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)?

[Realworldjack]

[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.

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.

GOOD GRIEF! I would think that the opposite would be the case. In other words, you would think that simply because one person made a claim, and no one else was said to have witnessed the claim, that this would be far less evidence, than having one who never leaves any thing at all in His own writing, but rather has numerous others who claim to have witnessed many different events concerning the individual.

On top of this, when these very same individuals who claim to have witnessed these events, go on to do so, the rest of their lives, compared to one person, who simply has to convince others.

In other words Mohammad, simply made the claims. He did not supply other witnesses, and simply convinced others they were true, leaving these claims in writings himself. On the other hand, Jesus simply lives His life, does not leave any written claims about himself, what He did, or who He was, and yet we have all sorts of material containing the events surrounding His life.

I find it difficult to believe that there are those who would believe that the evidence even compares. One man, simply leaves in writing what he claims, with no witnesses. The other, never writes at all that we know of, and yet is more than likely the most well know figure in all of history. How could you even compare the two?

[marco]

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.

Data to be interpreted over this miracle - yes. Facts? We don't know. These people did not individually testify. But in any case, the evidence is for an empty tomb, not a resurrection from the dead. That is a conclusion and one NO historian would reach.

Your final statement is simply wrong. What you mean is that of the two miracles you've chosen, one has more apparent witnesses. Islam does have far more historical evidence as to its beginnings than does Christianity; the rise of Muhammad is an integral part of history; Jesus is influential by what Constantine did for him.

Importantly, Islam does not suffer at all if we regard the Night Journey as dream-inspired. Christianity suffers if we regard the Resurrection as figurative.

We are certain Muhammad existed; we know what he said and did and the effect.
We conclude that Christ probably existed.

If we want to be historically honest, Islam wins without the flying horse.

[alwayson]

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.

The section on turning the other cheek and other aspects of legal pacifism (Mt. 5.38-42) has been redacted from the Greek text of Isa. 50.6-9.

Paul never says Jesus taught anyone. Not even Peter.

[marco]

Paul never says Jesus taught anyone. Not even Peter.

I'm sure this has a meaning but it escapes me. A parable is a means of teaching people a lesson. Was Jesus dumb, then, and his reported sermons fabrications?

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 14 by marco]

Mark and Matthew were written after the letters of Paul and are intended to be symbolic.

They are written in a symbolic ring structure like this:

A B C D D C B A.

Every "event" in Mark and Matthew is based on the old Greek version of the Old Testament or Paul's letters.

[marco]

One man, simply leaves in writing what he claims, with no witnesses. The other, never writes at all that we know of, and yet is more than likely the most well know figure in all of history. How could you even compare the two?

We are no longer comparing two disputed miracles but the contributions of two religious figures.

For my own part I don't believe Muhammad had any contact with God nor do I believe the Koran is God's workmanship. But it exists, for all to read and many who read the original Arabic are astounded that the illiterate Muhammad was able to dictate it. Muhammad's exact time on earth is well documented as are his actions, his wives and his death.

On the other hand we have tales of a preacher who wrote nothing; appeared out of the blue at thirty and disappeared into the Middle Eastern sky. I think there's ample room for comparison, especially when some biographers claim Jesus was himself not just a Prophet, like Muhammad, but God, indeed.

[Mithrae]

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...

Since my parents were not Muslims, and I didn't grow up in a Muslim-dominated region, and I've undertaken neither formal studies nor dedicated hobbyist interest in Islam, I'm going to go out on a limb here and answer "I don't know."

The question is what are you claiming?

Everyone here knows about the evidence - such as it is - regarding Jesus. It appears that all you are doing here is attempting to play off your own ignorance and my ignorance and (you hope) others' ignorance in order to pretend that the Christian claim is better. Though even with this rather tilted playing field, you've still found yourself compelled to ignore and dismiss a number of relevant comments in trying to make your way to this predetermined conclusion! I dread to think how poorly you would fare if you tried to present this argument on an Islamic forum

[marco]

[Replying to post 14 by marco]

Mark and Matthew were written after the letters of Paul and are intended to be symbolic.

They are written in a symbolic ring structure like this:

A B C D D C B A.

Every "event" in Mark and Matthew is based on the old Greek version of the Old Testament or Paul's letters.

Uh, huh - and the octave of a sonnet has rhyme scheme ABBA ABBA - which is as relevant here as what you say. I was challenging your statement that Jesus did not teach. What did he do then?

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 18 by marco]

Noone knows what Jesus did.

Scholars who accept that Jesus existed say the only thing certain is that Jesus was crucified.

[alwayson]

I was challenging your statement that Jesus did not teach.

Gerd Lüdemann says:

"Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a teacher, to his words as teaching, or to [any] Christians as disciples."

and

"Moreover, when Paul himself summarizes the content of his missionary preaching in Corinth (1 Cor. 2.1-2; 15.3-5), there is no hint that a narration of Jesus’ earthly life or a report of his earthly teachings was an essential part of it. . . . In the letter to the Romans, which cannot presuppose the apostle’s missionary preaching and in which he attempts to summarize its main points, we find not a single direct citation of Jesus’ teaching."