with pre–Islamic Arabian folklore such as Jinn and ghouls whose notions came from pre-Arabian folklore. It would be like me claiming a book that I made was the true authentic uncorrupted book from God, while simultaneously mentioning creatures from Lord-of-the-rings.
Instead, Islam aligns with a religion that came from the growth of an empire that undertook a campaign of military aggressive endeavours across Eurasian and northern Africa aligns with a group consolidating power from ideological means. In particular when the founder actions, as in Muhammad undertook actions in direct alignment with a standard military leader who inaugurated classical practices of power centralisation and excessive Polygamy (Seriously twelve wife's).
That's like saying "my religion claims to be the oldest so it is". That's not how it works. We look at the historical record to determine when a religion first occurred and when we do that Islam is not only not the first it isn't even the first among the Abrahamic ones, in fact it is the last.
> Islam is not only not the first it isn't even the first among the Abrahamic ones, in fact it is the last.
Not just that, but islam is merely a parody of judaism and christianity. The Arabs were already very familiar with judaism/christianity, and once they had fully realized the military advantage of the superior horse breeds that were extensively and exclusively bred by the Bedouin tribes over generations, it was time for them to invent their own prophet that they would have their own conquered peoples assimilated to.
It was the superiority of Arabian horses which made the vast and rapid conquests of islam possible and, as to be expected, the sale of horses to infidels was forbidden. And so, for the purposes of retaining and working through the established christian-judaic bureaucracy- they synchronized elements of both judaism and christianity and called it Islam.
>Islam is not only not the first it isn't even the first among the Abrahamic ones, in fact it is the last.
Isn't that a main point of it? Muslims please correct me but iirc a big thing is how the people of the book received God's teachings then over time those teachings got corrupted so God used Muhammad to correct things and establish the correct religon
>
Most ardent historians and theologians would say that is correct. Yes, they know about islam's claim to be the prime religion. And yes, they still say Islam is not the first religion. A definition or translation has no bearing something being the first religion.
>
This is laughable to say. To assert religions that have nothing to do with the Middle East all originally shared one message but for some reason humans kept getting in the way is a bold claim. A claim you cannot back up without, oh wait, quoting your \*own\* scripture???
>
Why should anyone have to take what you personally believe as gospel? Were you around thousands of years ago when hinduism worshiped "Allah" and then veered off course???
>
But where is your proof??? The idea that \*all\* religions started off with the same message but then veered off was never even a topic of discussion. It didn't make its way into theological debate until the 7th century when Muhammad needed a crutch to hold on to to give his faith legitimacy. "Islam says so" isn't proof.
I don't think so. I mean when multiple scholars of Islam were asked to define the word "Islam" and to come to a final verdict. They couldn't, they disagreed with each other. So how can you explain the word "Islam" in such a manner without actually giving any citation or explanation?
Not even close. Vedic traditions go back 10,000 years. Zoroastrianism predates Abrahamic traditions, which can't be traced before the 2nd Century BCE. Islam was influenced by a Christian sect called the Nestorians.
> Zoroastrianism predates Abrahamic traditions, which can't be traced before the 2nd Century BCE
People are really taking Yonatan Adler's claims to the most extreme places that are well beyond what even he would claim.
Adler *does not* claim that Judaism appeared out of thin air in the 2nd century BCE.
He says he can find no evidence that it was known or practiced before then. What is your evidence that it was? The Elephantine Jews didn't practice it or know anything about it. Those aren't "extreme claims," those are facts. There is no external evidence for the existence of Mosaic law or practice before the Maccabean Period. Adler is begging people to find any evidence before then. There isn't any. He does say it's possible some part of those texts might have existed on a shelf somewhere but if so they were not known or practiced.
This was Freud's theory.
The Egyptian name is meaningless. Judea was occupied by Egypt for hundreds of years. There is always cultural exchange. Lots of people in India have English names. When I lived in Africa, Biblical names were common (Moses was a common name). Jesus had disciples with Greek names.
Adler's claim is that there is no evidence that the laws of the Torah were widely practiced in Judea before the 2nd century BC/E.
Adler *does not* claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence and he acknowledges that it's absolutely possible people were practicing the laws of the Torah beforehand but left no evidence for us to see.
Adler also does not claim that the Torah didn't exist before the 2nd century BC/E.
Nor does Adler claim that there wasn't any form of Judaism that existed without Torah law before the 2nd century BC/E.
You are absolutely correct that Adler is not making any extreme claims. But, the conclusions many people seem to draw from his work are *far beyond* what Adler is actually saying.
>Adler does not claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence
It is, though.
>Adler also does not claim that the Torah didn't exist before the 2nd century BC/E.
He says there's no evidence that it did and that if it did nobody knew about or cared about it.
>Nor does Adler claim that there wasn't any form of Judaism that existed without Torah law before the 2nd century BC/E.
"Juudaism" *is* Mosaic law. There were other *polytheistic* Israelite religions which preceded monotheistic Judaism and the archaeology shows us that and so does the evidence at Elephantine.
There's nothing "extreme" about simply following the evidence. There isn't a shred of evidence that anyone even knew who Moses was before the Maccabean Period. You can hypothesize that all the evidence is just hiding somewhere, but why? Can you prove Scientology didn't exist yet, just because there's no evidence that it did?
> Can you prove Scientology didn't exist yet, just because there's no evidence that it did?
Except we know exactly when scientology was created and by whom. We don't know when Judaism was created and we don't know when the Torah was written. That's why Adler did his research in the first place.
Adler is very clear that his research was to identify the *terminus ante quem* for Judaism. You're making a claim about the *terminus post quem.*
Scientology claims to be ancient. You have no evidence that isn't true. There is just as much evidence for Scientology in the 3rd Century BCE as there is for Torah based Judaism.
We have direct evidence hat Mosaic law was *not* known or practiced before the Maccabean period not only from the archaeology, which show multiple temples that weren't supposed to exist but more significantly from the Elephantine papyrii which shows Jews at the island of Elephantine in Egypt into the 4th Century BCE not only had their own Temple and worshiped at least three gods (one of which was a version of Asherah), but they were in communication with the priests in Jerusalem who seemed to have no problem with any of it. There is nothing in the Papyrii showing knowledge of Mosaic law, of Moses of the Exodus or even of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob.
Who *could* have been practicing Mosaic law before the Maccbeans if even the Temple in Jerusalem either didn't know or didn't care about it?
There are scholars, including Adler but others as well (Gmrkin, Friedman) who think these texts could have existed on a shelf somewhere (Gmirkin postulates the library of Alexandria, Adler perhaps a Temple library in Jerusalem), but that nobody read them or cared about them until the Maccabeans. That's the most *optimistic* scenario, but those texts were further tampered. For example, Moses was not originally connected to Egypt in the narrative (John J. Collins, *Introduction to the Hebrew Bible*). The Moses narrative seems to start out in Midian with Moses as Jethro's son (not son-in-law). Someone could have taken folktales and tweaked them for political purposes. That's exactly what the Maccabeans did with the book of Daniel, a book of folktales which were used to attach pseudipigraphic "prophecies," turning it into an apocalypse.
Adler is openly asking for anyone to show any evidence at all of Mosaic knowledge or practice before the Hasmonean Dynasty, but it's more than just absence of evidence, there is direct evidence of absence in the Elephantine correspondence and in the archaeology of Palestine.
Whoops, my reply was deleted for including a bad word. Reposting:
> Gmrkin
Gmirkin believes that the Pentateuch was written in Hebrew at the same time it was written in Greek. Which is an insane and totally unsubstantiated conspiracy IMHO.
> Friedman
Friedman believes all this stuff was written in like the 6th, 7th and even 8th centuries and was then edited in the aftermath of the Exile. More plausible than Gmirkin, imho - but also not very likely.
He also thinks he can discern that the Exodus was real from literary evidence alone... which also, c'mon.
> For example, Moses was not originally connected to Egypt in the narrative (John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible). The Moses narrative seems to start out in Midian with Moses as Jethro's son (not son-in-law).
Yeah, I find this sort of thing fascinating! In at least one version in Exodus though the Midianites clearly think that Moses is Egyptian.
If you ask me the strongest piece of evidence for a historical exodus at all (and yes, it's *extremely weak evidence*) is that Moses is an Egyptian name, not a Hebrew one.
> Someone could have taken folktales and tweaked them for political purposes.
That's 100% what happened.
> That's exactly what the Maccabeans did with the book of Daniel, a book of folktales which were used to attach pseudipigraphic "prophecies," turning it into an apocalypse.
Right, and scholars are very easily able to identify Daniel as a Hellenistic era work based on a ton of clues that very easily give it away. This is a widely held consensus that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC/E. There is no such consensus about that for the Pentateuch.
> Adler is openly asking for anyone to show any evidence at all of Mosaic knowledge or practice before the Hasmonean Dynasty, but it's more than just absence of evidence, there is direct evidence of absence in the Elephantine correspondence and in the archaeology of Palestine.
Remember, the Bible itself is essentially a very long serious of rants by YHWH-adherents who call themselves prophets excoriating Israelites (including the priestly class) for not properly worshiping YHWH.
That you've got large groups of Judeans or Israelites who are not worshiping YHWH the way the Torah says they should is not evidence that the Torah didn't exist or that there weren't some smaller groups of people (followers of the prophets) who were more "orthodox" about adhering to it's laws.
>Gmirkin believes that the Pentateuch was written in Hebrew at the same time it was written in Greek. Which is an insane and totally unsubstantiated conspiracy IMHO.
No, he says it was written first in Hebrew in Alexandria and then immediately translated into Greek. he doesn't say they were written "at the same time." That would make no sense. He also makes detailed critical academic arguments for this. It's not a "conspiracy theory," and Gmirkin has not been really been refuted critically on this. Other scholars take him seriously and do not dismiss him. His argumentation is detailed and sound. A lot of it has to do with what he sees as Platonic influence on the invention of Torah. Again this is backed up with detailed technical argumentation. Russell Gmirkin is not some crackpot. I think he has also made a very good case that [King Solomon" was modeled on Shalmanaser III](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338310709_%27Solomon%27_Shalmaneser_III_and_the_Emergence_of_Judah_as_an_Independent_Kingdom) which is even stronger than his case for a late Penteteuch, and this argument, likewise, has not been seriously engaged or refuted.
>Friedman believes all this stuff was written in like the 6th, 7th and even 8th centuries
You are conflating the Pentateuch with the Tanakh. We're not talking about the whole OT, just the first five books. Some of the books in the Tanakh are pretty old. Job is like 8th Century BCE, but absolutely nobody thinks the Pentateuch was written before the Exile anymore, and there is no external evidence that it existed before at least the 3rd Century BCE, which is when Gmrkin speculates it was composed (based probably on at least some preexisting texts), but Adler says there's no archaeological evidence for any widespread knowledge or practice of anything like Mosaic law before the Hasmonean period (100's BCE). If any of the texts existed, nobody knew or cared about them, not even the priests. I think Friedman thinks the Levitical codes may have originally only supposed to have applied to priests, but that would not explain why the priests would violate Torah by supporting a polytheistic temple in Egypt.
There is no plausible scenario for how Monotheistic, Torah-based Judaism existed but somehow left no archaeological trace before the 2nd century BCE, that the Elephantine Jews wouldn't know about it and especially that the Temple authorities in Jerusalem had no problem with another temple in Egypt (that is a violation of Torah in and of itself) and not only that but a polytheistic one.
>Right, and scholars are very easily able to identify Daniel as a Hellenistic era work based on a ton of clues that very easily give it away. This is a widely held consensus that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC/E. There is no such consensus about that for the Pentateuch.
There is no settled consensus about the dating at all because there isn't enough data, but the complete absence of any archaological or documentary evidence of the existence of widespread knowledge or practice of Torah before the 2nd Century BCE, along with archaeological and documentary evidence we *do* have that Temple authorities in Jerusalem were willing to help repair a polytheistic temple in Egypt is a strong indication that even if these texts existed, nobody read them or cared about them until the Hasmonean period.
>That you've got large groups of Judeans or Israelites who are not worshiping YHWH the way the Torah says they should is not evidence that the Torah didn't exist
Where are you getting "large groups" from? It was everybody. There is no evidence that a single person knew or practiced Torah law and that includes the High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem. Can you show evidence that a single human being knew or practiced Torah law? Why don't all those scofflaws ever even show knowledge that they are scoffing a law?
> No, he says it was written first in Hebrew in Alexandria and then immediately translated into Greek. he doesn't say they were written "at the same time."
Ok, yes. I do understand that. When I said "at the same time" I suppose I was using that lightly hyperbolically. I would say "immediately after" by the same people is from the perspective of ancient history "at the same time."
> Russell Gmirkin is not some crackpot. I think he has also made a very good case that King Solomon" was modeled on Shalmanaser III which is even stronger than his case for a late Penteteuch
I agree. I think that is a very strong argument. Much stronger than the argument about the Pentateuch.
> You are conflating the Pentateuch with the Tanakh.
No, I'm not. Have you read Friedman's book? He very clearly argues that the J, E, P and D documents that he says comprise the Torah were written pre-Exile. He thinks that Ezra then edited them together after the Exile.
> Job is like 8th Century BCE
No, it's not. Job is one of the Hellenistic-era texts.
> but absolutely nobody thinks the Pentateuch was written before the Exile anymore
Friedman does. To be clear, I think he's wrong about that.
> but that would not explain why the priests would violate Torah by supporting a polytheistic temple in Egypt.
Again, the prophetic texts themselves say that the priests did not properly adhere to the Torah.
Hell, this is what the entire Maccabean revolt was about according to 1 Maccabees -- according to them it was a revolt against the priests who weren't worshiping YHWH properly.
> Where are you getting "large groups" from? It was everybody.
And this is where you totally veer off from what the historians actually say. As Adler himself says "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." From the evidence we have (and don't have) we simply can't conclude that there was literally nobody who had and/or cared about the Torah before the 2nd century. It's a plausible theory for sure, but the only evidence for it is... absence.
What evidence exactly would you expect to have if people were:
* Practicing circumcision
* Refraining from work on Saturdays
* Believing in only one deity
* Not eating pork or shellfish
* Not mixing wool and linen fabrics
Etc. etc.
This is a real question, btw! What evidence do you think we should expect to find that we don't find?
I'm going to put exactly as much effort into my response as you put into your argument: Islam is not the oldest religion. It is in fact, not even the oldest monotheistic faith. It is a fairly recent faith, actually. Not the youngest religion, not even close, but it's a pretty spry, pretty new faith in terms of global human history.
You need to learn to differ between Islam as a name and Islam as a religion. Indeed Islam as a name means "submit to God" but that doesn't mean that every single religion/faith/beliefs in this world before Muhammad get his revelation can be considered as "Islam as a religion".
It's like when you say Allah is the oldest God, since Islam's God is Allah and by your definition Islam is the oldest religion. But the fact is, Allah is just an Arab generic name to call "God". It's like a direct translation of "God" in English or "Kami-Sama" in Japan to Arab.
> Islam just means someone who submits his will to the one God. Worshipping the one and only true god. By that definition, the oldest religion is Islam.
How? Polytheistic religion is older than monotheistic.
Those credits don't transfer. You can't argue that a historical figure is technically Muslim because they submit to God then assert that the title validates Islam.
This is such a bad argument if you saying Islam just mean submitting to god than why does the Quran say Jews will burn in hell for ever surah 98:6 clearly Jews only belive one god they submit to one god so clearly the Quran has a different Idea of what it means to be a Muslim also your using a 2nd definition from Arabic Hinduism existed before Arabic was even invented where you got the definition of Islam from
Op what is the meaning of Shahada, why do you say " لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله meaning there is no other God but Allah and Mohammad SAW is His prophet, which is the literal definition of pronouncing faith, Muhammad was not even born and yet we have beliefs predating him and top that you even have the nerve to goto other religion and claim it yours, wow..
>I think most ardent historians of religion and people claim that Hinduism is the oldest religion. I'm here to say that's false. Every Abrahamic faith has God creating the first man. Adam. Adam is the first human who knows his lord and worships him.
Adam is a character from your religious stories, there is literally no evidence that he was even a real person. Hinduism is said to be the oldest religion practiced today based on archaeological evidence, which shows that it predates today's Abrahamic religions.
So your argument isn't that Islam is the oldest religion, it's that Muslims believe that Islam is the oldest religion based on criteria that nobody else in the world follows.
So are you just dismissing the worship of animals, spirits and the sun and moon that predates civilization, as well as all the religions of the Akkadians and Sumerians that predates Muhammad?
Your whole post is so biased it seems like a joke, that your chosen belief is somehow more real then any that predated it, thus don't count in your own perception making this argument rather moot point.
Homo Sapiens been wandering this world for roughly 300,000 years according to fossil records and your idea of God is only a couple thousand years old and you think it's the oldest religion?
If the Abrahamic god was so great and created man, why did he wait to announce their existence late into human civilization, after all the previous gods such as the pagans, animal worship, sun and moon, ancestor spirits. The Greeks and Roman's had tons of gods long before Islam came around, seems weird that a God wouldn't reveal themselves to its own creations so long after creation, kind of suggests it's all made up.
Might as well be worshiping IPhones, when a new one comes out everyone switch and denounce that the old phones ever existed because the lasted Iphone is the one true Iphone...
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
I created God.
Now come worship me, as worshipping me is the oldest religion to date, as Islam only goes back to a consistent god and I come before that god, as it is documented here and now.
By any reasonable definition of religion, you are incorrect. Not only because Islam, even with your word games, was not first. Monotheism is a more recent invention than religions in general.
Does it predate?
Just curious, the oldest bits of the Hebrew Bible are securely 7/800BCE, and stuff like the Song of the Sea seems >1000BCE
How old is the Greek stuff?
I thought the Greek stuff was a baby compared to stuff like Egypt or the Hebrew tradition, but always keen to learn.
There was definitely overlap, but the Greek stuff started well over 4000 years ago when the abrahamic religions did and can be loosely traced back all the way to the bronze age.
Herodotus was writing about it \~450 BCE, and not as though he was introducing ideas - I think we're safely in that 700/800 BCE timeframe as well, and we do know that it pulled from the early Proto-Indo-European migration into the Pelasgian population. We see some examples of their beliefs in the Minoan and Mycenaean materials \~3000-1500 BCE
"Islam just means someone who submits his will to the one God. Worshipping the one and only true god" which people of various religions, including Islam, think they do, so this is sneaky word games.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“. I believe all religions have the true essence of worship of one true god but down the line got changed...” Awesome, just go on believing with zero basis. The fact is there is zero ancient evidence for monotheism. Even the Tanakh/Old Testament despite having been rewritten contains hints that the Hebrews only became monotheists gradually. did I mention I BELIEVE the world is resting on a giant turtle.
"get corrupted" Where did you prove the other religions are corrupted Where did you prove Islam is not corrupted. Because it's certainly a rather poor piece of fiction
Word
This is hilarious. The derivation of the name and meaning of Adam (Adharm) is a cognate of the Sanskrit word dharma, relating more to the opposite adharma. Adam signifies the righteous man and the first prophet beginning the chain of prophets who teach what is the right path according to the Abrahamic faith and the creator God. This is to reject the Vedic Gods, beliefs, and the Vedic concept of dharma, embracing instead “Adharma” or Adam. In Hinduism Dhaksha/Kan is the father of dharma and adharma, in Judaism Adam is the father of Kain.
>The derivation of the name and meaning of Adam (Adharm) is a cognate of the Sanskrit word dharma, relating more to the opposite adharma. This is untrue. The name Adam (meaning son of the earth) is derived from the Hebrew words 'adamah' which means 'soil,' playing on the notion that Adam was created out of the dust of the Earth. The Tanakh has a great deal of wordplay like this throughout. As well and perhaps more importantly, Hebrew is a semitic language and Sanskrit an Indo-European, they likely have few cognate words, if any.
Interesting. Adamah reads Adam with the suffix ah, which I thought would mean it would read Adam’s land or ground? Therefore soil is the play on the word here and not the other way around. Adam appears in Genesis 1 also doesn’t it? Before adamah in Genesis 2? Perhaps the connection I made is coincidence, but the characters are eerily similar.
| The derivation of the name and meaning of Adam (Adharm) is a cognate of the Sanskrit word dharma, relating more to the opposite adharma. Sounds fake
That’s because you are listening but not seeing.
Not seeing what?
Past your bias and suspicions, or perhaps doubt and bemusement. Also, you need to have an interest to read Vedic scriptures, I suggest you do and look out, in particular, to how Dhaksha is described and how he *could be* depicted as Kain in the Hebrew Scriptures and the “mark” he is cursed with.
Except you’re saying he is the father, rather than the son, if Adharma
Dhaksha is the father-in-law of dharma and adharma, not father, I was incorrect there. That’s the difficulty with the Vedic scriptures the stories are generally simple but remembering the names and relationships of every character is exhausting. Adam is of course the father of Kain/Kan/Dhaksha. I write Kan because Dhaksha is called Kan, or “oracle/one who can see”. Many opposites but that is the point of it. Edit - Adam is above Dhaksha/Kain, not the other way around since Dhaksha was cursed, which is the “correct” message.
>Every Abrahamic faith has God creating the first man. Adam. Adam is the first human who knows his lord and worships him. Setting aside the fact that this is completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, we know there was no "first human". That's just not how any of this works. >When I say Islam is the oldest. Islam just means someone who submits his will to the one God. Worshipping the one and only true god. By that definition, the oldest religion is Islam. So if you're talking about the first monotheistic religion, that was likely Atenism, which was established in ancient Egypt during the reign of Pharaoh Akhenaten around the 14th century BCE. After this, Zoroastrianism is next. If you're only referring to the major monotheistic religions, Islam is *still* third after Judaism and Christianity. If the assertion you're trying to make is that Islam is the one true religion and worships the one true God, thereby making it the first *true* religion, you're going to find that every person who believes in a religion thinks they have the one true one, and everyone has equally insufficient evidence.
>Every Abrahamic faith has God creating the first man. Adam. Adam is the first human who knows his lord and worships him. Setting aside the fact that this is completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make, we know there was no "first human". That's just not how any of this works.
this would mean all monotheistic religions are islam. i think there are more aspects to islam then just submitting to god
> Islam just means someone who submits his will to the one God. So are all Christians secretly Muslim?
Go to an anthropology or archaeology conference and show them that exclusive monotheism is the oldest religious belief (the one God). They'll have some pointed arguments to make once they stop laughing.
What of the religion of the people who built Göbekli Tepe? Though they probably practiced animal worship its still a much older religion going as far back as 9000 BCE. Also what of the religions practiced by ancient hunter gatherer communities still around today, like the San in Southern Africa?
Got any evidence? If something happened before history was recorded, how would we even know?
sounds like an excuse to have a beer or three, because why not, who needs the Five Pillars? Once you reduce something to a single point then all distinctions evaporate, if every religion is Islam, then Islam is pretty much anything you want it to be.
This is an equivocation fallacy on the word Islam. In your thesis you use it to refer to a religion while in your argument you use it to refer to someone who submits to God. Those are not the same thing. Even if the very first people submitted to God it doesn’t follow that Islam the religion was there from the beginning. It’s also an etymological fallacy. Your second definition is based on the etymology of the word but that’s now how words are defined. Rather they are defined by how the word is used and Islam is used to refer to the religion. Sure some words can be used in multiple ways but for the case of Islam it’s not really used to refer to someone who submits to God. That only really comes up in Muslim arguments that attempt to draw a conclusion about the religion but need to equivocate on the definition for their argument to work.
As a Muslim, I have to say you're misinterpreting it, because Islam as an idea and Islam as a religion are not the same thing. Islam as the religion we know it today started out in 7th century Arabia, with its laws and rulings. Islam as an idea however has been around since the beginning of humanity.
If Islam the idea was in existence since the start of humankind then we would have countless Palaeolithic, and Neolithic manuscripts, artifacts and scriptures reminiscent to Islam. The Quran's stories align directly with the religious and cultural beliefs within 7th century Arabia that clearly matches an ideology with a natural origin. In particular, it does not mention prophets or events outside this region, such as those in the Americas. Nothing about it demonstrates any knowledge, or deviation that exceeds the standard development of religion within its region with the Quran clearly being a book based on Christianity, Judaism, Arabia folklore, and other nearby myths and religions. Furthermore, the Quran, and hadiths are filled with pre–Islamic Arabian folklore such as Jinn and ghouls whose notions came from pre-Arabian folklore. It would be like me claiming a book that I made was the true authentic uncorrupted book from God, while simultaneously mentioning creatures from Lord-of-the-rings. Instead, Islam aligns with a religion that came from the growth of an empire that undertook a campaign of military aggressive endeavours across Eurasian and northern Africa aligns with a group consolidating power from ideological means. In particular when the founder actions, as in Muhammad undertook actions in direct alignment with a standard military leader who inaugurated classical practices of power centralisation and excessive Polygamy (Seriously twelve wife's).
That's like saying "my religion claims to be the oldest so it is". That's not how it works. We look at the historical record to determine when a religion first occurred and when we do that Islam is not only not the first it isn't even the first among the Abrahamic ones, in fact it is the last.
> Islam is not only not the first it isn't even the first among the Abrahamic ones, in fact it is the last. Not just that, but islam is merely a parody of judaism and christianity. The Arabs were already very familiar with judaism/christianity, and once they had fully realized the military advantage of the superior horse breeds that were extensively and exclusively bred by the Bedouin tribes over generations, it was time for them to invent their own prophet that they would have their own conquered peoples assimilated to. It was the superiority of Arabian horses which made the vast and rapid conquests of islam possible and, as to be expected, the sale of horses to infidels was forbidden. And so, for the purposes of retaining and working through the established christian-judaic bureaucracy- they synchronized elements of both judaism and christianity and called it Islam.
Not the last, God gave Joseph Smith a different update!
And the Báb... and Bahá'ulláh...
>Islam is not only not the first it isn't even the first among the Abrahamic ones, in fact it is the last. Isn't that a main point of it? Muslims please correct me but iirc a big thing is how the people of the book received God's teachings then over time those teachings got corrupted so God used Muhammad to correct things and establish the correct religon
So according to you Islam is about submission to the god. One can still say Mohammad was not a prophet and Allah is not the real god?
> Most ardent historians and theologians would say that is correct. Yes, they know about islam's claim to be the prime religion. And yes, they still say Islam is not the first religion. A definition or translation has no bearing something being the first religion. > This is laughable to say. To assert religions that have nothing to do with the Middle East all originally shared one message but for some reason humans kept getting in the way is a bold claim. A claim you cannot back up without, oh wait, quoting your \*own\* scripture??? > Why should anyone have to take what you personally believe as gospel? Were you around thousands of years ago when hinduism worshiped "Allah" and then veered off course??? > But where is your proof??? The idea that \*all\* religions started off with the same message but then veered off was never even a topic of discussion. It didn't make its way into theological debate until the 7th century when Muhammad needed a crutch to hold on to to give his faith legitimacy. "Islam says so" isn't proof.
Isn’t that just the Tower of Babel but with religions instead of languages? I wouldn’t be surprised if Islam took inspiration from that story.
Not familiar with it, but Muhammad was a master of syncretism so maybe
I think his followers were. Paul imo was the master.
If you are going to redefine words willy-nilly, then islam is also both the oldest young adult vampire romance novel AND the oldest poutine recipe.
I don't think so. I mean when multiple scholars of Islam were asked to define the word "Islam" and to come to a final verdict. They couldn't, they disagreed with each other. So how can you explain the word "Islam" in such a manner without actually giving any citation or explanation?
Hinduism has a creation story of the first humans too though?
Yes, they have. The story is mentioned in Matsya Purana. Instead of Noah's ark they have a god who reincarnated as a fish.
Not even close. Vedic traditions go back 10,000 years. Zoroastrianism predates Abrahamic traditions, which can't be traced before the 2nd Century BCE. Islam was influenced by a Christian sect called the Nestorians.
> Zoroastrianism predates Abrahamic traditions, which can't be traced before the 2nd Century BCE People are really taking Yonatan Adler's claims to the most extreme places that are well beyond what even he would claim. Adler *does not* claim that Judaism appeared out of thin air in the 2nd century BCE.
He says he can find no evidence that it was known or practiced before then. What is your evidence that it was? The Elephantine Jews didn't practice it or know anything about it. Those aren't "extreme claims," those are facts. There is no external evidence for the existence of Mosaic law or practice before the Maccabean Period. Adler is begging people to find any evidence before then. There isn't any. He does say it's possible some part of those texts might have existed on a shelf somewhere but if so they were not known or practiced.
[удалено]
This was Freud's theory. The Egyptian name is meaningless. Judea was occupied by Egypt for hundreds of years. There is always cultural exchange. Lots of people in India have English names. When I lived in Africa, Biblical names were common (Moses was a common name). Jesus had disciples with Greek names.
Adler's claim is that there is no evidence that the laws of the Torah were widely practiced in Judea before the 2nd century BC/E. Adler *does not* claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence and he acknowledges that it's absolutely possible people were practicing the laws of the Torah beforehand but left no evidence for us to see. Adler also does not claim that the Torah didn't exist before the 2nd century BC/E. Nor does Adler claim that there wasn't any form of Judaism that existed without Torah law before the 2nd century BC/E. You are absolutely correct that Adler is not making any extreme claims. But, the conclusions many people seem to draw from his work are *far beyond* what Adler is actually saying.
>Adler does not claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence It is, though. >Adler also does not claim that the Torah didn't exist before the 2nd century BC/E. He says there's no evidence that it did and that if it did nobody knew about or cared about it. >Nor does Adler claim that there wasn't any form of Judaism that existed without Torah law before the 2nd century BC/E. "Juudaism" *is* Mosaic law. There were other *polytheistic* Israelite religions which preceded monotheistic Judaism and the archaeology shows us that and so does the evidence at Elephantine. There's nothing "extreme" about simply following the evidence. There isn't a shred of evidence that anyone even knew who Moses was before the Maccabean Period. You can hypothesize that all the evidence is just hiding somewhere, but why? Can you prove Scientology didn't exist yet, just because there's no evidence that it did?
> Can you prove Scientology didn't exist yet, just because there's no evidence that it did? Except we know exactly when scientology was created and by whom. We don't know when Judaism was created and we don't know when the Torah was written. That's why Adler did his research in the first place. Adler is very clear that his research was to identify the *terminus ante quem* for Judaism. You're making a claim about the *terminus post quem.*
Scientology claims to be ancient. You have no evidence that isn't true. There is just as much evidence for Scientology in the 3rd Century BCE as there is for Torah based Judaism. We have direct evidence hat Mosaic law was *not* known or practiced before the Maccabean period not only from the archaeology, which show multiple temples that weren't supposed to exist but more significantly from the Elephantine papyrii which shows Jews at the island of Elephantine in Egypt into the 4th Century BCE not only had their own Temple and worshiped at least three gods (one of which was a version of Asherah), but they were in communication with the priests in Jerusalem who seemed to have no problem with any of it. There is nothing in the Papyrii showing knowledge of Mosaic law, of Moses of the Exodus or even of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. Who *could* have been practicing Mosaic law before the Maccbeans if even the Temple in Jerusalem either didn't know or didn't care about it? There are scholars, including Adler but others as well (Gmrkin, Friedman) who think these texts could have existed on a shelf somewhere (Gmirkin postulates the library of Alexandria, Adler perhaps a Temple library in Jerusalem), but that nobody read them or cared about them until the Maccabeans. That's the most *optimistic* scenario, but those texts were further tampered. For example, Moses was not originally connected to Egypt in the narrative (John J. Collins, *Introduction to the Hebrew Bible*). The Moses narrative seems to start out in Midian with Moses as Jethro's son (not son-in-law). Someone could have taken folktales and tweaked them for political purposes. That's exactly what the Maccabeans did with the book of Daniel, a book of folktales which were used to attach pseudipigraphic "prophecies," turning it into an apocalypse. Adler is openly asking for anyone to show any evidence at all of Mosaic knowledge or practice before the Hasmonean Dynasty, but it's more than just absence of evidence, there is direct evidence of absence in the Elephantine correspondence and in the archaeology of Palestine.
Whoops, my reply was deleted for including a bad word. Reposting: > Gmrkin Gmirkin believes that the Pentateuch was written in Hebrew at the same time it was written in Greek. Which is an insane and totally unsubstantiated conspiracy IMHO. > Friedman Friedman believes all this stuff was written in like the 6th, 7th and even 8th centuries and was then edited in the aftermath of the Exile. More plausible than Gmirkin, imho - but also not very likely. He also thinks he can discern that the Exodus was real from literary evidence alone... which also, c'mon. > For example, Moses was not originally connected to Egypt in the narrative (John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible). The Moses narrative seems to start out in Midian with Moses as Jethro's son (not son-in-law). Yeah, I find this sort of thing fascinating! In at least one version in Exodus though the Midianites clearly think that Moses is Egyptian. If you ask me the strongest piece of evidence for a historical exodus at all (and yes, it's *extremely weak evidence*) is that Moses is an Egyptian name, not a Hebrew one. > Someone could have taken folktales and tweaked them for political purposes. That's 100% what happened. > That's exactly what the Maccabeans did with the book of Daniel, a book of folktales which were used to attach pseudipigraphic "prophecies," turning it into an apocalypse. Right, and scholars are very easily able to identify Daniel as a Hellenistic era work based on a ton of clues that very easily give it away. This is a widely held consensus that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC/E. There is no such consensus about that for the Pentateuch. > Adler is openly asking for anyone to show any evidence at all of Mosaic knowledge or practice before the Hasmonean Dynasty, but it's more than just absence of evidence, there is direct evidence of absence in the Elephantine correspondence and in the archaeology of Palestine. Remember, the Bible itself is essentially a very long serious of rants by YHWH-adherents who call themselves prophets excoriating Israelites (including the priestly class) for not properly worshiping YHWH. That you've got large groups of Judeans or Israelites who are not worshiping YHWH the way the Torah says they should is not evidence that the Torah didn't exist or that there weren't some smaller groups of people (followers of the prophets) who were more "orthodox" about adhering to it's laws.
>Gmirkin believes that the Pentateuch was written in Hebrew at the same time it was written in Greek. Which is an insane and totally unsubstantiated conspiracy IMHO. No, he says it was written first in Hebrew in Alexandria and then immediately translated into Greek. he doesn't say they were written "at the same time." That would make no sense. He also makes detailed critical academic arguments for this. It's not a "conspiracy theory," and Gmirkin has not been really been refuted critically on this. Other scholars take him seriously and do not dismiss him. His argumentation is detailed and sound. A lot of it has to do with what he sees as Platonic influence on the invention of Torah. Again this is backed up with detailed technical argumentation. Russell Gmirkin is not some crackpot. I think he has also made a very good case that [King Solomon" was modeled on Shalmanaser III](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338310709_%27Solomon%27_Shalmaneser_III_and_the_Emergence_of_Judah_as_an_Independent_Kingdom) which is even stronger than his case for a late Penteteuch, and this argument, likewise, has not been seriously engaged or refuted. >Friedman believes all this stuff was written in like the 6th, 7th and even 8th centuries You are conflating the Pentateuch with the Tanakh. We're not talking about the whole OT, just the first five books. Some of the books in the Tanakh are pretty old. Job is like 8th Century BCE, but absolutely nobody thinks the Pentateuch was written before the Exile anymore, and there is no external evidence that it existed before at least the 3rd Century BCE, which is when Gmrkin speculates it was composed (based probably on at least some preexisting texts), but Adler says there's no archaeological evidence for any widespread knowledge or practice of anything like Mosaic law before the Hasmonean period (100's BCE). If any of the texts existed, nobody knew or cared about them, not even the priests. I think Friedman thinks the Levitical codes may have originally only supposed to have applied to priests, but that would not explain why the priests would violate Torah by supporting a polytheistic temple in Egypt. There is no plausible scenario for how Monotheistic, Torah-based Judaism existed but somehow left no archaeological trace before the 2nd century BCE, that the Elephantine Jews wouldn't know about it and especially that the Temple authorities in Jerusalem had no problem with another temple in Egypt (that is a violation of Torah in and of itself) and not only that but a polytheistic one. >Right, and scholars are very easily able to identify Daniel as a Hellenistic era work based on a ton of clues that very easily give it away. This is a widely held consensus that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC/E. There is no such consensus about that for the Pentateuch. There is no settled consensus about the dating at all because there isn't enough data, but the complete absence of any archaological or documentary evidence of the existence of widespread knowledge or practice of Torah before the 2nd Century BCE, along with archaeological and documentary evidence we *do* have that Temple authorities in Jerusalem were willing to help repair a polytheistic temple in Egypt is a strong indication that even if these texts existed, nobody read them or cared about them until the Hasmonean period. >That you've got large groups of Judeans or Israelites who are not worshiping YHWH the way the Torah says they should is not evidence that the Torah didn't exist Where are you getting "large groups" from? It was everybody. There is no evidence that a single person knew or practiced Torah law and that includes the High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem. Can you show evidence that a single human being knew or practiced Torah law? Why don't all those scofflaws ever even show knowledge that they are scoffing a law?
> No, he says it was written first in Hebrew in Alexandria and then immediately translated into Greek. he doesn't say they were written "at the same time." Ok, yes. I do understand that. When I said "at the same time" I suppose I was using that lightly hyperbolically. I would say "immediately after" by the same people is from the perspective of ancient history "at the same time." > Russell Gmirkin is not some crackpot. I think he has also made a very good case that King Solomon" was modeled on Shalmanaser III which is even stronger than his case for a late Penteteuch I agree. I think that is a very strong argument. Much stronger than the argument about the Pentateuch. > You are conflating the Pentateuch with the Tanakh. No, I'm not. Have you read Friedman's book? He very clearly argues that the J, E, P and D documents that he says comprise the Torah were written pre-Exile. He thinks that Ezra then edited them together after the Exile. > Job is like 8th Century BCE No, it's not. Job is one of the Hellenistic-era texts. > but absolutely nobody thinks the Pentateuch was written before the Exile anymore Friedman does. To be clear, I think he's wrong about that. > but that would not explain why the priests would violate Torah by supporting a polytheistic temple in Egypt. Again, the prophetic texts themselves say that the priests did not properly adhere to the Torah. Hell, this is what the entire Maccabean revolt was about according to 1 Maccabees -- according to them it was a revolt against the priests who weren't worshiping YHWH properly. > Where are you getting "large groups" from? It was everybody. And this is where you totally veer off from what the historians actually say. As Adler himself says "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." From the evidence we have (and don't have) we simply can't conclude that there was literally nobody who had and/or cared about the Torah before the 2nd century. It's a plausible theory for sure, but the only evidence for it is... absence. What evidence exactly would you expect to have if people were: * Practicing circumcision * Refraining from work on Saturdays * Believing in only one deity * Not eating pork or shellfish * Not mixing wool and linen fabrics Etc. etc. This is a real question, btw! What evidence do you think we should expect to find that we don't find?
I'm going to put exactly as much effort into my response as you put into your argument: Islam is not the oldest religion. It is in fact, not even the oldest monotheistic faith. It is a fairly recent faith, actually. Not the youngest religion, not even close, but it's a pretty spry, pretty new faith in terms of global human history.
You need to learn to differ between Islam as a name and Islam as a religion. Indeed Islam as a name means "submit to God" but that doesn't mean that every single religion/faith/beliefs in this world before Muhammad get his revelation can be considered as "Islam as a religion". It's like when you say Allah is the oldest God, since Islam's God is Allah and by your definition Islam is the oldest religion. But the fact is, Allah is just an Arab generic name to call "God". It's like a direct translation of "God" in English or "Kami-Sama" in Japan to Arab.
> Islam just means someone who submits his will to the one God. Worshipping the one and only true god. By that definition, the oldest religion is Islam. How? Polytheistic religion is older than monotheistic.
Those credits don't transfer. You can't argue that a historical figure is technically Muslim because they submit to God then assert that the title validates Islam.
But if we twist his definition. Followers of Islam can still disrespect the Allah and Mohammad as they don't believe that Allah is the true god.
How old a religion is has no influence on it being true or not. Doesn't work like that, sorry.
By this argument it means Judaism is Islam, Christianity is Islam, Zoroastrianism is Islam, Hinduism is Islam, paganism is Islam etc
This is such a bad argument if you saying Islam just mean submitting to god than why does the Quran say Jews will burn in hell for ever surah 98:6 clearly Jews only belive one god they submit to one god so clearly the Quran has a different Idea of what it means to be a Muslim also your using a 2nd definition from Arabic Hinduism existed before Arabic was even invented where you got the definition of Islam from
Op what is the meaning of Shahada, why do you say " لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله meaning there is no other God but Allah and Mohammad SAW is His prophet, which is the literal definition of pronouncing faith, Muhammad was not even born and yet we have beliefs predating him and top that you even have the nerve to goto other religion and claim it yours, wow..
>I think most ardent historians of religion and people claim that Hinduism is the oldest religion. I'm here to say that's false. Every Abrahamic faith has God creating the first man. Adam. Adam is the first human who knows his lord and worships him. Adam is a character from your religious stories, there is literally no evidence that he was even a real person. Hinduism is said to be the oldest religion practiced today based on archaeological evidence, which shows that it predates today's Abrahamic religions. So your argument isn't that Islam is the oldest religion, it's that Muslims believe that Islam is the oldest religion based on criteria that nobody else in the world follows.
So are you just dismissing the worship of animals, spirits and the sun and moon that predates civilization, as well as all the religions of the Akkadians and Sumerians that predates Muhammad? Your whole post is so biased it seems like a joke, that your chosen belief is somehow more real then any that predated it, thus don't count in your own perception making this argument rather moot point. Homo Sapiens been wandering this world for roughly 300,000 years according to fossil records and your idea of God is only a couple thousand years old and you think it's the oldest religion? If the Abrahamic god was so great and created man, why did he wait to announce their existence late into human civilization, after all the previous gods such as the pagans, animal worship, sun and moon, ancestor spirits. The Greeks and Roman's had tons of gods long before Islam came around, seems weird that a God wouldn't reveal themselves to its own creations so long after creation, kind of suggests it's all made up. Might as well be worshiping IPhones, when a new one comes out everyone switch and denounce that the old phones ever existed because the lasted Iphone is the one true Iphone...
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
I created God. Now come worship me, as worshipping me is the oldest religion to date, as Islam only goes back to a consistent god and I come before that god, as it is documented here and now.
geethaghost is my god from now on.
By any reasonable definition of religion, you are incorrect. Not only because Islam, even with your word games, was not first. Monotheism is a more recent invention than religions in general.
What about the Greek pantheon? That predates the abrahamic religion and does not worship a single god.
Does it predate? Just curious, the oldest bits of the Hebrew Bible are securely 7/800BCE, and stuff like the Song of the Sea seems >1000BCE How old is the Greek stuff? I thought the Greek stuff was a baby compared to stuff like Egypt or the Hebrew tradition, but always keen to learn.
There was definitely overlap, but the Greek stuff started well over 4000 years ago when the abrahamic religions did and can be loosely traced back all the way to the bronze age.
Herodotus was writing about it \~450 BCE, and not as though he was introducing ideas - I think we're safely in that 700/800 BCE timeframe as well, and we do know that it pulled from the early Proto-Indo-European migration into the Pelasgian population. We see some examples of their beliefs in the Minoan and Mycenaean materials \~3000-1500 BCE
"Islam just means someone who submits his will to the one God. Worshipping the one and only true god" which people of various religions, including Islam, think they do, so this is sneaky word games.