Christianity vs Islam

To discuss Islam topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 21 times

Christianity vs Islam

Post #1

Post by WebersHome »

Islam is reputed to have elements in common with Christianity. You be the

1â—� Christianity's Jesus died by crucifixion.

Islam's Jesus did not die on the cross. (The Women 4.157)

2â—� Christianity's Jesus pre existed in another form before entering the world
scene as a human being.

Islam's Jesus is an ordinary human being and nothing more. (The Family of
Imran 3.59, The Dinner Table 5.75, and The Immunity 9.30)

3â—� Christianity's God has a son.

Islam's God has no son. (The Women 4.171)


Posts: 18
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 6:24 am
Location: cape town

Post #11

Post by snake »

[Replying to ttruscott]

Those who accept the literal account of Jonah take one of two main views regarding what happened to Jonah during his time in the belly of the great fish (Jonah 2). One view holds that Jonah died and later returned to life. The second view holds that Jonah remained alive for three days in the belly of the great fish. Both views agree on a literal reading of the book of Jonah and affirm God’s supernatural ability to rescue His prophet. The difference is whether to see Jonah 2:10 as a description of a weak and bedraggled Jonah or as a truly resurrected Jonah....

Those who argue that Jonah died and later rose again appeal to Jonah’s prayer in Jonah 2:2: “From the depths of the grave I called for help.� The use of Sheol, the Hebrew term for “the grave,� could mean that Jonah actually died. Yet the words “the depths of the grave,� seen as a poetic turn of phrase, could easily refer to an agonizing or horrifying experience.

There’s another reason that some argue for Jonah’s death and resurrection: Jesus said, “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth� (Matthew 12:40). The reasoning is that, since Jesus’ death and resurrection were actual, then Jonah must have also actually died and later returned to life. However, Jesus’ comparison does not mandate perfect congruency between the two events. Jonah’s hopeless situation was illustrative of Jesus’ death; Jonah’s sudden appearance at Nineveh was illustrative of Jesus’ resurrection. The three days was an additional similarity. Jonah returned from the edge of death; Jesus, who is greater than Jonah, returned from actual death. Analogies do not require absolute agreement in every detail.

The Bible does not explicitly state that Jonah died in the belly of the great fish. Those who theorize that he did die rely on inference and speculation. What is the evidence that Jonah stayed alive for the three days he spent in the belly of the great fish?

First, it is clear that Jonah prayed from inside the fish: “Then Jonah prayed to the LORD his God from the belly of the fish� (Jonah 2:1). At the very least, Jonah lived long enough to offer his prayer.

Second, the language of Jonah’s prayer is poetic in nature. Terms such as Sheol and the reference to “the pit� (Jonah 2:6) do not have to be interpreted so literally as to require physical death.

Did Jonah die in the fish, or was he alive the whole time? Either interpretation is possible, but the traditional understanding, that Jonah was alive for three days in the belly of a great fish, is more likely. Jonah, who everyone thought was a “goner,� emerged from the murky depths to bring God’s message of salvation to a lost and dying people. In so doing, he became a wonderful representation of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and life-giving message.

Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:56 pm

Post #12

Post by Muslim2016 »

[Replying to post 9 by snake]

ttruscott understands the importance Jonah's pbuh Sign/Miracle

So according to you Snake, Jesus pbuh was just using the sign of Jonah pbuh to show he would be assumed dead for 3 days and 3 nights, then rise and complete his mission?

If so, it means you still haven't really addressed the points I raised:

When he appeared out of the tomb, he disguised himself and prevented people from recognising him. A Spirit has no need to be afraid of anyone. <<points to him being alive, perhaps regained consciousness.

He prayed to Allah swt asking to be *Saved* from *Death* and had his prayers answered every time.

Jesus pbuh failed to convince everyone as Jonah pbuh had managed. Remember Jonah appeared to the enemies of Israel and even converted the King. Jesus pbuh appeared to his own people, was a Descendant of King David and yet failed to convince the people. After rising from the tomb, he avoids his critics.

I want to stick to point 1 until it is resolved before going to point 2 and 3 of the opening post. I certainly don't want to drag the Qur'an, its inception, and preservation in at this point. We know it says he wasn't crucified or killed, and are studying the Bible and Historical records to see what actually happened.

You are appealing to Paul to confirm the Crucifixion, knowing he was not an eyewitness. Written 20 years after, yet you do not have any *Original* letters of his going back to the 1st Century. If Paul is saying hundreds can attest to the events, then show me where are their accounts? The Crucifixion is central to Paul's teachings, one would expect written accounts from 1st Century Historians. The area had plenty, both Jew and Pagan. How often is it that:

GOD Creator of Everything in the Known Universe and Beyond comes to Earth :!:
Dies for the Sins of ALL Humanity
Huge Earthquake hits the area, which everyone feels
Sky turns dark - this one I can accept and would explain the confusion and conjecture.
Well know Dead Saints arise from their graves and walk amongst the living!
GOD Rises from the Dead

If not written about in detail, there should be some *mention* of these Epic Events. :study:

Posts: 18
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 6:24 am
Location: cape town

Post #13

Post by snake »

[Replying to Muslim2016]

Hi there

One of the instances where Jesus was not recognized was Mary Magdalene’s coming to the tomb early in the morning (John 20:15). Instead of recognizing Jesus, she first mistook Him for the gardener. One thing that is important to remember is that we do not know how far Mary was from Jesus when she misidentified Him. It could be that she was simply too far to clearly recognize who He was until He spoke to her. Second, we must remember that since it was very early in the morning, the light would not have been very bright which could also have made it more difficult for her to see Him clearly. When we couple that with the fact that she was not expecting to see Him alive, it is easy to see why she did not recognize Him from a distance until He spoke to her.

A second instance in which Jesus was not immediately recognized was when the disciples did not recognize Him when they were out fishing (John 21:4). This could also be related to the distance Jesus might have been from them....

What we can know for certain is that it was Jesus Himself who appeared to them because of all the testimony of those who saw the resurrected Christ. In addition, there was the witness of the remarkable change that took place in the lives of the disciples. Immediately before and after the crucifixion, the eleven apostles were in hiding in fear, yet after spending considerable time with the resurrected Christ, they became fearless evangelists proclaiming the gospel boldly no matter how strong the opposition. In addition, all eventually gave their lives for the sake of the gospel. Only witnessing the resurrected Jesus Christ can account for such a radical change.

The resurrection of Jesus is a fundamental and essential doctrine of Christianity. The resurrection of Jesus is so important that without it Christianity is false. Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:14, "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." Three verses later, in verse 17, he again says, "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." Though there are many subjects with which Christians may disagree and still be considered Christian, this is not one of them. To deny the resurrection of Jesus is to deny the heart of Christianity itself.

However, the problem in the resurrection isn't so much in agreeing that Jesus rose but in how He rose. Unfortunately, cults attack the resurrection of Christ and reinterpret it in different ways thereby denying His physical resurrection. We must ask if Jesus rose from the dead in the very same body He died in, or did He rise in a spirit body that was not flesh and bones? The answer to this question is vital. It separates true Christians from false systems. Therefore, here is the correct doctrine of Christ's resurrection; I consider it so important that it must be set off by itself as a statement of truth:

"Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died. This resurrected, physical body was a glorified, spiritual body. The spiritual body is not merely "spirit." The spiritual body is the resurrected, glorified, physical body."

The above-statement is the correct doctrine of scripture. As such, it stands against the Jehovah's Witness and the Shepherd's Chapel groups that state that Jesus did not rise bodily but spiritually. Neither group seeks to deny the obvious biblical declaration of Christ's resurrection; but they change the meaning of the resurrection, so that it really didn't happen. Did Jesus rise from the dead in the same physical body in which He died? Yes!

After the resurrection, Jesus was able to eat (Luke 24:42-43). He showed people His hands and feet with the nail prints in them (Luke 24:39; John 20:27), and people even grabbed His feet and worshipped Him (Matt. 28:9). As the reports of Jesus' resurrection were spreading, Thomas, who was doubting the resurrection of Christ, said, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." (John 20:25). Later, Jesus appeared to Thomas and said to him, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." (John 20:27).

If Jesus' body had not risen, then He would not have feet and hands with the same holes of the nails of the crucifixion. Consider the following verses as further proof that His very body was raised:

"When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord." (John 20:19-20).
"And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39).

It is obvious that Jesus was raised in the same body in which He died--with the same holes in His hands and feet. We see that Jesus proclaimed He had flesh and bones. Does a "spirit body" consist of flesh and bones? Not at all.

I have heard it said that Jesus' physical body died, but His spiritual body was raised. If this is so, then does the spiritual body consist of flesh and bones as well as the physical one? It makes no sense. Also, if Jesus did not rise physically, then what happened to His body? Was it dissolved? Was it moved somewhere? There is no biblical account of what happened to Jesus' body other than that it was raised from the dead. Therefore, His body was raised from the dead.

John 2:19-21

"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body." (John 2:19-21).

The phrase "I will raise" is translated from the single Greek word "egeiro." "Egeiro" is the future, active, indicative, 1st-person singular. The active voice in Greek designates who is performing the action. In this case, since it is first person, singular ("I"), Jesus is saying that He Himself would perform the action of the resurrection. This is precisely what the Greek says.

However, some still deny that Jesus rose from the dead physically--even when examining John 2:19-21. We can clearly see that Jesus prophesied that He would raise up the temple of His body as is clarified in verse 21 by John the apostle who states that Jesus was speaking of "the temple of his body." Therefore, this should be conclusive proof that Jesus rose from the dead in the same body in which He died. Clearly, John 2:19-21 shows us that Jesus predicted He would raise His very body--and He did so. Is this enough to put this issue to rest? You'd think so but resistance persists.

1 Cor. 15:35, 39, 42-44

35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?. . . 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. . . 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Verse 44 above is used in an attempt to establish the idea that Jesus did not rise physically but spiritually. Of course, I've already established above that Jesus was raised in the same body He died in--with the same holes in His hands and feet. We also saw that Jesus proclaimed He had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Again, does a "spirit body" consist of flesh and bones? The scripture nowhere declares such a thing.

Paul is not stating that there are two separate bodies to each person, the physical and the spiritual; and that after the physical one dies, the second and different spirit body takes over. Rather, when referencing the same body, he states, "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." (v. 44). The "it" is referring to the same body in both clauses--not separate and different ones. This same body becomes a resurrected body--which is the spiritual body to which He is referring. In other words, the spiritual body is the very same body he previously had though it had been changed into a spiritual one.

For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory." (1 Cor. 15:53-54).

Our perishable and mortal bodies put on the imperishable and immortal aspects of the spiritual body which is the physically resurrected and changed body of the believer. Jesus was simply the first fruits of this resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20). Therefore, we can see that our future resurrected bodies will be spiritual bodies. But, those spiritual bodies are in fact physical--the same bodies we have now only glorified. Otherwise, there is no resurrection.

According to your Koran Jesus was never crucified. Instead Muslims argues that the early disciples were deceived and that Allah delivered Jesus. According to Sura 4:156-157:

“And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .� And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.�

As far as I know, no professional historian (from the radicals to the conservatives, and all those who fall in-between) doubts that Jesus was crucified, an event attested to at least in 11 independent sources and that is further supported by persuasive arguments (in terms of archaeology and several criterion of authenticity). This means that Muslim apologists, in order to protect their faith, must paddle against the current of professional scholarship on a historical fact that is obvious to all. And a historical fact that musters good evidence in its favour.

However, the difficulty intensifies when one considers the nature of the evidence. For example, early attestation in textual sources for alleged events of history is a prized possession for historians, as professor David Fisher explains that a “historian must not merely provide good relevant evidence but the best relevant evidence. And the best relevant evidence, all things being equal, is evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself� (1). Of course, the closer the testimony to the purported events the more likely it has its roots in historical fact. This considered, how does the Koran, which claims Jesus was never crucified, compare in earliness to our best historical evidence?

We must realize the earliness and abundance of our evidence for the crucifixion. The crucifixion is attested to in at least 11 independent sources, the Pre-Mark Passion Narrative, Mark, Q, John, Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter 2:24, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Josephus Flavius, & Cornelius Tacitus. Of these 11 sources three of them are very early & independently attested as in a creedal formula (1 Cor. 15:1-11), hypothetical Q, and Pre-Markan Passion Narrative. This data falls between just five years (1 Cor. 15: 3-8 creed) to 85 years (Tacitus). That is solid data if we compare dates and the number of sources to many other figures of history. Agnostic historian and Professor Bart Ehrman claims that “Historians prefer to have lots of written sources, not just one or two. The more, obviously the better. If there were only two or two sources you might suspect that the stories were made up. But if there are lots of sources-just as when there are lots of eyewitnesses to a car accident-then it is hard to claim that any of them just happened to make it up� (2). We have this kind of corroboration and evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion.

However, when we consider the testimony of the Koran one is expected to believe that a 7th century text some 500 to 600 years removed from the latest of the above mentioned sources gets it right, and that the early sources get it wrong. In other words, we are to favour the late Koran over our early New Testament writers, church fathers, and ancient historians. The Muslim apologist will ignore all the evidence against the Koranic tradition in Sura 4 due to his theological belief that the angel Gabriel revealed to Muhammad the words of Allah. And that, for the Muslim, settles it. But for outsiders of Islam we don’t have to agree. In fact, we are able enough to weigh the evidence and come to our own informed conclusions grounded upon evidence.

One is simply left with two choices in this debate. Either one trusts the Koran despite its centuries late testimony, or one trusts an abundant body of textual evidence all agreeing on the central fact of Jesus crucifixion that dates well within 100 years of his death.


1. Fisher, D. 1970. Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. p. 62.

2. Ehrman, B. 2012. Did Jesus Exist. p. 40-41.

Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:56 pm

Post #14

Post by Muslim2016 »

[Replying to post 13 by snake]


Jesus pbuh being too far away leading to him not being recognised; Well lets look at those accounts:

The first was with Mary Magdalene - Now when she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, 'Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?' She, supposing him to be the gardener, said to him, 'Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.' Jesus said to her, 'Mary!' She turned and said to him, 'Rabboni!' (which is to say, Teacher) (John 20:14-16).

Interesting to note he's close enough to notice her tears and have a conversation with her. What's even more of interest is why she wants the body returned, so that, 'I will take him away.' - What does she want with a dead corpse that's been rotting for 3 days? (No need to answer, more something for you to ponder).

To absolutely prove he disguised himself we have another account in Luke's Hadith Gospel...

And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem. And they were conversing with each other about all these things which had taken place. And it came about that while they were conversing and discussing, Jesus himself approached, and began traveling with them. But their eyes were prevented from recognizing him (Luke 24:13-16).

So here he is walking several miles and conversing with 2 Disciples, and they have no clue who he is, his true voice and appearance is hidden from them.

The conviction of his Disciples is only documented within the Bible. There's no real mention of them in secular sources. No written testimonies of the 500 witnesses etc.
It's all taken on the word of the 4th Century Bible Hadiths and faith on your part.

I am all too aware of the importance of the Crucifixion according to Pauline Christianity, and people will defend the notion regardless of where the evidence may point. After all you believe your eternal soul is dependant on it. Paul was at loggerheads with James and the Disciples in Jerusalem. The Dead Sea Scrolls shows just how deep the divisions were. James, the elder brother of Jesus pbuh stayed true and followed the instructions given by Jesus pbuh, whilst Paul was promoting a very different Gospel. (Again something to think about)

"Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died. This resurrected, physical body was a glorified, spiritual body. The spiritual body is not merely "spirit." The spiritual body is the resurrected, glorified, physical body."

Clarity is Given in Mark 12:25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

So here we have raised bodies not requiring marital relations, akin to Angels no less.
Angels do not have flesh and bones nor require food and water. Neither would a glorified body show wounds from a crucifixion.

The evidence points to someone who narrowly escaped death, and is now being careful not to get caught again. The doubters were superstitious and presumed Jesus pbuh was a dead spirit walking amongst them, he shows his wounds proving he never died.

No need to appeal to the Qur'an as we are examining the Bible narrative.
On your 11 sources regarding the reliability of the crucifixion:

Q - this is a hypothesis used by Scholars of a document none have actually sighted
Mark, earliest and most reliable source of information according to most Scholars. It ends at Mark 16:8 in the earliest complete manuscripts.

John is widely regarded as the least reliable and shows strong hints of Gnosticism.
Paul is regarded as written Hebrews. Paul was not a eyewitness and preached a different Gospel to that of James as mentioned above.
1 peter - author disputed. If it was the beloved Apostle Peter, then why was his Gospel not allowed into the NT?
Clements, Ignatius and the Historians, Josephus and Tacitus were not eyewitnesses and likely recounting oral traditions.

There is also evidence showing tampering of texts and attributing these to Historians of the time.

I'm not relying on the Qur'an. I'm reading the Bible, asking thought provoking questions and questioning the reliability of your Scripture.

You quote David Hackett Fisher who I understand is a Christian Historian.

You quote Bart Ehrman and in doing so risk opening a can of worms:
Bart Ehrman gives an interesting theory in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium:

Why would John change the day Jesus was crucified from the earlier Mark narrative?

Possibly the author of John, our last Gospel to be written, is actually trying to say something, to make a “truth-claim� about Jesus in the way he has told his story. Readers have long noted — and this can scarcely be either an accident or unrelated to our present dilemma — that John’s is the only Gospel that explicitly identified Jesus as “the Lamb of God.�

In fact, at the very outset of the Gospel, Jesus’ forerunner, John the Baptist, sees him and says, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world� (1:29); and seven verses later, he says it again: “Behold the Lamb of God� (1:36). John’s Gospel thus portrays Jesus as the Passover lamb, whose blood somehow brings salvation, just as the blood of the Passover lamb brought salvation to the children of Israel so many centuries before. […]

John, or someone who told him the story, made a slight change in a historical datum in order to score a theological point. For John, Jesus really was the Lamb of God. He died at the same time (on the afternoon of the day of Preparation), in the same place (Jerusalem), and at the hands of the same people (the Jewish leaders, especially the priests) as the Passover lambs. In other words, John has told a story that is not historically accurate, but is, in his judgement, theologically true.

Ultimately Bart says, "Belief in the Resurrection is a theological assertion. It is not, and can not be, based on Historical proof "


Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:56 pm

Post #15

Post by Muslim2016 »

Point 2 from the OP:

"Christianity's Jesus pre existed in another form before entering the world
scene as a human being."

Jesus pbuh doesn't say that in the Synoptic Gospel Hadiths. This is found in the 4th Greek Gospel Hadiths attributed to John who had a very specific audience.

The Qur'an teaches all of us ever created or to be created existed in another form prior to entering the World as humans. John however is not alluding to this.

Qur'an 7:172 And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified." [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this unaware."

Point 3:

"Christianity's God has a son."

Being a son of GOD thousands of years ago meant pious God fearing person. This slowly changed under Pagan influence to literal Son of GOD.
GOD is also referred to as The Father in the NT. He is also referred to as Father in the OT;

Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

Jews understand this to be strictly metaphorical.
In The Qur'an Allah swt uses many names, but never 'Father', least we Muslims avoid calling Him with any of those names used by 'polytheists' and end up falling into the same error.

Both the OT and Qur'an make clear GOD is ONE and unlike His Creation.

"It is not (befitting) for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it "be" and it is." (19:35)

"He is the Originator/Inventor of the Heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion(wife) and He created all things? And He is of all things, knowing."(6:101)

So for the physical meaning of "father", it is impossible for Allah to be so. But for the meaning of a father(kindness, mercy, generosity, depending on, helper, protector, provider and guide, reason of our life...etc) - all of these characters/meanings are included in the word "Rabb" =Lord. He is the Lord of the all-worlds. (Rabb el aalameen).

The Prophet pbuh fully aware of the error the Christians had fallen into with their understanding of the word Father, never used the term when referring to Allah swt.

Posts: 18
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 6:24 am
Location: cape town

Post #16

Post by snake »

[Replying to post 15 by Muslim2016]

Good day my friend hope you doing well sorry for not replying to our last discussion a lot has happen if you want to continue on the same topic are a different topic I am all for it.........

Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 1:12 am

Post #17

Post by AKU »

snake wrote: [Replying to post 15 by Muslim2016]

Good day my friend hope you doing well sorry for not replying to our last discussion a lot has happen if you want to continue on the same topic are a different topic I am all for it.........
Jesus is dead. Do not dream of Jesus returning to earth.


Post #18

Post by manofIslam »

THE HOLY QUR'AN states very clearly that JESUS CHRIST (SAW) was NOT crucified and therefore did NOT die on a Cross.

Post Reply