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.

[WinePusher]

Islam makes false claims about the Historical Jesus:

Is the Bible authoritive & historically true in this debate? If so, whats the point of debating ?

No, the Bible is not authoritative. However, there are facts that we know about the Historical Jesus and the Qur'anic claims about the Historical Jesus are not part of them. For example, what was Muhammed's source? How and where did he get the information about Jesus not dying on the cross and speaking as an infant?

1. An actual text supposedly given to Jesus from God, the Injil.

False, False & False. This is the reason why we muslim folks dont believe in the New Testament. The Gospel of Jesus was not a book, Jesus didn't go preaching a with a book in his hand did he? The Gospel of Jesus was a revelation of knowledge. We believe in the Gospel of Jesus, not the Gospel "According to [Insert name Here].

The injil is an actual text. The problem is Jesus wrote nothing, absolutely nothing while on earth. His teachings were recorded by his disciples and are therefore should be consdiered valid in Islam.

2. Jesus does not die on the Cross.

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.

That position runs contrary to the opinions of all historians. Again, Muhammed, the one who makes this claim in the Qur'an, lived several centuries after Jesus so his claim his based on no actual historical evidence. Just revelation, which would be inadmissable as valid evidence. Why would it be necessary to prevent Jesus fom dying if he would be resurrected three days later?

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

Jesus resurrects the dead, which one is a greater miracle? Sorry, but if you're trying to object to the Quranic miracle as "Illogical", then in effect you debunk your entire religion.

If Jesus did speak as a child, and said something as important about his mother, then I would think that this would have been recorded in the Gospels, whether they are canonical or Gnostic. The problem is the Qur'an has no legitmacy to make any sorts of claims about Jesus because its author wrote several centuries after the existence of Jesus, and its claims lack attestation from other sources.

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).

Well then, that portrayal of God is quite crucial and malign in my honest opinion. As I wrote in our head to head debate:

-How absurd, the wages of sin is death, so God created with sin. That doesn't sound like a benevolent God to me, or does Islam not believe God is benevolent. God created us perfect, with free will, and it was by our free will that we sinned. God did not create us with sin or with the intent to committ sin, we brought sin into the world by our own actions.
-So as Christopher Hitchens says, in your mind "God created us sick and orders us to get better on penalty of eternal damnation?"

1) If the penalty for sin is death, then God would have created a world originally free from sin.
2) The wages of sin is death.
3) Therefore, God would have created a world originally free from sin.

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)

Its not honest applying double standards, WinePusher.

You are equivocating and trying to make it seem that becoming "man" is one in the same as "lying." The verses you cite say that God cannot sin or do anything that would denegrate his perfection, so please concede that it is the subjective opinion of Muslims (and not a theological maxim) that becoming man denegrates God's perfection in some way, shape or form.

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)

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.

"Let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil doers are those who do not base their judgments on Allah's revelations." Sura 5:47

So, the Gospels claim that Jesus was God along with the claim that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. If we reject these claims, we are going againist what your holy book says and therefore violating Allah's undefiled law. However, the Qur;an also claims that "God's word is perfect" and Muslims believe that the Gospel, along with the Torah and Psalms are God's word.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 9:

...However, there are facts that we know about the Historical Jesus...

Please present such facts in the thread I've set up for the purpose of examining this claim.

[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?