Is Islam better supported than Christianity?

[WinePusher]

Please note that this is not meant to be a Q & A session about Islam.

Question: Is Islam better supported than Christianity?

Well, I'll get the ball rolling:

Islam makes false claims about the Historical Jesus:
1. An actual text supposedly given to Jesus from God, the Injil.
2. Jesus does not die on the Cross
3. Jesus speaks as a baby in order to rebuke people from slandering Mary.

Islam makes dubious claims about God:
1. Sin was not a choice of human free will, rather God created the world with sin.
2. God's power is limited by Islamic Dogma, God cannot take flesh because Muslims cannot fathom it.

Historical problems with the Qur'an:
1. Claimed to have been written by an illiterate.
2. The Qur'an is considered to be a perfect revelation from God, absolutly free from error, yet the reader can pick apart the book and find error after error and contradiction after contradiction.

[Goat]

The main problem with this post is that the Gospels authors are unknown. You've asserted that the authors are actually the people who's names are attatched to the Gospels but as far as I'm aware this position lacks evidence, feel free to substantiate.

The Catholic Church has a record of each and every writer of the New Testament books. That is where the names come from, from Catholic Tradition.

And how do the opinions of people who lived a couple of hundred years after the writing of the gospels show the reality behind the opinion? Can you show the accuracy of the tradition?

Where is the beef?

[De Maria]

The Quran is more authentic, its compilation was documented by 3rd parties.

That's not true. The Quran was dictated to many secretaries by Mohammed. But these secretaries could not confirm independently what Mohamed had actually seen. They simply took his word for it.

That is called hearsay evidence and it is not admissible in any court.

On a historical level, the existence of Jesus can be doubted,

On the contrary, Jesus' existence is historically proven since the Gospels which record His life were attested by four contemporary witnesses.

while the existence of Muhammad cannot, unless you want to challenge this claim.

The existence of Muhammad is not in question. His claims are in question. The existence of the Angel Gibreel which supposedly revealed to him the Quran. The existence of the Heavenly Quran. These things can't be confirmed and have never been witnessed by anyone but Muhammad.

And since Muhammad himself preached the value of lying, that means that his testimony is not trustworthy.

Is the Bible authoritive & historically true in this debate?

Yes.

If so, whats the point of debating ?

I don't follow. Don't you mean, "if not, what's the point of the debate?" Obviously, if we didn't think it was authoritative and historically true, we wouldn't claim to uphold its veracity.

False, False & False.
This is the reason why we muslim folks dont believe in the New Testament.

You should. There is much more evidence for the truth of the New Testament than for the Quran in your hand.

The Gospel of Jesus was not a book,

We are not people of the book, true. We believe in the Word of God in Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium.

Jesus didn't go preaching a with a book in his hand did he?

No.

The Gospel of Jesus was a revelation of knowledge.

True.

We believe in the Gospel of Jesus, not the Gospel "According to [Insert name Here]

Sort of confusing. The word Quran means recitation. And it is supposed to be the recitation of the Angel Gibreel to Muhammad. But guess what, no one ever saw the Angel Gibreel. Except, allegedly, Muhammad.

Now, the Gospels are the Good News of the existence of Immanuel, God with us. The Apostles witnessed this Immanuel's existence and preached and wrote about Him and the Good News which He revealed to the world.

Each version of the Good News bears the name of the person who set pencil to paper (or whatever the medium of the day). So, if you don't believe the Gospel as recorded by the Apostles, you don't believe the Gospel of Jesus at all. Because their Gospels are the most authentic record of His life and times.

Yes, God did not let him die a disgraceful death on the cross, infact i justified this claim quite well using YOUR scripture, which no one has been able to prove otherwise: Click Here

I'll visit that discussion after I make my points here.

3. Jesus speaks as a baby in order to rebuke people from slandering Mary.

Jesus resurrects the dead, which one is a greater miracle?

The resurrection of the dead.

Sorry, but if you're trying to object to the Quranic miracle as "Illogical", then in effect you debunk your entire religion.

Not as illogical. The objection is for the lack of witness. There is no verifiable story that Jesus spoke as a newborn. But the evidence of the resurrecting of various people is confirmed by all the Gospels.

Islam makes dubious claims about God:
1. Sin was not a choice of human free will, rather God created the world with sin.

Yes, in Islam, God Knew humans would sin, he had foreknowledge of everything.
Unlike the story of Genesis where God is potrayed as an old man walking around who cant find Adam in the garden of eden (Obviously Adam was better at hide & seek).

I haven't seen that portrayal in the Bible. Would you point to it.

In the meantime, God of the Bible also had foreknowledge.

2. God's power is limited by Islamic Dogma, God cannot take flesh because Muslims cannot fathom it.

No, God is not restricted.
God simply abides by his own rules.
YOUR Bible is a prime example:

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
(Titus 1:2)

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
(Heb 6:18)

Yet God of the Quran is restricted. Since it is Islamic doctrine that Allah can't enter Creation. Therefore, Allah is not omnipresent.

Its not honest applying double standards, WinePusher.

We are applying the standards which each religion sets for themselves.

Historical problems with the Qur'an:
1. Claimed to have been written by an illiterate.

Not written, that is an oxymoron, 'produced' is the word, the scribes recorded the words of Muhammad(pbuh)

I suppose what is being questioned here is whether Muhammad was illiterate. That is questionable. Although he seemed to perpetuate the myth.

Thats why its such an extraordinary book, its regarded as the "Miracles of Miracles" in Islam. This illiterate man Muhammad produced the most linguistically advanced text in ancient arabia.

Actually, the Arabic language was changed to match the inferior language of the Quran. And if you are making the claim that Muhammad was illiterate, it is hard to jive with the fact that he was a successful businessman before he became the prophet. And also with many other facts revealed by Islamic history. Example:

096:001 Read in the name of your Lord who has created. Iqra/ bi-ismi rabbika allathee khalaqa

Is this not a verse of the Quran? To whom was it directed? At Muhammad? If then, the God who created the Universe with but a word, are you claiming this God could not make Muhammad read with the same word?
http://www.answers.com/topic/quran-96

2. The Qur'an is considered to be a perfect revelation from God, absolutly free from error, yet the reader can pick apart the book and find error after error and contradiction after contradiction.

Every single alleged contradiction has beeb answered. Yes i repeat, Every single alleged contradiction. CLICK HERE

But not satisfactorily. Here's one. The Quran teaches both that it is good to drink alcohol and that alcohol is evil and should not be imbibed.

That's a contradiction. I know, I know, one of them has been annulled. But you don't know which because you don't know which was first stated.

And, even if one has been annulled, the reason it was annulled is because it contradicts the other and they both remain in the Quran, therefore the Quran contradicts itself. Something the immutable Word of God can't do.

The Quran does not contain a SINGLE contradiction. Not one, you would be surprised on how well the author Sam Shamoun makes it seem like he's debunked Islam, when infact he has a tendancy of purposely misquoting & twisting certain Quranic verses.

There are hundreds of contradictions in the Quran.

Infact, the Quran mocks the early unbelievers, challenging them to find a contradiction within the Quran:

Will they not, then, try to understand this Qur’an?
Had it issued from any but God, they would surely have found in it many an inner contradictions!
(Quran 4:82)

And they found them. Which just caused Muhammad to have another vision to correct the previous error.

Unlike the Bible which contains 9 Undeniable Contradictions:

How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26).
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2).....

Who killed Goliath?
(a) David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50).
(b) Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19).

They have been cleared up to our satisfaction. The problem is not in the existence of these scribal errors, which are to be expected in a document written by men even if it was originally inspired of God. But in the existence of those errors in the Word of God which is the image of the book written in heaven. The Quran.

No such claim is made of the Bible. Whereas, that is the claim made of the Quran.

Do ya know what I mean?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Goat]

The Quran is more authentic, its compilation was documented by 3rd parties.

That's not true. The Quran was dictated to many secretaries by Mohammed. But these secretaries could not confirm independently what Mohamed had actually seen. They simply took his word for it.

That is called hearsay evidence and it is not admissible in any court.

On a historical level, the existence of Jesus can be doubted,

On the contrary, Jesus' existence is historically proven since the Gospels which record His life were attested by four contemporary witnesses.

Please show that the Gospels speak the truth, and are not just religious promotional stories.

Show evidence that the Gospels are not just "just so' stories

[KennethM]

The main problem with this post is that the Gospels authors are unknown. You've asserted that the authors are actually the people who's names are attatched to the Gospels but as far as I'm aware this position lacks evidence, feel free to substantiate.

The Catholic Church has a record of each and every writer of the New Testament books. That is where the names come from, from Catholic Tradition.

The gospels were all written anonymously with no names attached. The tradition of connecting them with particular characters wasn't something that began until the late second century was was only done so to elevate some gospels over others. That is when the tradition started, but it doesn't make it true.

[Filthy Tugboat]

The main problem with this post is that the Gospels authors are unknown. You've asserted that the authors are actually the people who's names are attatched to the Gospels but as far as I'm aware this position lacks evidence, feel free to substantiate.

The Catholic Church has a record of each and every writer of the New Testament books. That is where the names come from, from Catholic Tradition.

How is this record historically substantiated? How old is this record? Who wrote it? What sources did they use? Where can I find this record?

[lewiy]

W

The Qur'an is considered to be a perfect revelation from God, absolutly free from error, yet the reader can pick apart the book and find error after error and contradiction after contradiction

Replace Qur'an with Bible in this sentence and you have an equal truth. Why are you so blinkered that you can't see the hypocrisy here?

[lewiy]

W

The Qur'an is considered to be a perfect revelation from God, absolutly free from error, yet the reader can pick apart the book and find error after error and contradiction after contradiction

Replace Qur'an with Bible in this sentence and you have an equal truth. Why are you so blinkered that you can't see the hypocrisy here?

[lewiy]

W

The Qur'an is considered to be a perfect revelation from God, absolutly free from error, yet the reader can pick apart the book and find error after error and contradiction after contradiction

Replace Qur'an with Bible in this sentence and you have an equal truth. Why are you so blinkered that you can't see the hypocrisy here?

[Murad]

Hello De Maria, pleasure to meet you, i hope you enjoy debating with me.

Please note that this is not meant to be a Q & A session about Islam.

Question: Is Islam better supported than Christianity?

No.

There are two types of evidence which are inadmissible in court.
1. Hearsay
2. Copies of originals which have been maliciously destroyed.
Islam fits both criteria.

First of all, Mohammed had no witnesses to his vision of an angel. No one else saw or heard the angel. Therefore, Mohammed's claim is merely unconfirmed hearsay.

The hypocrisy here is blatant.
First of all, name me ONE person that saw Jesus being resurrected.

Understand, that Angel Gabriel is generally unimportant in Islam, but on the contrary, the Resurrection & the Doctrine of Atonement & Blood is the Center-piece of Christianity. And guess what? NO WITNESSES to Jesus' resurrection.

Or what about other Biblical claims, can you prove that Moses actually talked to God? You see, your arguement is really futile, because when you think you are debunking Islam, you are digging your own grave in Christianity.

You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
(Matthew 7:5)

Second, Mohammed never codified his book. After he died, his successors found it in such a shambles that they decided to burn the originals and they substituted their alleged copy which today is known as the Uthmanic recenscion.
Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).

Copy/Paste from http://kehidupanbozo.blogspot.com/
You are forgiven this time, i know sometimes we forget to post the source.

No muslim claims the Quran was arranged by Muhammad(pbuh), and if you actually read the Quran, you will see its NOT in chronological order.
On the contrary you just proved the Quran was authentic, it derives from the Original Manuscripts kept from the Prophets wife Hafsa.

So here we establish a fact, the compilation of the Quran was well documented. Hmm, what about the Bible? How did the existence of the canonical greek manuscripts occur? Do you have any proof that the names on the Gospels actually wrote them? Besides Church hearsay ofcourse, which no logical thinking person considers objective evidence.

So, the case for Islam is composed of evidence which is inadmissible in a court of law today. In fact, it is inadmissible in an Islamic court today.

Wrong, there are no "Holy Mystery" factors in Islam. (Trinity, Hypostatic Union etc..)
We know who authored the Quran.
We didn't have numerous councils hundreds of years after Muhammad(pbuh) deciding the future of the religion.

None of this, none.

Now this is the bit you say: "Christianity is the same".

What about the case for Christianity?
First of all, Matthew is one of Jesus' Apostles. That means that he is Jesus follower and contemporary who witnessed many of Jesus miracles as well as His Resurrection. So, Matthew is an eyewitness. Eyewitness testimony is permitted in court.

Do you have ANY PROOF Matthew wrote a Gospel? Do you? Please, please debunk a millenia years of Christian criticism right here.

Then there's Mark. Mark is Peter's secretary. Also a contemporary of Jesus and one of the disciples who was with the twelve from the beginning. Mark's gospel however, is the penning of Peter's teachings by Mark. So, Mark's Gospel can be considered both eyewitness testimony and substantiation of Matthew's Gospel.

Wow thats real evidence, you got me there. -_-
Please justify these claims, it seems you've come on the wrong forum.
Any disputed claim must be justified objectively.

Luke's Gospel is written by a learned man. A physician. Luke however, was not with the twelve from the beginning. He may have witnessed Jesus' resurrection but certainly he witnessed the miracles of the Apostles and of Paul, whose companion he became. These things he wrote about also in his other book, the Acts of the Apostles. So, Luke's Gospel is not eyewitness testimony. It is however, the documentation of eyewitness testimony by an investigator. Luke says so himself:

Luke 1 1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; 2 According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: 3 It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.

First of all, that is blantantly incorrect, NO ONE saw the moment Jesus was resurrected.

And if you can give me a SINGLE eye witness testimony, i Murad, am willing to accept Christianity right here, right now. I'll hop on the next plane to wherever you live, and you can take me to get baptized to whatever church denomination you belong to.

Secondly, if you apply this sort of pseudo reasoning, all the scriptures in the world can be proven authentic.

Justify your claims objectively or dont make any claim at all.

And that leaves John. John, of course, is an Apostle of Jesus Christ. He, therefore, is also a contemporary and an eyewitness. John's Gospel was written after the first three, or synoptic Gospels and includes in his Gospel many things which the others ommitted. He also leaves out many things which the others included. Therefore, John's Gospel is eyewitness testimony which substantiates and corroborates the other eyewitnesses.

The Gospel of John was written 70 to 100 Years after the disappearance of Jesus Christ.

There is not a single, not a grain of verifable evidence, that proves John wrote a book that someone named after him.
Its a lie, a baseless church assertion making the gullible followers believe the authorship of the canonical Gospels can be identified.

So, in my opinion, there is much more evidence for the Gospels, and therefore Christianity, than there is for Islam.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I dont want to get into an ad hominem, but really, that was a very bad case you brought forth.

[Murad]

Hello earl

For me to folow this I need a clarification if you permit it.
Is there a contradiction or a inconsistency here?
Winepusher wrote:Jesus speaks as a baby in order to rebuke prople from slandering Mary.
Murad appeared not to object on the statement .

Thats true.

Are people slandering Mary because they are saying what, Jesus and God are one?
Quran 5.17-In blasphemy indeed are those that say God is christ the son of Mary........

No one is slandering Mary (Known as Maryam in arabic), infact she is the most respected woman in Islam, she is the most pure woman that ever lived.
The verse slanders the doctrine of the "Divine Sonship"

Did Jesus rebuke anyone for saying that he and God are one?

At the time of Jesus(pbuh), no one claimed Jesus was one with God, infact Jesus made it very clear he wasn't, and ill quote from the Bible not the Quran:

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
(John 17:20-21)

Jesus wasn't one with God physically, rather he was one in PURPOSE. Christians have greatly misunderstood John 10:30.

Jesus was charged with blasphemy and killed.Is not Muhammed charging Jesus with the same charge as he calls "those" blasphemers?

My advice for you is to read the Quran, before you can make any arguements or objections, you must know the Islamic Scripture.
It would be illogical of me making accusations agaisnt Christianity if i never opened the Bible.

The only thing Muhammad(pbuh) done was praise Jesus:

"We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit" The Holy Qur'an,Chapter 2,Verse 87

"O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary..." The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 3, Verse 45

"...Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of god..." The Holy Qur'an ,Chapter 4,Verse 171

"...And in their foot steps we sent Jesus the son of Mary..." The Holy Qur'an,Chapter 5, Verse 46

"And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous." The Holy Qur'an,Chapter 6, Verse 85