Islam vs. Christianity

[liamconnor]

We will compare two miraculous claims from both religions:

The claim that Mohammed ascended to God to secure a prescribed number of prayers required per day.

The claim that Jesus was resurrected from the grave.

Are the historical credentials equal? By historical credentials I mean (among other things): the gap between the alleged event and the first written reference to that event; implied eyewitness testimony; dissimilarity (is the claimed event congenial or at least congruent with the religious beliefs of those eyewitnesses, or does it force a new perspective upon those claiming to witness it)?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I'll start off by saying that Islam has a stronger case than Christianity for Muhammed meeting with Allah.
The meeting with God and the command for a number of daily prayers is found in the Quran and Muhammed wrote/dictated the Quran.
Compare this to Christianity, where the central figure of that religion leaves not one single word, not one letter, document, manifesto, anything at all in his own hand.

[Mithrae]

... dissimilarity (is the claimed event congenial or at least congruent with the religious beliefs of those eyewitnesses, or does it force a new perspective upon those claiming to witness it)?

From what I gather, accepting the nascent Islamic religion with the express purpose of overturning the traditional Arabian polytheism would have been both a greater theological turnaround and (perhaps more importantly) a more dangerous and daunting mission than the early Christians'. By implication, their conviction in whatever it was that confirmed the new religion (miracles, it seems we're assuming) must have been at least as strong or likely even stronger than the early Christians'.

[DanieltheDragon]

... dissimilarity (is the claimed event congenial or at least congruent with the religious beliefs of those eyewitnesses, or does it force a new perspective upon those claiming to witness it)?

From what I gather, accepting the nascent Islamic religion with the express purpose of overturning the traditional Arabian polytheism would have been both a greater theological turnaround and (perhaps more importantly) a more dangerous and daunting mission than the early Christians'. By implication, their conviction in whatever it was that confirmed the new religion (miracles, it seems we're assuming) must have been at least as strong or likely even stronger than the early Christians'.

how else do you explain the rapid expansion of Islam at a far faster rate than the growth of christianity? It's not like the authors who wrote down Muhammad's stories were lying either right?

[Realworldjack]

We will compare two miraculous claims from both religions:

The claim that Mohammed ascended to God to secure a prescribed number of prayers required per day.

The claim that Jesus was resurrected from the grave.

Are the historical credentials equal? By historical credentials I mean (among other things): the gap between the alleged event and the first written reference to that event; implied eyewitness testimony; dissimilarity (is the claimed event congenial or at least congruent with the religious beliefs of those eyewitnesses, or does it force a new perspective upon those claiming to witness it)?

I would not say that I necessarily, reject Islam. However, when we begin to look at the historical evidence involved, there is no comparison between Christianity, and Islam. In other words, I am a Christian because of the compelling historical evidence that supports it, and when we compare this evidence to the evidence that supports Islam, there is no comparison.

If you believe there is a comparison, then please supply the historical evidence in support of Islam, that would equal that of Christianity?

Are the historical credentials equal? By historical credentials I mean (among other things): the gap between the alleged event and the first written reference to that event; implied eyewitness testimony; dissimilarity (is the claimed event congenial or at least congruent with the religious beliefs of those eyewitnesses, or does it force a new perspective upon those claiming to witness it)?

Well, as I said in another thread,

Next, we have the author of Luke. This man writes, not one, but two long and detailed letters. The first is about the life of Jesus, and the second concentrates on the "Actions of The Apostles", after the death, and claimed Resurrection.

These two letters were never intended by the author to be read by you, and I, but were actually addressed to a friend named, Theophilus, and the author surely had no idea that what he was writing would later be compiled in a book we now call the Bible.

In the second letter, this author tells of the conversion of Paul, and as the letter continues, it becomes solely based upon Paul, and his journeys. The author never actually mentions himself, but does in fact begin to us the word, "we" when describing the events surrounding the life of Paul, as if he was there to actually witness the events.

This author goes on in this letter with the journey of Paul to Rome in order to stand trial, recording miraculous events, while continuing to use the word, "we", again indicating that he was there to witness the events. This author ends this second letter with Paul being under house arrest, and claims that Paul continued to preach even though imprisoned, and this went on for some 2 years.

These are just some of the things this author records, but now lets turn our attention to Paul, and what he wrote. You see, Paul writing to completely different audiences, backs up what is said by the author of Luke, and Acts. In fact, Paul actually writes letters while under house arrest, which back up the claim by this author. Not only this but, Paul actually tells Timothy in one of the letters he writes while under arrest, "only Luke is with me."

WOW! Now whether you like it or not, or whether or not you are willing to admit it, that is pretty strong evidence right there! It is evidence that Paul was indeed under house arrest, it is evidence that Luke was indeed with him, and it is very strong evidence that Luke was indeed the author of both the "Gospel of Luke" along with the "Actions of the Apostles."

Since this is the case, we now can say with confidence that at least one of the Gospels was written in the lifetime of the Apostles, and if this is the case, then there is no reason to believe that the others could not have been written by those they were attributed too, which would mean that they were written within the Apostle's lifetime as well.

All of this means, there is very strong evidence of an empty tomb. Another reason we know there is very strong evidence for an empty tomb is the fact that, there are those who are opposed to Christianity, and they realize they must come up with an explanation in an attempt to explain away the empty tomb.

You see, these folks are not claiming that the tomb was never empty, and that "there is no reason to even believe that there was." Rather, because they understand just how strong this evidence is, they realize they must, and have to come up with alternative possibilities, in order to explain away the empty tomb.

Next, why do you suppose that there are those who want to cast doubt upon who actually wrote the letters contained in the NT, and when they were actually written? In other words, why are there those who claim, "these things could have been written decades after the events?"

The only reason to do such a thing is if one realizes that these letters themselves are very strong evidence for the claims, therefore doubt must somehow be cast upon them. Otherwise, why would anyone bother with them at all? In other words, if these letters are not evidence, and they do not contain evidence, then why would it matter, who actually wrote them, or when they were written? It matters for the exact reasons that they are indeed evidence, and they contain evidence that is compelling because again, otherwise there would be no need in these alternative possibilities, now would there?

So yeah, it is very easy to simply throw out questions like, "what is the compelling evidence." It is quite another to actually sit down, and examine the evidence.

Like, how in the world would Luke, and Paul fabricate such things? Listen, Paul had it going on before his conversion, but the evidence is overwhelming that he lived out the rest of his life, condemning his former life, and preaching the same Gospel he was so opposed too, to the point, at the end of his life, he spent at least two years in prison. What would "compel" one to do such a thing?

The thing is, there is reason to believe the Christian message, because there is very strong evidence to support it. Now, if you have examined this evidence, and you do not believe that a Resurrection actually occurred, then I am fine with that, because I understand that there are reasons not to believe. However, for one to claim that, "there is no reason to believe the Christian message", demonstrates one who completely ignores the evidence, and more than likely simply believes what they would rather believe, in spite of the evidence.

[marco]

how else do you explain the rapid expansion of Islam at a far faster rate than the growth of christianity? It's not like the authors who wrote down Muhammad's stories were lying either right?

Islam had military might; the booty its raiders got formed a great incentive to accept and be rewarded. Muhammad knew how to please and knew what pleased his men. Gold and the promise of virgins after death were attractions. And of course victory in battle is a great persuader, as is the threat of death.

On the other hand, "turn the other cheek" takes a long time to catch on. It was Constantine's might, not Christ's lessons, that won eventually.

[marco]

The claim that Mohammed ascended to God to secure a prescribed number of prayers required per day.

The claim that Jesus was resurrected from the grave.

Muhammad's Night Journey of the winged horse, Al-Buraq, can be taken as figurative, a dream sequence that offered the prophet information. A literal take is an absurdity - wings don't cause a horse to fly.

Resurrection, meaning the survival of Christ's teaching after his death, is a fine figurative idea. That a corpse rose up is silly, though perhaps not as picturesquely silly as Al-Buraq.

History has nothing to do with these tales.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I'll start off by saying that Islam has a stronger case than Christianity for Muhammed meeting with Allah.
The meeting with God and the command for a number of daily prayers is found in the Quran and Muhammed wrote/dictated the Quran.
Compare this to Christianity, where the central figure of that religion leaves not one single word, not one letter, document, manifesto, anything at all in his own hand.

I don't even know what you are trying to say. Do you understand the OP?

[liamconnor]

The responses so far indicate that Historical Methodology still remains an irrelevant tool: despite the fact that both Islam and Christianity are based on historical claims!

A simple question:

Is there even a CLAIMED (not "verified") eyewitness of Mohammed's ascension: anybody saying, I saw Mohammed rise up? Is there a name for this eyewitness?

If not, then already we do not even know if this story was intended literally or not. Nor can we ask whether it is likely the eyewitness was lying, for there is no eyewitness. Nor can we ask if Mohammed is lying, if the story did not come from him. That is, we cannot even doubt a claim, for no claim is made.

However, with the Resurrection, we have CLAIMED eyewitnesses. We have Paul, who claims that Peter and James and John and Andronicus and Junius.

We have the gospels, which CLAIM several women saw an occupied tomb, and then less than 72 hours later, witnessed the same tomb empty.

Please note (oh how tired I grow of defining A CLAIM):

All of this is mere data: facts to be interpreted to find out what REALLY happened.

And the FACT is, there is more historical DATA for Christianity than there is for Islam.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I'll start off by saying that Islam has a stronger case than Christianity for Muhammed meeting with Allah.
The meeting with God and the command for a number of daily prayers is found in the Quran and Muhammed wrote/dictated the Quran.
Compare this to Christianity, where the central figure of that religion leaves not one single word, not one letter, document, manifesto, anything at all in his own hand.

I don't even know what you are trying to say. Do you understand the OP?

Yes. I think it is YOU who hasn't got a clue. You ask us to compare the historical evidence of the Night Journey vs the Resurrection, and I point out that what we have for the Night Journey comes from Muhammed's own hand/from his dictation, versus what we have in the Gospels being second hand information at best.
Primary source versus secondary source.

I thought you were a trained historian, liam?

However, with the Resurrection, we have CLAIMED eyewitnesses.

No. If you understood your own source material a bit better, you'd understand that there were no claims to anyone being an eyewitness to the resurrection. Jesus was alone in the tomb when it supposedly happened.
It's him meeting other people after supposedly returning from death that helped spark the religion.

We have Paul, who claims that Peter and James and John and Andronicus and Junius.

One man, claiming others...did what? Need I remind you of the difference between this and Muhammed's Night Journey? Paul's supposed experience happened years before he wrote it down, whereas Muhammed (last I remember) wrote about the Night Journey more or less as it happened.