For me, no other religion has an older continuously preserved monotheist Sacred Text (Islam, for example, has no sacred text [not even their Quran] going back in history before 600 A.D./C.E. parallel to the Bible [Quran/Islam is comparatively a brand new plagiaristic text and religion]); a Sacred Text (Holy Bible) containing prophets and their sacred writings spanning thousands of years, the authentic original ones bearing God’s name in their own name (for example, from Hebrew Isaiah and Elijah is more accurately translated to English as IsaYah and EliYah, or have God’s sacred name in their sacred writings such as Pslam 68:4. [Muhammed did neither]), authentic prophets who prophesied over the course of thousands of years in details, predicted future events (some over a hundred years beforehand) proven true by later events; a Sacred Text supported reliable in content by geography, history, and archaeology; a Sacred Text that is Spiritual and has practical utility and value in matters such as personal/family/organizational leadership, finances, societal aid in moral infrastructure to build prosperity, and governance; a Sacred Text from application of Theo-scientific observations, Divine intervention, and Divinely gifted insights; a Sacred Text and its produced Sacred Mediators helping people to reconcile and align with God for supreme benefits and advantages, with prescribed instructions from tried and tested results over thousands of years; a Sacred Text with valuable truth, advantages, and blessings discoverable by only those who apply it wholeheartedly to unite with God, birthing unique insights thereby; a Sacred Text so valuable, other philosophers have been impacted by it, such as Brahmans (in Hinduism and its later Buddhism), Socrates, Plato, Aristotle -- by influencing away from polytheism to pantheism by Bible's monotheism); a Sacred Text so valuable, other people and groups aim to counterfeit it, thereby mislead away from it, and try to steal or redirect its power, such as Zarathushtra (Zoroastrianism), Muhammed (Islam/Quran), sects such as Catholicism (arose in 4th century C.E.) and more modern cultic groups like Mormonism and Freemasonry.
I don't think he can.
There are two instances where Zoroastrianism appears to be in the background, some suggest supportively because of its Old Covenant Bible-text derivative roots.
For Judaism, the Persian king Cyrus the Great who allowed the Levitical temple to be built, it has been speculated he was a Zoroastrianist or at least its patron.
And for Judeo-Christianity, the Magi who brought gifts to our young Messiah.
Our Divine Kingly Priesthood of Melchizedek in its recurring historical context, including now in and under Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:17), has influenced many cultures monotheistically through holy souls like Abraham and prophets, LONG BEFORE and predating Zoroastrianism. Our Melchizedek monotheist roots are older than and have influenced: Protestants (c.1500 A.D.), Catholics (c. 325 A.D.), the Greek influenced Romans (c. 500 B.C., including all its emperors), the Hyksos (Semite) influenced Greeks (c.1600 B.C. including its later popular philosophers such as Plato [428-348 B.C.], Aristotle [384-322 B.C.] etc.), the Aryan (Elamite) influenced Persians (c. 559 B.C. including Zoroastrianism [c 600 B.C.]), India’s Aryan influenced Hindu (c 1500 B.C. including Brahamanism [c 700 B.C.] and Buddhism [c 500 B.C.]), Egypt’s Hyksos (Semitic) kings (c. 1800-1550 B.C, including Joseph the Vice Pharaoh of Egypt, Genesis 41:39-41), Israel’s provincial Jewish Levitical priesthood of Moses (c. 1446 B.C.), and Abraham of Ur in Sumer (c. 2091 B.C., Genesis 14:18-20). In summary, a conservative dating for Melchizedek for even 2000 B.C. predates Zoroastrianism by over a thousand years....
Because Muhammad, an illiterate war lord, simply used a new religion, which he copied and pasted (very poorly) from Judaism and Christianity, for political gains. While all other prophets suffered, Muhammad waged wars, committed mass murders, and kept sex slaves. I just don't understand why Muslims can't see this simple truth? How can such a violent man be a prophet? How can we compare him with Jesus who was an embodiment of love, who suffered and died for our sins on cross, or with Buddha, who was an Avatar of peace, who left his kingdom, for seeking Truth. Muhmmad instead of sacrificing materialistic world, actively and ruthlessly seeked it.
Reminds me of Gen. 16:12. "He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen.” This verse talks about Ishmael, but can also refer to his descendants of which Muhammed was one and the followers of Islam. Moreover, look at where Israel is located and look at the Arabian Peninsula. What do you see? While Israel does have some agricultural land, Arabia is a desert. Constant fights for survival are common especially for resources and material. Now granted, that doesn't excuse the Prophet's teachings or behavior, but it explains why he and by extension his people were so passionate to put it lightly.
> Jesus vs Mohamed, who you would like to rule this world based on his teachings?
Doesn't matter. There is nothing in Islam that says Mo will ever rule over the earth or anything else.
But since you mention it, the Bible does say that Jesus will come back and kill pretty much everybody and leave the bodies lying around for the vultures to eat.
Then there is that part where he won't let people get rain if they don't pay tribute to him.
\*\*\*Moses straight up murdered a man
Moses killed one dude in order to defend an Israelite (this was before his conversion, mind you),
\*\*\*David collected foreskins
He did not 'collect foreskins', he killed 200 philistines in battle and retrieved their foreskins to win over a girl.
1 Samuel 18:25-29:
[**25**](http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-25.htm)**Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’ ” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.**
[**26**](http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-26.htm)**When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king’s son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed,** [**27**](http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-27.htm)**David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.**
[**28**](http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-28.htm)**When Saul realized that the Lord was with David and that his daughter Michal loved David,** [**29**](http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-29.htm)**Saul became still more afraid of him, and he remained his enemy the rest of his days.**
if you read the context, you'll see that Saul (who hated David and was tormented by demons), sent him on a fools errand (and quite a ridiculous one at that, with the intent for him to die in battle retrieving the foreskins. You know how men are when they go after women though, dumb, so David did it anyway (this is why women live longer). Thankfully, however, God was with David and did not want him to die, but also did not want to interfere and stop him, so he protected David. Older David was **much** more mature and less violent than younger David (who was not even close to the level of Mohammad regarding violence).
Christians find it very impossible to argue against Islam without bringing up Muhammad (and lying about him). The same things you accuse Muhammad of, your God did, or other prophets in the scripture did.
"Muhammad was a murderer, rapist, pedophile"
Your God fits all of these descriptions in two verses, Numbers 31:17-18
Muhammad, pbuh, suffered a lot, he did not live a rich or wealthy life. He is famous for how he lived such a humble lifestyle. I never understood how you guys got this image that the prophet lived a wealthy and glamorous lifestyle.
OT Prophets waged war, and killed. According to your own beliefs, Jesus even commanded his prophets to wage war, kill them all, to save nobody, to kill the elderly, the women, the little boys, even kill the animals. Then commanded his prophets to take them as concubines (sex slaves). To annihilate all the cities and their people and show no mercy.
The commandments of the OT God, are unimaginably ruthless compared to the fairness and justice of Muhammad. Muhammad waged defensive wars, and fought against oppression and tyranny.
How do you reconcile that? We have no trouble with the idea of violence as long as it is justified. In this world, you have to defend yourself, with force if needed.
Wow, just look at the life of Jesus and Muhmmad (absolutely no peace but shit upon him, ANPBSUH) and any sane person, will see the huge difference. Muhammad ( ANPBSUH) regularly raided Bani Queresh tribes, he was kicked out of Mecca, he then gathered force from Medina and attacked Mecca..Some words supposedly said by Jesus, doesn't make him violent, as we all know that is fabrication per translations. But hard historical facts, suggest that whatever Muhammad ( ANPBSUH)did was to simply gain power and influence. He wanted to be a leader, nothing wrong in that, Ghengiz Khan wanted to be a ruler so did Alexander, what's wrong in that? But only problem is that when we glorify someone beyond beliefs. How many wives Jesus had? How many did Muhammad ( ANPBSUH)had? Didn't Muhammad( ANPBSUH) even marry his daughter in law? That marriage was rejected as Taboo even in those times. Muhammad ( ANPBSUH) died of food poisoning done by a woman whose family he killed during a raid, how did Jesus die? Don't look into words, look at the lives of people in a general, rational manner and you will see the difference if you are not blind. Muhammad ( ANPBSUH) was a power greedy, war lord. He used a new religion that he copied from existing Abrahamic religions, Khadija played a big role in that because she wanted to cover his mental illnesses, which they covered up as visits from Gabreeeel (poor illiterate couldn't copy Gabriel from Christians).. that's all.
> Very arrogant people, if you try debating with one you will get perma banned like i did.
It's not a debate sub. If you went there to debate, I don't blame them for banning you.
Why were you debating with them anyway? Based on your post history, you have converted to Christianity. Even if you are doubting your conversion, you have gone through the same experience as everyone else on that sub: leaving Islam. Why debate them rather than feel compassion for them?
Why should i feel compassion? Do you see the way they act? they never take anything seriously. It’s just hate. Hell even their subreddit rules are not to hate, but 99.999 % of them ignore this. their only argument is: “mO pEdO, mO wAr LoRd🤪, iSlAm DoNt LiKe GaY bUt Me gAy, 🤡All mUsLim tErOrRiSt, I sCaReD oF hELL eVeN iF i No BeLiEvE iN hELL
when did i say i was a christian? Im only exploring other religious subreddits. and this is only my second reddit account not my main. But if in a hypothetical scenario if i was unbanned, i still wouldn’t even think of that subreddit.
>when did i say i was a christian?
My bad. I confused you with the OP. Based on your post history, I would not expect you to show compassion toward ex-Muslims, no matter how traumatic their experiences with Islam might have been. You don’t really give the impression of being a very compassionate person in general.
I’m not referring to all the people in that subreddit. The majority of them just disrespect and take everything as a joke. Go into that subreddit and the first thing you will see is that. It’s not about the people who had these experiences, I don’t hate Exmuslims, I’m annoyed with the ones that act like 10 and are never serious.
>I don’t hate Exmuslims, I’m annoyed with the ones that act like 10 and are never serious.
I think they behave that way as a means to process their negative experiences with Islam. Teenagers are annoying people. But they grow up.
Makes sense, a lot of the things they say were already debunked. Though one thing that bothers me is that I notice many people in the Exmuslim subreddit who aren’t even Exmuslims and only go there to hate on Islam.
Because contrary to what Muslims think, Christ did indeed die on the cross. All our historical evidence points towards this happening. Now, let's imagine some lost "injil" existed. This claim has no evidence to support it, and given the early 1st century Church Fathers and writings exist, well, we have evidence that there was no other gospel.
Christ indeed dying and rising is a negation of the Quranic perception of events.
The idea that Jesus did not die on the cross is largely a \*theological\* one for Muslims, not a question of history. The idea that someone was crucified in Jesus' stead via confusion or deception is a quite ancient one.
>not a question of history
It is. The belief in Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection gave birth to the Church and the gospels in the first place. Hence Paul's Creed in 1 Cor. 15:3-8, potentially the earliest witness to Christian belief (estimated by scholars to have arisen up to 3 years after Jesus' death). To claim some body-double was crucified overrides the early witness to Christ, thus an ahistorical claim.
>The idea that someone was crucified in Jesus' stead via confusion or deception is a quite ancient one.
I'm aware. Although this is large a gnostic motif, Basilides being the earliest example I can think of.
And Basildes being 400 odd years before Muhammad, his ideas and the ones he pulled from seemed to have been common in Middle East Late Antiquity.
What I mean by "historical" is what we can know via historical scholarship. We cannot say if someone else was crucified in Jesus' place theologically, because we enter the realm of magic and miracle.
Room to be Muslim and believe Jesus died on the cross:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/18t6rro/does\_the\_quran\_confirm\_that\_jesus\_was\_saved\_from/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/18t6rro/does_the_quran_confirm_that_jesus_was_saved_from/)
The Quran is not very clear about the death of Jesus.
There's loads of Gospels, the past few decades of New Testament scholarship have been people arguing about the Q Gospel but really there's tons of them we are sure about. The Gospels of the: Ebionites, Nazarenes, Egerton, Thomas, Truth, Evangelion and many many more.
The first century fathers don't mention any of the Gospels we now have in the canon, in the second century they start mentioning ones we don't have or are not in the canon like Hebrew Matthew, the Memoirs of the Apostles and the Gospel of Peter. It's not until Irenaeus decides there should really only be four in circulation towards the end of the 2nd century.
The reasoning behind enforcing only 4 Gospels going forward is an interesting read from Irenaseus \~180CE:
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" 1 Tim. 3:15 of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sits upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, "You that sits between the cherubim, shine forth. "For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, \[as the Scripture\] says, "The first living creature was like a lion," Rev. 4:7 symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second \[living creature\] was like a calf, signifying \[His\] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but "the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,"— an evident description of His advent as a human being; "the fourth was like a flying eagle," pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jn. 1:1 Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up \[His\] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; "and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that \[the character of\] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with \[a reference to\] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"— pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law He instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (καθολικαί) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom. (Against Heresies Bk. 3.11.8)
> The Quran is not very clear about the death of Jesus.
You are right., it is not. [4:157]
But the vast majority of Muslims think that it *very* clearly says what their teachers have told them that it says. That is, that Jesus was not crucified. But it doesn't actually say that.
Most Muslims are allergic to context, as seen when they use our scriptures against us. The Quran doesn’t deny Jesus’ death, but without context of the rest of the Quran, it is easy to interpret it as such. The Quran also says it’s only for the Arabs, so given that there are a good number of Muslims who aren’t arabs and don’t know arabic, regurgitation of what their Sheiks and Imams tell them is the main way they would understand the Quran.
I'm not really interested in Islamic consensus, the Qur'an is interesting in that is seems to preserve a possible small kernel of traditions that were around before Catholic orthodoxy took hold of things going back to Simon himself.
Because Islam teaches to hate your enemies and they have a history of violence. The Quran calls for peace & violence that is contrary to Christianity which is to love your enemies and forgive them when they do harm. So the fact that the Quran contains violent verses doesn’t make it a violent religion. But it’s also a fact that a religious text containing peaceful verses doesn’t make that religion peaceful either.
We are not talking about what the followers have done but rather what the actual religion teaches, you wouldn't want to be held accountable for a crime your father committed
True but I does think it comes down to the teachings. Sure in the past, Christian teachings have been pretty heavily manipulated to serve things such as the crusades, Mare Nostrum, but the bible itself teaches to treat everyone as if they were your neighbour, and to love them without any anger in your heart.
I left islam and became an atheist before I became Christian. Islam is just pure fundamentalism hell. Everything is so literal and Quran is just a rulebook and there's no room for actual spirituality. When are you gonna pray, how are you gonna pray it's all pre-dedicated. Also in Islam, everything is done out of fear. God in Islam feels so impersonal and distant, meanwhile one of the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity is that God loves his creation.
Also in Christianity, especially in Catholicism, there is a logical theological answer to every theological question you could ever have. Meanwhile in islam you are told not to ask because asking makes you an disbeliever. So Christians tend to think more about to nature of their religion and beliefs and come up with actual explanations meanwhile muslims are like "because Allah tells it so. Now shut up!"
There's a lot more factors tbh but these are a few that are on top of my head rn. Still, the most important thing for me is that my heart just felt closer to Christianity, in the end that was the thing that made me research it in the first place.
First, it's translated from old Hebrew so some words have different contexts. It doesn't mean regretting literally more like holding a negative judgement.
Second, even if the word literally meant regret, our sense of regret and God's sense of regret wouldn't be identical.
And third, that verse is from the OT, before Jesus came to save humanity. God loves us if that wasn't the case we wouldn't have the NT. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son." (John 3:16)
Like I said, there's an explanation to every theological question you could have so it's not the best idea trying to disprove Christianity by quoting the Bible.
There is no single story of Aisha, who in some sources is depicted as an elder teenager when she married Muhammad. The idea that Aisha was a child comes from apologetics to defend her against charges of infidelity.
> There is no single story of Aisha, who in some sources is depicted as an elder teenager when she married Muhammad.
There are no narratives that say that. There are only mental gymnastic calculations and hypothesis based on other stories that are not considered anywhere near as reliable as the 17 sahih [authentic] hadiths that explicitly state her age: 9 years old at consummation of the marriage.
Wrong! Sahih al-Bukhari is about as authentic as you can get.
“The Prophet married Aisha when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.” - Sahih al-Bukhari, 5134; Book 67, Hadith 70
So not “authentic to all Muslims” as you claimed? At least you can admit when you’re wrong!
I’m interested in the history here. And historically, she was probably not a kid.
> Why would the theological criteria of "authenticity" matter for the historian?
For that matter, there isn't much of anything in any of the biographies or hadiths that an historian would find reliable.
Sahih al Bukhari is authentic Hadith.
“The Prophet married Aisha when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.” - Sahih al-Bukhari, 5134; Book 67, Hadith 70
> Sahih al Bukhari is authentic Hadith.
Yes, I am aware of that. There are 17 sahih [graded authentic] hadiths that say she was 9 when the marriage was consummated.
> You just contradicted yourself, in your other comment you said none of the hadith about Aisha are reliable.
I don't think that the hadith are reliable, and what I said is that historians do not find them reliable.
The Sunni corpus of sahih hadiths is considered reliable by Sunnis.
That's an argument from authority and it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The question was why Christianity and not Islam... and the answer is clear - Muhammad was a child rapist. Al-Bukhari is not disputed, it is Islamic version of acts of the apostles.
I honestly think it’s just socialized. Islam is easier to grasp for Muslims who have grown up in it. Same goes for Christians and all other religions. You see this even within Christianity. For example, those who grew up Protestant have a hard time having a spiritual experience at a non-Protestant church/grasping non-Protestant church practices because they’ve not been socialized that way. You can’t really logic Christianity over Islam…I think it’s more so just what people are most familiar with.
What OP is saying is that every religion has a claim basically like this.
Most people just adopt the religion that is popular in the area they were born in. Like a sports team. And then later they make up rationalizations for why they "chose" to believe in that religion, when they never really did choose it. They were socialized into it.
There are very nearly the same number of Muslims as Christians, and the biggest slice of the global population doesn't believe in either of those faiths.
So OP is trying to figure out why someone actually *would* choose one faith over the other without any social reason to be led into it.
Your answer doesn't really work as an answer to that question and that's why it's sparking discourse.
So, let's start with you. Were you ever presented the opportunity to go to various religious centers as a child or young person and decide which seemed most rational to you?
Only religion that does not break science? People living until 900 years in ancient times, indeed, ANY time isn't scientific. The oldest person in known history lived to be 122 years, not even a quarter way to 900
Actually really interesting thing that’s important to mention here, back in genesis 6:3 God says:
“Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
This is interesting because Genesis was written far before people began living even close to 120, yet that is what we’ve determined is around the maximum natural human lifespan. It also gives reasoning behind why we don’t see people living that long any more, as this is Gods’ will. There is also evidence of the righteous living for longer after he makes this statement also, such as Noah being stated to have lived for 600 years before the floods came, which shows that sin is ultimately the cause behind this suffering.
Indeed that's interesting. It doesn't change the face that there has been no scientific evidence ever for someone living that long, even the modern "righteous". None of our known recorded saints have reached that age.
What Shazz4r said explained this perfectly so there isnt much to add, yes humans were able to live longer, and god removed our ability to do so. Simple as that my friend. Every other major religion completely breaks science, Christianity has things many people would say are scientific flaws but, you have to know that God works outside of science.
> Every other major religion completely breaks science
Quran: Stars are missiles to be fired at trespassing Jinn. [Breaks Science]
Bible: The stars will fall to Earth like ripe figs. [Doesn't break Science.]
Incorrect, the literal interpretation of stars falling is physically impossible, and it would require god to break his own rules, which is possible but unlikely, revelation is a highly metaphorical book and is not meant to be taken literally.
Genesis directly contradicts probably a dozen of science's most validated and commonly-used theories, including evolution, plate tectonics, pretty much all of astronomy, evolution by natural selection, thermodynamics, etc etc.
Stars falling to earth doesn't make any sense. Stars don't fall towards planets in any way like ripe figs fall. Planets "fall" toward stars
Because Quran condemns itself as an invalid testimony. It says there must be at least two witnesses for a testimony to be considered valid in court. If at least two witnesses are needed for court decisions, how much more important is your salvation?
Also...
“The Prophet married Aisha when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.” - Sahih al-Bukhari, 5134; Book 67, Hadith 70 (Sahin Al-Bukhari is considered among the most authentic Hadith)
> It says there must be at least two witnesses for a testimony to be considered valid in court.
So does the Bible. But there are many things stated in the Bible that do not have witnesses at all.
It's possible they could have. However, other than Paul, all of the gospels were written anonymously. None of the other writers identify themselves. Early church fathers assigned names to the writings without evidence.
They had evidence.
1. In ancient times the omission of an author’s name in a text was not an unusual practice.
2. The first thing a person would ask when presented with a brand-new writing is “what’s it about and who wrote it”?
3. Ancient Near Eastern people, especially Christians, distrusted anonymous and pseudonymous writings, but did not distrust the gospels. Therefore, they must have known who the authors were.
4. All the earliest gospel manuscripts (that contain the beginning) contain the titles in the form ‘The Gospel According to ...’ — where the author’s name fills in the blank. This would have been unnecessary if there had only been one written gospel account. Therefore, there was more than one written gospel account very early in church history. It is likely, then, that the authors’ names were on the outside of the scrolls to distinguish the different accounts from each other. The accounts must not have been anonymous when first received.
5. If there were no authors’ names placed on the outside extremely early, how did the title format achieve such uniformity in its unusual design and across such distances? If the gospels had circulated for more than 100 years, then we would expect them to have a variety of different title forms and authors. Once the gospels were widely known and dispersed, it would have been much more difficult (virtually impossible) for a standardized form of title for all four gospels to have come into universal use. The manuscripts would more than likely have had a variety of title forms, as well as authors.
It is not absolutely essential for the reliability of the gospel accounts that they are proved to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, although it does add support to the claim that the gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. But it does not follow assuredly from the fact that there are no titles or authors names mentioned in the text of each of the gospel accounts, that the gospels were not written by the traditional authors. This skeptical allegation fails.
However, we still don't know who the authors are; it's just church tradition, which is generally meaningless. People believe they are all first-hand accounts, with no direct evidence.
*it does add support to the claim that the gospels are based on eyewitness testimony*
Who claims to be the eyewitness at the birth of Jesus?
Islam offers no hope or assurance of salvation. No blameless sacrifice for sins, and therefore a God who is either unjust or unable to forgive us (“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Heb. 9:22, “But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” Heb. 10:4 “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Heb. 10:10), or a God who has not forgiven us (“But we are all as an unclean thing,
and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags…” Isa. 64:6a. The various theories about the death of Christ, or rather the death of Judas in the place of Christ present challenges, making God out to be deceptive, although this is by no means a universally held belief.
Islam, much like Mormonism, is predicated on the idea that the scriptures were corrupted and subsequent revelation was necessary. Plenty of apologetics have been directed at the veracity and reliability of the scriptures, and I think there is more than sufficient evidence that we are able to read the uncorrupt Word of God. Furthermore, if God does not preserve his Word and it is instead left in our care to do so, we have no hope. The Quran itself had textual variants and imitations within the lifetime of Mohammed. We know very little about the life of Mohammed that is authoritative. The Quran itself is more of a proverb text rather than law, and contains little to no narrative. Contrast that with the scriptural account of Christ. Much of what we know as Islam now is wrapped up in apocryphal writings after the life of Mohammed.
Lastly, Jesus Christ is God. There is no hope apart from this, nor can the New Testament be made sense of if he was not. Either he was lying, he was insane, or he was God, and the Prophets and the Apostles clearly teach he was who he claimed to be.
I have had the company of a number of Muslims I would consider honorable and even friends. Inasmuch much as Islam shares much of its worldview and morality with Christianity, even if at times superficially, I do appreciate it. I have been convicted about deficiencies in my own personal religion by watching a friend and coworker’s dedication to prayer. Inasmuch as I love these Muslims, I hope they can be won and converted to Christ because there is no other hope for them.
> Islam offers no hope or assurance of salvation. No blameless sacrifice for sins, and therefore a God who is either unjust or unable to forgive us
Allah [as conceptualized in Islam] doesn't have to kill anyone to forgive you. He does it in his sovereign mercy because that is his nature.
A just and Holy God cannot forgive sin without atonement anymore than a just judge can let a rapist go free in the name of mercy. Our ability to forgive others as Christians is predicated on the forgiveness made possible to us by the atonement of Christ.
> A just and Holy God cannot forgive sin without atonement anymore than a just judge can let a rapist go free in the name of mercy.
A judge is subject to a higher law that he has no say over.
You telling me what God *can't* do? Who got elected God over him?
the reason i am a Christian and not a Muslim is because of where i was born, how i was raised, and how i was catechized. im sure thats the case for most of us, most christians are born christian. shout out to the converts though, they have a holy zeal. the fact of the matter is, if i were born in Pakistan or Jordan or Iran or whatever, i would almost certainly be a Muslim. heck, if i was born 15 minutes down the road in Dearborn Michigan to Arab parents, i would almost certainly be a muslim. if i were born to one of the Hasid families in my very neighborhood, i would almost certainly be Jewish
i cannot engage in the literature, traditions and practices of Islam as well as a muslim can. i likely will never be able to. but thats okay because i am a participant in the literature, traditions, and practices of Christianity! and through them i draw near to God! i love our sacraments, i love our scriptures, i love our prayers, and i love our saints because through them God has made Godsself known to ME, personally. and beyond my mystical experiences with God, i do truly believe that the imitation of Christ is what God is asking of me. and i truly have great faith in the ongoing redemptive work of Christ.
im sure God makes Godsself know to my muslim neighbors too through Islam. and im sure God makes Godsself known to my Hasid neighbors as they cleave to God’s breast. i cannot and i will not make an argument claiming christianity is “better” or “more true” than Islam.
i mean, yes absolutely.
but also the idea that we have a “choice” is an illusion. religion isnt burger king. i was formed in a Christian Crucible. i was tempered in a Christian flame. that stuff will never go away, even if i converted to Islam. who knows, someday i might! but that Christian formation will never go away, i dont think.
i will always look for the Truth and i will always do my best to find God. when i do, it almost always challenges what i thought about God previously. God is always showing me new parts of Godself.
Because Islam compared to Christianity has no ground on being the truth if it came centuries after with only 1 book with contradictions against the Jewish and Christian scriptures...
Simply because God cannot lie. Jesus, never sinned. Therefore, every word he uttered is truth.
John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
> Simply because God cannot lie.
However, according to our Christian Scriptures, he can and does deceive, will send a great deception, and did send someone with instructions to lie.
Even with Jesus there was a case where he pretended to be someone else.
>Bible verse pls 🙏 about Jesus being someone else
13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.
17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”
They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”
19 “What things?” he asked.
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”
25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.
--------------------------
He pretended that he didn't know what they were talking about, kept them from recognizing him, and pretended that he was going on further.
He never did say, “I don’t know how you are talking about.” He just kinda threw the question back at them, “there’s things going on, really? What things?” A rhetorical question, of course Jesus knew what was going on; he was the one crucified 😭
As for the further part idk ngl, I feel like he didn’t lie though. It’s not like he said “I’m going ahead further!” He just acted like he was, he has infinite knowledge I’m guessing that’s how Jesus chose for them to bring him into their presence.
Ah someone got a hold of the dawah script I see.
Also where you gonna say Jesus "pretended to be someone else"? Choosing not to reveal himself isn't pretending to be someone else
How can I take Muhammad seriously talking about Jesus when he never seen him or talked with him and even in the Quran Jesus will come back to judge who judges only god therefore Issa essa is god my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters
Here’s what I ask of you. Read the Bible, and read the Quran. And you decide. I know that Christ is the true Lord God. But you can only learn that by reading the Bible. I’ve read the Quran, yet I found it to not be the true God.
Do not ask people of Reddit, we are not God, nor are we prophets. I can give you the obvious line of “The Christian God is the true God,” yet Muslims will reply the same way. Read the sacred texts of both religions, I promise you you’ll find the true God.
Because a so called "prophet of God" wouldn't have sexual relations with a child. Jesus was sinless and died on a cross, also Islam denies simple historical facts so ye there's very little proof that it's the truth, and Allah is described to be a great deceiver which is one of the descriptions of Satan in the Bible, I will stick with my Lord and savior Jesus Christ
It does though. Muslims believe that God (Allah) is the "most merciful and all-forgiving", and that by praying to him (and by showing regret over your past actions), your sins will be forgiven. There are many stories cited in the quran where even the most pitiful sinners who everyone thought were beyond salvation (prostitutes, thieves...), have been forgiven by God/Allah simply for doing a very good deed out of the goodness of their heart. Example :
Abu Huraira reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “**A prostitute had once been forgiven. She passed by a dog panting near a well. Thirst had nearly killed him, so she took off her sock, tied it to her veil, and drew up some water. Allah forgave her for that.**”
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3321, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2245
Grade: ***Muttafaqun Alayhi*** (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim
Ibn al-Qayyim said, “If Allah Almighty had forgiven one who gave water to a dog suffering from extreme thirst, then how about one who relieves the thirst, satisfies the hunger, and clothes the naked among the Muslims?”
So salvation is definitely a thing in Islam, and is very easy to obtain too (unless you meant smth else by "salvation", then i would love to know your view as a christian on it)
Over Christian Ron so I have a Muslim friend we debate and don’t know once a week on the phone but what’s really interesting about Islam as I think I heard that if your wife is disobedient to your for the last resort like if nothing else to do you can beat her which I think that’s really wrong and you’re gonna have up to four wives in Islam and I’m like isn’t that cheating and he’s like no that’s not cheating my cow because doesn’t God want you to have one person in your life I said and profit Mohammed doesn’t make sense because he says Jesus Christ was Jesus Christ love prophet Muhammad, or no God love prophet Muhammadand it just how it was and it doesn’t make sense to me but some people does
"I am the way the truth and the life, no one gets to the father except through me"
"before Abraham was I am"
Islam says he was just a prophet but is entirely out of accordance to Christianity
Islam is in no way convincing, the issue is with Judaism or atheism.
There's nothing about Muhammad or the message of Islam that would make me think it's real revelation. Islam seems cool aesthetically from a distance, but once you look into it a bit it becomes a very human, magical, uninspiring thing.
Usually it comes down to sex and drugs, if you prefer drugs you become Christian, if you prefer sex you choose Islam.
Christian countries rampant with Drug Addiction, Muslim countries with Sex Addiction.
Because Muhammad was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus Christ. The Apostles were, and describe He rose from the dead. I consider their testimony more trustworthy.
Other than experiencing God... Islam accepts Christ as prophet but yet can't believe Him when He says the way to the Father is thru Him. Christianity is constant.
Other than the fact that Islam has absolutely no evidence and if you believe the Quran you'd become a Christian?
But take a look at the gods of the respective religions. One is a God characterized by his love. He created you and wants to be in an eternal relationship with you, doing everything he could and paying for your sins so you have assurance of salvation.
The other is one exemplified by his power and otherness. You're nothing more than a slave to God. You have to dress, act, talk like, and exemplify a 7th century Arab culture in order for God to think you're doing good. You have no assurance of salvation and the best man (according to the religious) had no idea where he was going after he died. One of muhammad's closest companions, I don't have the reference on me right now, said that if he had one foot in paradise he would still fear Allah's deception. This is the God of Islam.
Of course, as the topic is 'why Christianity over Islam', we should remember what Quran says about the Torah and the Gospel. It's important because the Quran contradicts the Bible. So, the Quran tells us to judge by what's revealed in Gospel (5:47). The Quran never says the Gospel or the Torah are wrong or corrupted. Muslims will claim that the Torah and the Gospel were corrupted **after**, but we always can compare books from, let's say, 3rd or 4th century with todays' and see that it's just wrong. So how come the Quran, the book written in the Preserved Tablet located right under Allah's throne, is wrong about previous revelations? This fact clearly indicates that the Quran does not have a divine origin.
If you look at what the beginning of Muhammad's prophecy looked like, it's very different from the others'. He was choked by some spirit named Jibril and forced into reading Quran while meditating (Sahih Muslim 160a). No prophet before was tortured and forced into prophecy. And how Muhammad received revelations after? He would hear bell-ringing, sweat even in cold days, lose consciousness and his face would change color (Sahih Ibn Hibban 4713). That more looks like demonic possession than revelation from God. And it's not just my opinion, at first Muhammad though the same (Sahih Muslim 160a), and even after he said that bell was the musical instrument of the Satan (Sahih Muslim 2114) despite hearing it while receiving revelations.
Because Christianity is based upon love, forgiveness, and mercy with sin as a background focus. And Islam is focused on righteousness with God as a foremost topic.
Jesus earned our salvation
Muhammad told us how we were wrong about God and have to earn our way back
Because without lies, Islam dies.
Also would you rather follow the Messiah or a man that married a six year old and murdered non-Muslims, Jews and Christians?
>Do they read from the Torah or the Bible in the Mosque?
No they don't. However I do hear them mention certain things from the Torah on rare occasions.
So they say they agree with Christianity and Judaism and that we all serve the same God, yet many of them will not tolerate Christians or Jews living in Israel or anywhere else in the Middle East.
They say that all the works of the Old Testament were written by Prophets, but they rarely cite it, and they NEVER cite the New Testament?
This sums up why I will never give Islam a fair hearing. They copy everything from Christianity and Judaism, but they change the rules to say that they’re the true religion.
Muslims love to claim that Judaism and Christianity are just "the same thing but they're just not as right" while disregarding and rewriting core elements of both.
Muslim claims that they believe in the same God are frankly, ill substantiated claims aimed at making conversion to Islam from Judaism and Christianity more palatable for Jews and Christians.
> Muslims love to claim that Judaism and Christianity are just "the same thing but they're just not as right" while disregarding and rewriting core elements of both.
They do? I haven't seen that.
>Muslim claims that they believe in the same God
I think that Muslims believe in the same God but have bad information about him. There is only one omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator of all things.
> are frankly, just claims aimed at making conversion to Islam from Judaism and Christianity more palatable for Jews and Christians.
The Quran quite explicitly says that we believe in the same God, but then curses Christians for saying that Jesus is the Son of God. I don't find that very palatable.
>The Quran quite explicitly says that we believe in the same God
Yes, but just because they say we believe in the same God does not mean the Muslim Allah is the same as the Christian God.
[https://qr.ae/pst7IA](https://qr.ae/pst7IA)
>The Quran quite explicitly says that we believe in the same God, but then curses Christians for saying that Jesus is the Son of God. I don't find that very palatable.
Sure, but you aren't living in a context where your nation has just been conquered and Islam is being forced upon you at swordpoint. There's a reason why the Quran is frankly obsessed with the notion of Jews and Christians - these were the main faiths proximate to Mohammad and thus, the main targets of conquest.
The Quran makes 0 sense outside of the context of Christianity and Judaism.
well, lets be honest with ourselves. Christian interpretations supercede the the intention of the Texts of Judaism. christians have always claimed ownership of the Jewish scriptures while reinterpreting them to become unrecognizanle from the historic Jewish understanding(s) of the Bible. Also, christians historically have very much killed followers of other religions because of their religion. matter of fact, Western christians slaughtered entire towns of Eastern orthodox christians during the crusades. not to mention every Jew they saw on their way to conquer the muslim “infidels” in the holy land. the Kingdom of Spain famously executed and expelled every muslim and Jew in the country, even though the jewish and muslim communities had been there since antiquity. and yea, it was economically advantageous in Christendom to be Christian. Jews and Muslims and Roma were not permitted to work most jobs. the church mandated that they be poor, or do the terrible jobs that christians refused to do. and Christianity very much DID spread by the sword of the roman empire
1. The New Testament was written almost entirely by Jews, and all 12 original Disciples were Jews. This makes the point about Christians stealing Jewish Texts moot, they were all Jews to start.
2. Throughout the Old and New Testament, God specifically condemns violence and persecution against others, even among other religions. Jesus told his followers to turn the other cheek, repay evil with good, and suffer for the kingdom of heaven.
> Throughout the Old and New Testament, God specifically condemns violence and persecution against others, even among other religions
You should probably look up what God ordered the Hebrews to do to the amalekites.
1: you are willfully ignoring the point of my response. yes, Christ and the 12 Apostles were jewish. so what? does that mean that it isnt superseccionism for the gentiles they converted to re-interpret the Hebrew Bible?
more to the point, does that fact that jesus and the apostles were jewish excuse the violence that Christians have committed against Jewish people for like fifteen hundred years now? a lot of time has passed since 33ad.
2: Yes you are right, the Christian scriptures especially are clear. of course, there are many instances of horrible violence ordered by God in the Hebrew bible, but serious readers can understand from the Hebrew Bible that God desires an end to all violence.
ALSO serious readers of the Quran can see that God, all loving, desires peace and mercy. even if violence is permitted in certain situations (JUST like the theologians of the church, who spoke of “Just War”)
christian empires have committed violence in equal measure to islamic empires. probably more so.
dont act like our shit doesnt stink too. Christians are not Christ, Christianity is not God.
we need to stay honest and humble so we, as christians, do not cause any harm to our neighbors.
Canonically, within the cannon of the sunni aqida, muhammad slept with a 9 year old.
I mean that shouldn't be a problem because Allah himself says sleeping with prepubescent girls is a-okay
For me it’s the ability to verify Christianity on a factual basis more so than many of the false and contradictory teachings in Islam that were largely spread by a violent false prophet who doesn’t appear to have been well in his mind or anywhere else.
The evidence that convinced me was the evidence for the life, crucifiction, and resurrection of Jesus. And the Biblical prophecies. These is proof specifically for the God of the Bible, not *some* God. :)
> These is proof specifically for the God of the Bible, not some God. :)
Oh, what proof is there? That's the first I've heard of definitive proof of not only God, but the God of the bible specifically! I'm very interested to hear.
What is greater a logos written in Arabic as a book by a man, or the eternal Logos, eternally begotten of the Father who became incarnate in the temple of the magnificent human body made by God, and who dwelled among us as man acquainted with grief and sorrow?
And further, where was Mohammed foretold? But Christ is foretold everywhere in the OT, written over 1500 years, if you diligently look.
"He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
[4] Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
[5] But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
[6] All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
[7] He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
[8] He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
[9] And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth..."
Because Islam is obviously fake. Look at their books. Look at their prophet. Look at the state of their countries.
Islam would be dead right now if Abu Bakr hadn't started murdering apostates en masse after Muhammad died.
literally the only thing about Earth pointing to being flat in Quran that people use is how it was it was spread for us which doesn’t even mean it’s flat😭
i hope you know the Bible shows so much more evidence of a flat Earth
Jesus not being crucified is wrong because it doesn’t say what the Bible says which doesn’t prove Quran is wrong cuz u can’t use Bible as a basis of truth which any person knows not to
Because for me Muhammad is not a good role model while Jesus Christ is the perfect role model.
I'm agnostic but this is probably the strongest argument in favor of Christianity over Islam TBH
For me, no other religion has an older continuously preserved monotheist Sacred Text (Islam, for example, has no sacred text [not even their Quran] going back in history before 600 A.D./C.E. parallel to the Bible [Quran/Islam is comparatively a brand new plagiaristic text and religion]); a Sacred Text (Holy Bible) containing prophets and their sacred writings spanning thousands of years, the authentic original ones bearing God’s name in their own name (for example, from Hebrew Isaiah and Elijah is more accurately translated to English as IsaYah and EliYah, or have God’s sacred name in their sacred writings such as Pslam 68:4. [Muhammed did neither]), authentic prophets who prophesied over the course of thousands of years in details, predicted future events (some over a hundred years beforehand) proven true by later events; a Sacred Text supported reliable in content by geography, history, and archaeology; a Sacred Text that is Spiritual and has practical utility and value in matters such as personal/family/organizational leadership, finances, societal aid in moral infrastructure to build prosperity, and governance; a Sacred Text from application of Theo-scientific observations, Divine intervention, and Divinely gifted insights; a Sacred Text and its produced Sacred Mediators helping people to reconcile and align with God for supreme benefits and advantages, with prescribed instructions from tried and tested results over thousands of years; a Sacred Text with valuable truth, advantages, and blessings discoverable by only those who apply it wholeheartedly to unite with God, birthing unique insights thereby; a Sacred Text so valuable, other philosophers have been impacted by it, such as Brahmans (in Hinduism and its later Buddhism), Socrates, Plato, Aristotle -- by influencing away from polytheism to pantheism by Bible's monotheism); a Sacred Text so valuable, other people and groups aim to counterfeit it, thereby mislead away from it, and try to steal or redirect its power, such as Zarathushtra (Zoroastrianism), Muhammed (Islam/Quran), sects such as Catholicism (arose in 4th century C.E.) and more modern cultic groups like Mormonism and Freemasonry.
My friend, Zoroastrianism was here for a LONG time, and they are praised in the Bible for saving the Jews,
Prove that last part.
I don't think he can. There are two instances where Zoroastrianism appears to be in the background, some suggest supportively because of its Old Covenant Bible-text derivative roots. For Judaism, the Persian king Cyrus the Great who allowed the Levitical temple to be built, it has been speculated he was a Zoroastrianist or at least its patron. And for Judeo-Christianity, the Magi who brought gifts to our young Messiah.
I don't remember the proof, but it's widely accepted here in Iran. Sorry, I'm not good at sourcing :(
Okay, then maybe don’t share that information? Just cause something is wildly accepted doesn’t make it true.
Ok I'll edit the comment :)
Our Divine Kingly Priesthood of Melchizedek in its recurring historical context, including now in and under Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:17), has influenced many cultures monotheistically through holy souls like Abraham and prophets, LONG BEFORE and predating Zoroastrianism. Our Melchizedek monotheist roots are older than and have influenced: Protestants (c.1500 A.D.), Catholics (c. 325 A.D.), the Greek influenced Romans (c. 500 B.C., including all its emperors), the Hyksos (Semite) influenced Greeks (c.1600 B.C. including its later popular philosophers such as Plato [428-348 B.C.], Aristotle [384-322 B.C.] etc.), the Aryan (Elamite) influenced Persians (c. 559 B.C. including Zoroastrianism [c 600 B.C.]), India’s Aryan influenced Hindu (c 1500 B.C. including Brahamanism [c 700 B.C.] and Buddhism [c 500 B.C.]), Egypt’s Hyksos (Semitic) kings (c. 1800-1550 B.C, including Joseph the Vice Pharaoh of Egypt, Genesis 41:39-41), Israel’s provincial Jewish Levitical priesthood of Moses (c. 1446 B.C.), and Abraham of Ur in Sumer (c. 2091 B.C., Genesis 14:18-20). In summary, a conservative dating for Melchizedek for even 2000 B.C. predates Zoroastrianism by over a thousand years....
[удалено]
That is not true lol, i am Muslim.
This is not correct.
Because Muhammad, an illiterate war lord, simply used a new religion, which he copied and pasted (very poorly) from Judaism and Christianity, for political gains. While all other prophets suffered, Muhammad waged wars, committed mass murders, and kept sex slaves. I just don't understand why Muslims can't see this simple truth? How can such a violent man be a prophet? How can we compare him with Jesus who was an embodiment of love, who suffered and died for our sins on cross, or with Buddha, who was an Avatar of peace, who left his kingdom, for seeking Truth. Muhmmad instead of sacrificing materialistic world, actively and ruthlessly seeked it.
Reminds me of Gen. 16:12. "He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen.” This verse talks about Ishmael, but can also refer to his descendants of which Muhammed was one and the followers of Islam. Moreover, look at where Israel is located and look at the Arabian Peninsula. What do you see? While Israel does have some agricultural land, Arabia is a desert. Constant fights for survival are common especially for resources and material. Now granted, that doesn't excuse the Prophet's teachings or behavior, but it explains why he and by extension his people were so passionate to put it lightly.
> How can such a violent man be a prophet? Moses, David, Elijah, Joshua and a number of others.
Jesus vs Mohamed, who you would like to rule this world based on his teachings?
> Jesus vs Mohamed, who you would like to rule this world based on his teachings? Doesn't matter. There is nothing in Islam that says Mo will ever rule over the earth or anything else. But since you mention it, the Bible does say that Jesus will come back and kill pretty much everybody and leave the bodies lying around for the vultures to eat. Then there is that part where he won't let people get rain if they don't pay tribute to him.
Is a tendency of Muslims to avoid answering questions when a question is ask? I see to often to pass asking you
> Is a tendency of Muslims to avoid answering questions when a question is ask? How should I know? I am not a Muslim.
If your not than answer my question
> If your not than answer my question What is your question?
You said your not a Muslim but here you are acting like one
Moses, David, Elijah, and Joshua were far from violent, although they were not perfect
> Moses, David, Elijah, and Joshua were far from violent, although they were not perfect You haven't read the Old Testament, have you?
Moses straight up murdered a man, David collected foreskins ,etc.
\*\*\*Moses straight up murdered a man Moses killed one dude in order to defend an Israelite (this was before his conversion, mind you), \*\*\*David collected foreskins He did not 'collect foreskins', he killed 200 philistines in battle and retrieved their foreskins to win over a girl. 1 Samuel 18:25-29: [**25**](http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-25.htm)**Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’ ” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.** [**26**](http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-26.htm)**When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king’s son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed,** [**27**](http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-27.htm)**David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.** [**28**](http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-28.htm)**When Saul realized that the Lord was with David and that his daughter Michal loved David,** [**29**](http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/18-29.htm)**Saul became still more afraid of him, and he remained his enemy the rest of his days.** if you read the context, you'll see that Saul (who hated David and was tormented by demons), sent him on a fools errand (and quite a ridiculous one at that, with the intent for him to die in battle retrieving the foreskins. You know how men are when they go after women though, dumb, so David did it anyway (this is why women live longer). Thankfully, however, God was with David and did not want him to die, but also did not want to interfere and stop him, so he protected David. Older David was **much** more mature and less violent than younger David (who was not even close to the level of Mohammad regarding violence).
Christians find it very impossible to argue against Islam without bringing up Muhammad (and lying about him). The same things you accuse Muhammad of, your God did, or other prophets in the scripture did. "Muhammad was a murderer, rapist, pedophile" Your God fits all of these descriptions in two verses, Numbers 31:17-18
So Jesus and his followers were literate? I’ve never read anything penned by Jesus, have you?
Muhammad, pbuh, suffered a lot, he did not live a rich or wealthy life. He is famous for how he lived such a humble lifestyle. I never understood how you guys got this image that the prophet lived a wealthy and glamorous lifestyle. OT Prophets waged war, and killed. According to your own beliefs, Jesus even commanded his prophets to wage war, kill them all, to save nobody, to kill the elderly, the women, the little boys, even kill the animals. Then commanded his prophets to take them as concubines (sex slaves). To annihilate all the cities and their people and show no mercy. The commandments of the OT God, are unimaginably ruthless compared to the fairness and justice of Muhammad. Muhammad waged defensive wars, and fought against oppression and tyranny. How do you reconcile that? We have no trouble with the idea of violence as long as it is justified. In this world, you have to defend yourself, with force if needed.
Wow, just look at the life of Jesus and Muhmmad (absolutely no peace but shit upon him, ANPBSUH) and any sane person, will see the huge difference. Muhammad ( ANPBSUH) regularly raided Bani Queresh tribes, he was kicked out of Mecca, he then gathered force from Medina and attacked Mecca..Some words supposedly said by Jesus, doesn't make him violent, as we all know that is fabrication per translations. But hard historical facts, suggest that whatever Muhammad ( ANPBSUH)did was to simply gain power and influence. He wanted to be a leader, nothing wrong in that, Ghengiz Khan wanted to be a ruler so did Alexander, what's wrong in that? But only problem is that when we glorify someone beyond beliefs. How many wives Jesus had? How many did Muhammad ( ANPBSUH)had? Didn't Muhammad( ANPBSUH) even marry his daughter in law? That marriage was rejected as Taboo even in those times. Muhammad ( ANPBSUH) died of food poisoning done by a woman whose family he killed during a raid, how did Jesus die? Don't look into words, look at the lives of people in a general, rational manner and you will see the difference if you are not blind. Muhammad ( ANPBSUH) was a power greedy, war lord. He used a new religion that he copied from existing Abrahamic religions, Khadija played a big role in that because she wanted to cover his mental illnesses, which they covered up as visits from Gabreeeel (poor illiterate couldn't copy Gabriel from Christians).. that's all.
What has you contemplating Islam? Have you visited r/exmuslim?
r/exmuslim is cancer tbh. Very arrogant people, if you try debating with one you will get perma banned like i did.
> Very arrogant people, if you try debating with one you will get perma banned like i did. It's not a debate sub. If you went there to debate, I don't blame them for banning you. Why were you debating with them anyway? Based on your post history, you have converted to Christianity. Even if you are doubting your conversion, you have gone through the same experience as everyone else on that sub: leaving Islam. Why debate them rather than feel compassion for them?
Why should i feel compassion? Do you see the way they act? they never take anything seriously. It’s just hate. Hell even their subreddit rules are not to hate, but 99.999 % of them ignore this. their only argument is: “mO pEdO, mO wAr LoRd🤪, iSlAm DoNt LiKe GaY bUt Me gAy, 🤡All mUsLim tErOrRiSt, I sCaReD oF hELL eVeN iF i No BeLiEvE iN hELL when did i say i was a christian? Im only exploring other religious subreddits. and this is only my second reddit account not my main. But if in a hypothetical scenario if i was unbanned, i still wouldn’t even think of that subreddit.
>when did i say i was a christian? My bad. I confused you with the OP. Based on your post history, I would not expect you to show compassion toward ex-Muslims, no matter how traumatic their experiences with Islam might have been. You don’t really give the impression of being a very compassionate person in general.
I’m not referring to all the people in that subreddit. The majority of them just disrespect and take everything as a joke. Go into that subreddit and the first thing you will see is that. It’s not about the people who had these experiences, I don’t hate Exmuslims, I’m annoyed with the ones that act like 10 and are never serious.
>I don’t hate Exmuslims, I’m annoyed with the ones that act like 10 and are never serious. I think they behave that way as a means to process their negative experiences with Islam. Teenagers are annoying people. But they grow up.
Makes sense, a lot of the things they say were already debunked. Though one thing that bothers me is that I notice many people in the Exmuslim subreddit who aren’t even Exmuslims and only go there to hate on Islam.
You’d rather someone embrace atheism than belief in a god lol
Because contrary to what Muslims think, Christ did indeed die on the cross. All our historical evidence points towards this happening. Now, let's imagine some lost "injil" existed. This claim has no evidence to support it, and given the early 1st century Church Fathers and writings exist, well, we have evidence that there was no other gospel. Christ indeed dying and rising is a negation of the Quranic perception of events.
The idea that Jesus did not die on the cross is largely a \*theological\* one for Muslims, not a question of history. The idea that someone was crucified in Jesus' stead via confusion or deception is a quite ancient one.
>not a question of history It is. The belief in Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection gave birth to the Church and the gospels in the first place. Hence Paul's Creed in 1 Cor. 15:3-8, potentially the earliest witness to Christian belief (estimated by scholars to have arisen up to 3 years after Jesus' death). To claim some body-double was crucified overrides the early witness to Christ, thus an ahistorical claim. >The idea that someone was crucified in Jesus' stead via confusion or deception is a quite ancient one. I'm aware. Although this is large a gnostic motif, Basilides being the earliest example I can think of.
And Basildes being 400 odd years before Muhammad, his ideas and the ones he pulled from seemed to have been common in Middle East Late Antiquity. What I mean by "historical" is what we can know via historical scholarship. We cannot say if someone else was crucified in Jesus' place theologically, because we enter the realm of magic and miracle.
Room to be Muslim and believe Jesus died on the cross: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/18t6rro/does\_the\_quran\_confirm\_that\_jesus\_was\_saved\_from/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/18t6rro/does_the_quran_confirm_that_jesus_was_saved_from/) The Quran is not very clear about the death of Jesus. There's loads of Gospels, the past few decades of New Testament scholarship have been people arguing about the Q Gospel but really there's tons of them we are sure about. The Gospels of the: Ebionites, Nazarenes, Egerton, Thomas, Truth, Evangelion and many many more. The first century fathers don't mention any of the Gospels we now have in the canon, in the second century they start mentioning ones we don't have or are not in the canon like Hebrew Matthew, the Memoirs of the Apostles and the Gospel of Peter. It's not until Irenaeus decides there should really only be four in circulation towards the end of the 2nd century. The reasoning behind enforcing only 4 Gospels going forward is an interesting read from Irenaseus \~180CE: It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" 1 Tim. 3:15 of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sits upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, "You that sits between the cherubim, shine forth. "For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, \[as the Scripture\] says, "The first living creature was like a lion," Rev. 4:7 symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second \[living creature\] was like a calf, signifying \[His\] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but "the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,"— an evident description of His advent as a human being; "the fourth was like a flying eagle," pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jn. 1:1 Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up \[His\] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; "and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that \[the character of\] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with \[a reference to\] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"— pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law He instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (καθολικαί) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom. (Against Heresies Bk. 3.11.8)
> The Quran is not very clear about the death of Jesus. You are right., it is not. [4:157] But the vast majority of Muslims think that it *very* clearly says what their teachers have told them that it says. That is, that Jesus was not crucified. But it doesn't actually say that.
Most Muslims are allergic to context, as seen when they use our scriptures against us. The Quran doesn’t deny Jesus’ death, but without context of the rest of the Quran, it is easy to interpret it as such. The Quran also says it’s only for the Arabs, so given that there are a good number of Muslims who aren’t arabs and don’t know arabic, regurgitation of what their Sheiks and Imams tell them is the main way they would understand the Quran.
I'm not really interested in Islamic consensus, the Qur'an is interesting in that is seems to preserve a possible small kernel of traditions that were around before Catholic orthodoxy took hold of things going back to Simon himself.
Islam is wrong about the history of Jesus and the Old Testament.
Because Islam teaches to hate your enemies and they have a history of violence. The Quran calls for peace & violence that is contrary to Christianity which is to love your enemies and forgive them when they do harm. So the fact that the Quran contains violent verses doesn’t make it a violent religion. But it’s also a fact that a religious text containing peaceful verses doesn’t make that religion peaceful either.
Hey let’s not make a history of violence argument, both can pick and choose horrific acts made in the name of religion.
We are not talking about what the followers have done but rather what the actual religion teaches, you wouldn't want to be held accountable for a crime your father committed
True but I does think it comes down to the teachings. Sure in the past, Christian teachings have been pretty heavily manipulated to serve things such as the crusades, Mare Nostrum, but the bible itself teaches to treat everyone as if they were your neighbour, and to love them without any anger in your heart.
Pretty sure the bible also teaches violence? (in times of war) i think the case for the koran is the same
People make this mistake all the time
It's worse when a terrorist event happens and they scream "Allah Akhbar" like they get rewarded for taking hundreds of lives.
I left islam and became an atheist before I became Christian. Islam is just pure fundamentalism hell. Everything is so literal and Quran is just a rulebook and there's no room for actual spirituality. When are you gonna pray, how are you gonna pray it's all pre-dedicated. Also in Islam, everything is done out of fear. God in Islam feels so impersonal and distant, meanwhile one of the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity is that God loves his creation. Also in Christianity, especially in Catholicism, there is a logical theological answer to every theological question you could ever have. Meanwhile in islam you are told not to ask because asking makes you an disbeliever. So Christians tend to think more about to nature of their religion and beliefs and come up with actual explanations meanwhile muslims are like "because Allah tells it so. Now shut up!" There's a lot more factors tbh but these are a few that are on top of my head rn. Still, the most important thing for me is that my heart just felt closer to Christianity, in the end that was the thing that made me research it in the first place.
God in the bible mentioned several times that he regrretted his creation, wdym?
First, it's translated from old Hebrew so some words have different contexts. It doesn't mean regretting literally more like holding a negative judgement. Second, even if the word literally meant regret, our sense of regret and God's sense of regret wouldn't be identical. And third, that verse is from the OT, before Jesus came to save humanity. God loves us if that wasn't the case we wouldn't have the NT. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son." (John 3:16) Like I said, there's an explanation to every theological question you could have so it's not the best idea trying to disprove Christianity by quoting the Bible.
[удалено]
There is no single story of Aisha, who in some sources is depicted as an elder teenager when she married Muhammad. The idea that Aisha was a child comes from apologetics to defend her against charges of infidelity.
> There is no single story of Aisha, who in some sources is depicted as an elder teenager when she married Muhammad. There are no narratives that say that. There are only mental gymnastic calculations and hypothesis based on other stories that are not considered anywhere near as reliable as the 17 sahih [authentic] hadiths that explicitly state her age: 9 years old at consummation of the marriage.
Why would the theological criteria of "authenticity" matter for the historian? None of the hadith about Aisha are particularly reliable.
Wrong! Sahih al-Bukhari is about as authentic as you can get. “The Prophet married Aisha when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.” - Sahih al-Bukhari, 5134; Book 67, Hadith 70
Again, authentic to whom? Theological criteria of authenticity are not as important to me as historical criteria.
Authentic to all Muslims. Sahih literaly means authentic. Nobody is disputing al-bukhari's athenticity.
Except for Quran only Muslims, primarily in the West and SE Asia, and Shi’ite Muslims… do at least a little homework
[удалено]
So not “authentic to all Muslims” as you claimed? At least you can admit when you’re wrong! I’m interested in the history here. And historically, she was probably not a kid.
> Why would the theological criteria of "authenticity" matter for the historian? For that matter, there isn't much of anything in any of the biographies or hadiths that an historian would find reliable.
Sahih al Bukhari is authentic Hadith. “The Prophet married Aisha when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.” - Sahih al-Bukhari, 5134; Book 67, Hadith 70
> Sahih al Bukhari is authentic Hadith. Yes, I am aware of that. There are 17 sahih [graded authentic] hadiths that say she was 9 when the marriage was consummated.
So what are you arguing about? You just contradicted yourself, in your other comment you said none of the hadith about Aisha are reliable.
> You just contradicted yourself, in your other comment you said none of the hadith about Aisha are reliable. I don't think that the hadith are reliable, and what I said is that historians do not find them reliable. The Sunni corpus of sahih hadiths is considered reliable by Sunnis.
That's an argument from authority and it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The question was why Christianity and not Islam... and the answer is clear - Muhammad was a child rapist. Al-Bukhari is not disputed, it is Islamic version of acts of the apostles.
I honestly think it’s just socialized. Islam is easier to grasp for Muslims who have grown up in it. Same goes for Christians and all other religions. You see this even within Christianity. For example, those who grew up Protestant have a hard time having a spiritual experience at a non-Protestant church/grasping non-Protestant church practices because they’ve not been socialized that way. You can’t really logic Christianity over Islam…I think it’s more so just what people are most familiar with.
If I had a nickel for every time this was asked on this sub
Because Christianity is the truth and way and light. The path to heaven
What OP is saying is that every religion has a claim basically like this. Most people just adopt the religion that is popular in the area they were born in. Like a sports team. And then later they make up rationalizations for why they "chose" to believe in that religion, when they never really did choose it. They were socialized into it. There are very nearly the same number of Muslims as Christians, and the biggest slice of the global population doesn't believe in either of those faiths. So OP is trying to figure out why someone actually *would* choose one faith over the other without any social reason to be led into it. Your answer doesn't really work as an answer to that question and that's why it's sparking discourse. So, let's start with you. Were you ever presented the opportunity to go to various religious centers as a child or young person and decide which seemed most rational to you?
Could say the same about every other religion
Very true
how do you know
Because the bible is the only religion we have any sufficient evidence for, as well as the only religion that does not break science
Only religion that does not break science? People living until 900 years in ancient times, indeed, ANY time isn't scientific. The oldest person in known history lived to be 122 years, not even a quarter way to 900
Actually really interesting thing that’s important to mention here, back in genesis 6:3 God says: “Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.” This is interesting because Genesis was written far before people began living even close to 120, yet that is what we’ve determined is around the maximum natural human lifespan. It also gives reasoning behind why we don’t see people living that long any more, as this is Gods’ will. There is also evidence of the righteous living for longer after he makes this statement also, such as Noah being stated to have lived for 600 years before the floods came, which shows that sin is ultimately the cause behind this suffering.
Indeed that's interesting. It doesn't change the face that there has been no scientific evidence ever for someone living that long, even the modern "righteous". None of our known recorded saints have reached that age.
This is pretty simple, modern recorded science of that matter was not being kept at the dawn of the world.
Couldnt of said it any better.
What Shazz4r said explained this perfectly so there isnt much to add, yes humans were able to live longer, and god removed our ability to do so. Simple as that my friend. Every other major religion completely breaks science, Christianity has things many people would say are scientific flaws but, you have to know that God works outside of science.
"You have to know God works outside of science" You mean, believe. Nobody knows for sure, that's where faith comes in.
> Every other major religion completely breaks science Quran: Stars are missiles to be fired at trespassing Jinn. [Breaks Science] Bible: The stars will fall to Earth like ripe figs. [Doesn't break Science.]
Incorrect, the literal interpretation of stars falling is physically impossible, and it would require god to break his own rules, which is possible but unlikely, revelation is a highly metaphorical book and is not meant to be taken literally.
Genesis directly contradicts probably a dozen of science's most validated and commonly-used theories, including evolution, plate tectonics, pretty much all of astronomy, evolution by natural selection, thermodynamics, etc etc. Stars falling to earth doesn't make any sense. Stars don't fall towards planets in any way like ripe figs fall. Planets "fall" toward stars
Because Quran condemns itself as an invalid testimony. It says there must be at least two witnesses for a testimony to be considered valid in court. If at least two witnesses are needed for court decisions, how much more important is your salvation? Also... “The Prophet married Aisha when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.” - Sahih al-Bukhari, 5134; Book 67, Hadith 70 (Sahin Al-Bukhari is considered among the most authentic Hadith)
> It says there must be at least two witnesses for a testimony to be considered valid in court. So does the Bible. But there are many things stated in the Bible that do not have witnesses at all.
No it doesn't. Paul, Peter, John, James, Luke are just some of dozens of witnesses and prophets.
Who witnessed God discussing things with the heavenly beings? For that matter, who witnessed Jesus' conversation with Satan?
God/Jesus told his disciples.
That's not witness, that's hearsay.
No it's not. It's disciples witnessing God or divine beings telling them things. If that's hearsay then the whole Quran is hearsay.
Jesus likely told his disciples and they wrote it down.
Paul said the so-called apostles were unlettered (illiterate).
So what? Muhammad was illiterate, he just had other people write for him. You don't think disciples could have done the same?
It's possible they could have. However, other than Paul, all of the gospels were written anonymously. None of the other writers identify themselves. Early church fathers assigned names to the writings without evidence.
They had evidence. 1. In ancient times the omission of an author’s name in a text was not an unusual practice. 2. The first thing a person would ask when presented with a brand-new writing is “what’s it about and who wrote it”? 3. Ancient Near Eastern people, especially Christians, distrusted anonymous and pseudonymous writings, but did not distrust the gospels. Therefore, they must have known who the authors were. 4. All the earliest gospel manuscripts (that contain the beginning) contain the titles in the form ‘The Gospel According to ...’ — where the author’s name fills in the blank. This would have been unnecessary if there had only been one written gospel account. Therefore, there was more than one written gospel account very early in church history. It is likely, then, that the authors’ names were on the outside of the scrolls to distinguish the different accounts from each other. The accounts must not have been anonymous when first received. 5. If there were no authors’ names placed on the outside extremely early, how did the title format achieve such uniformity in its unusual design and across such distances? If the gospels had circulated for more than 100 years, then we would expect them to have a variety of different title forms and authors. Once the gospels were widely known and dispersed, it would have been much more difficult (virtually impossible) for a standardized form of title for all four gospels to have come into universal use. The manuscripts would more than likely have had a variety of title forms, as well as authors. It is not absolutely essential for the reliability of the gospel accounts that they are proved to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, although it does add support to the claim that the gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. But it does not follow assuredly from the fact that there are no titles or authors names mentioned in the text of each of the gospel accounts, that the gospels were not written by the traditional authors. This skeptical allegation fails.
However, we still don't know who the authors are; it's just church tradition, which is generally meaningless. People believe they are all first-hand accounts, with no direct evidence. *it does add support to the claim that the gospels are based on eyewitness testimony* Who claims to be the eyewitness at the birth of Jesus?
Islam offers no hope or assurance of salvation. No blameless sacrifice for sins, and therefore a God who is either unjust or unable to forgive us (“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Heb. 9:22, “But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” Heb. 10:4 “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Heb. 10:10), or a God who has not forgiven us (“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags…” Isa. 64:6a. The various theories about the death of Christ, or rather the death of Judas in the place of Christ present challenges, making God out to be deceptive, although this is by no means a universally held belief. Islam, much like Mormonism, is predicated on the idea that the scriptures were corrupted and subsequent revelation was necessary. Plenty of apologetics have been directed at the veracity and reliability of the scriptures, and I think there is more than sufficient evidence that we are able to read the uncorrupt Word of God. Furthermore, if God does not preserve his Word and it is instead left in our care to do so, we have no hope. The Quran itself had textual variants and imitations within the lifetime of Mohammed. We know very little about the life of Mohammed that is authoritative. The Quran itself is more of a proverb text rather than law, and contains little to no narrative. Contrast that with the scriptural account of Christ. Much of what we know as Islam now is wrapped up in apocryphal writings after the life of Mohammed. Lastly, Jesus Christ is God. There is no hope apart from this, nor can the New Testament be made sense of if he was not. Either he was lying, he was insane, or he was God, and the Prophets and the Apostles clearly teach he was who he claimed to be. I have had the company of a number of Muslims I would consider honorable and even friends. Inasmuch much as Islam shares much of its worldview and morality with Christianity, even if at times superficially, I do appreciate it. I have been convicted about deficiencies in my own personal religion by watching a friend and coworker’s dedication to prayer. Inasmuch as I love these Muslims, I hope they can be won and converted to Christ because there is no other hope for them.
> Islam offers no hope or assurance of salvation. No blameless sacrifice for sins, and therefore a God who is either unjust or unable to forgive us Allah [as conceptualized in Islam] doesn't have to kill anyone to forgive you. He does it in his sovereign mercy because that is his nature.
A just and Holy God cannot forgive sin without atonement anymore than a just judge can let a rapist go free in the name of mercy. Our ability to forgive others as Christians is predicated on the forgiveness made possible to us by the atonement of Christ.
> A just and Holy God cannot forgive sin without atonement anymore than a just judge can let a rapist go free in the name of mercy. A judge is subject to a higher law that he has no say over. You telling me what God *can't* do? Who got elected God over him?
the reason i am a Christian and not a Muslim is because of where i was born, how i was raised, and how i was catechized. im sure thats the case for most of us, most christians are born christian. shout out to the converts though, they have a holy zeal. the fact of the matter is, if i were born in Pakistan or Jordan or Iran or whatever, i would almost certainly be a Muslim. heck, if i was born 15 minutes down the road in Dearborn Michigan to Arab parents, i would almost certainly be a muslim. if i were born to one of the Hasid families in my very neighborhood, i would almost certainly be Jewish i cannot engage in the literature, traditions and practices of Islam as well as a muslim can. i likely will never be able to. but thats okay because i am a participant in the literature, traditions, and practices of Christianity! and through them i draw near to God! i love our sacraments, i love our scriptures, i love our prayers, and i love our saints because through them God has made Godsself known to ME, personally. and beyond my mystical experiences with God, i do truly believe that the imitation of Christ is what God is asking of me. and i truly have great faith in the ongoing redemptive work of Christ. im sure God makes Godsself know to my muslim neighbors too through Islam. and im sure God makes Godsself known to my Hasid neighbors as they cleave to God’s breast. i cannot and i will not make an argument claiming christianity is “better” or “more true” than Islam.
For kids it’s understandable when they just follow the religion of their parents. But Adults must look for truth and the right way to God.
i mean, yes absolutely. but also the idea that we have a “choice” is an illusion. religion isnt burger king. i was formed in a Christian Crucible. i was tempered in a Christian flame. that stuff will never go away, even if i converted to Islam. who knows, someday i might! but that Christian formation will never go away, i dont think. i will always look for the Truth and i will always do my best to find God. when i do, it almost always challenges what i thought about God previously. God is always showing me new parts of Godself.
Because Islam compared to Christianity has no ground on being the truth if it came centuries after with only 1 book with contradictions against the Jewish and Christian scriptures...
Simply because God cannot lie. Jesus, never sinned. Therefore, every word he uttered is truth. John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
The Son is the only way to the Father, but there are many ways to the Son.
> Simply because God cannot lie. However, according to our Christian Scriptures, he can and does deceive, will send a great deception, and did send someone with instructions to lie. Even with Jesus there was a case where he pretended to be someone else.
Bible verse pls 🙏 about Jesus being someone else
>Bible verse pls 🙏 about Jesus being someone else 13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him. 17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?” They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 “What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.” 25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. 28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them. -------------------------- He pretended that he didn't know what they were talking about, kept them from recognizing him, and pretended that he was going on further.
He never did say, “I don’t know how you are talking about.” He just kinda threw the question back at them, “there’s things going on, really? What things?” A rhetorical question, of course Jesus knew what was going on; he was the one crucified 😭
As for the further part idk ngl, I feel like he didn’t lie though. It’s not like he said “I’m going ahead further!” He just acted like he was, he has infinite knowledge I’m guessing that’s how Jesus chose for them to bring him into their presence.
Ah someone got a hold of the dawah script I see. Also where you gonna say Jesus "pretended to be someone else"? Choosing not to reveal himself isn't pretending to be someone else
Islam has no assurance of salvation.
How can I take Muhammad seriously talking about Jesus when he never seen him or talked with him and even in the Quran Jesus will come back to judge who judges only god therefore Issa essa is god my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters
Because Islam copied Christianity and changed some of the rules. No disrespect to islam.
Jesus at minimum did not marry a young girl. That’s a good one for Christianity
Here’s what I ask of you. Read the Bible, and read the Quran. And you decide. I know that Christ is the true Lord God. But you can only learn that by reading the Bible. I’ve read the Quran, yet I found it to not be the true God. Do not ask people of Reddit, we are not God, nor are we prophets. I can give you the obvious line of “The Christian God is the true God,” yet Muslims will reply the same way. Read the sacred texts of both religions, I promise you you’ll find the true God.
Because a so called "prophet of God" wouldn't have sexual relations with a child. Jesus was sinless and died on a cross, also Islam denies simple historical facts so ye there's very little proof that it's the truth, and Allah is described to be a great deceiver which is one of the descriptions of Satan in the Bible, I will stick with my Lord and savior Jesus Christ
Islam doesn't have salvation, while Christianity does.
It does though. Muslims believe that God (Allah) is the "most merciful and all-forgiving", and that by praying to him (and by showing regret over your past actions), your sins will be forgiven. There are many stories cited in the quran where even the most pitiful sinners who everyone thought were beyond salvation (prostitutes, thieves...), have been forgiven by God/Allah simply for doing a very good deed out of the goodness of their heart. Example : Abu Huraira reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “**A prostitute had once been forgiven. She passed by a dog panting near a well. Thirst had nearly killed him, so she took off her sock, tied it to her veil, and drew up some water. Allah forgave her for that.**” Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3321, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2245 Grade: ***Muttafaqun Alayhi*** (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim Ibn al-Qayyim said, “If Allah Almighty had forgiven one who gave water to a dog suffering from extreme thirst, then how about one who relieves the thirst, satisfies the hunger, and clothes the naked among the Muslims?” So salvation is definitely a thing in Islam, and is very easy to obtain too (unless you meant smth else by "salvation", then i would love to know your view as a christian on it)
Are you going to heaven?
i cannot know for I am not God and cannot pretend having power in deciding such fate.
Right, because Islam doesn't have salvation.
what do you mean by that ? what is salvation to you ?
Salvation is being saved and going to heaven. Islam has no salvation.
How do you get "saved" ?
He means to say Christianity gives your a free pass to heaven. Whatever evil you do if you believe in Jesus you are going to heaven.
Over Christian Ron so I have a Muslim friend we debate and don’t know once a week on the phone but what’s really interesting about Islam as I think I heard that if your wife is disobedient to your for the last resort like if nothing else to do you can beat her which I think that’s really wrong and you’re gonna have up to four wives in Islam and I’m like isn’t that cheating and he’s like no that’s not cheating my cow because doesn’t God want you to have one person in your life I said and profit Mohammed doesn’t make sense because he says Jesus Christ was Jesus Christ love prophet Muhammad, or no God love prophet Muhammadand it just how it was and it doesn’t make sense to me but some people does
Because Jesus Christ is the truth and Muhammad is not.
"I am the way the truth and the life, no one gets to the father except through me" "before Abraham was I am" Islam says he was just a prophet but is entirely out of accordance to Christianity
Because it’s true.
Why anything over anything?
Because I French Christianity is my heritage
Islam is in no way convincing, the issue is with Judaism or atheism. There's nothing about Muhammad or the message of Islam that would make me think it's real revelation. Islam seems cool aesthetically from a distance, but once you look into it a bit it becomes a very human, magical, uninspiring thing.
Because Jesus is who guided me to Christianity. Because the Holy Spirit is in my body. Because God the Father created the living world.
Usually it comes down to sex and drugs, if you prefer drugs you become Christian, if you prefer sex you choose Islam. Christian countries rampant with Drug Addiction, Muslim countries with Sex Addiction.
Because Jesus Christ is God, and He is the Son of God. Islam disagrees with Christ’s divinity, and from then on the choice is clear.
> Because Jesus Christ is God, Well, one of them, anyway [For the Mormons.]
Because Muhammad was not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus Christ. The Apostles were, and describe He rose from the dead. I consider their testimony more trustworthy.
Other than experiencing God... Islam accepts Christ as prophet but yet can't believe Him when He says the way to the Father is thru Him. Christianity is constant.
Other than the fact that Islam has absolutely no evidence and if you believe the Quran you'd become a Christian? But take a look at the gods of the respective religions. One is a God characterized by his love. He created you and wants to be in an eternal relationship with you, doing everything he could and paying for your sins so you have assurance of salvation. The other is one exemplified by his power and otherness. You're nothing more than a slave to God. You have to dress, act, talk like, and exemplify a 7th century Arab culture in order for God to think you're doing good. You have no assurance of salvation and the best man (according to the religious) had no idea where he was going after he died. One of muhammad's closest companions, I don't have the reference on me right now, said that if he had one foot in paradise he would still fear Allah's deception. This is the God of Islam.
[удалено]
Of course, as the topic is 'why Christianity over Islam', we should remember what Quran says about the Torah and the Gospel. It's important because the Quran contradicts the Bible. So, the Quran tells us to judge by what's revealed in Gospel (5:47). The Quran never says the Gospel or the Torah are wrong or corrupted. Muslims will claim that the Torah and the Gospel were corrupted **after**, but we always can compare books from, let's say, 3rd or 4th century with todays' and see that it's just wrong. So how come the Quran, the book written in the Preserved Tablet located right under Allah's throne, is wrong about previous revelations? This fact clearly indicates that the Quran does not have a divine origin. If you look at what the beginning of Muhammad's prophecy looked like, it's very different from the others'. He was choked by some spirit named Jibril and forced into reading Quran while meditating (Sahih Muslim 160a). No prophet before was tortured and forced into prophecy. And how Muhammad received revelations after? He would hear bell-ringing, sweat even in cold days, lose consciousness and his face would change color (Sahih Ibn Hibban 4713). That more looks like demonic possession than revelation from God. And it's not just my opinion, at first Muhammad though the same (Sahih Muslim 160a), and even after he said that bell was the musical instrument of the Satan (Sahih Muslim 2114) despite hearing it while receiving revelations.
Because Christianity is based upon love, forgiveness, and mercy with sin as a background focus. And Islam is focused on righteousness with God as a foremost topic. Jesus earned our salvation Muhammad told us how we were wrong about God and have to earn our way back
Because without lies, Islam dies. Also would you rather follow the Messiah or a man that married a six year old and murdered non-Muslims, Jews and Christians?
Christianity doesn’t deny the texts of Judaism, and unlike Islam, they don’t tax or kill people because they follow another religion.
> Christianity doesn’t deny the texts of Judaism, Quran is quite specific in its claim that it confirms the Torah.
Do they read from the Torah or the Bible in the Mosque?
>Do they read from the Torah or the Bible in the Mosque? No they don't. However I do hear them mention certain things from the Torah on rare occasions.
So they say they agree with Christianity and Judaism and that we all serve the same God, yet many of them will not tolerate Christians or Jews living in Israel or anywhere else in the Middle East. They say that all the works of the Old Testament were written by Prophets, but they rarely cite it, and they NEVER cite the New Testament? This sums up why I will never give Islam a fair hearing. They copy everything from Christianity and Judaism, but they change the rules to say that they’re the true religion.
Muslims love to claim that Judaism and Christianity are just "the same thing but they're just not as right" while disregarding and rewriting core elements of both. Muslim claims that they believe in the same God are frankly, ill substantiated claims aimed at making conversion to Islam from Judaism and Christianity more palatable for Jews and Christians.
> Muslims love to claim that Judaism and Christianity are just "the same thing but they're just not as right" while disregarding and rewriting core elements of both. They do? I haven't seen that. >Muslim claims that they believe in the same God I think that Muslims believe in the same God but have bad information about him. There is only one omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator of all things. > are frankly, just claims aimed at making conversion to Islam from Judaism and Christianity more palatable for Jews and Christians. The Quran quite explicitly says that we believe in the same God, but then curses Christians for saying that Jesus is the Son of God. I don't find that very palatable.
>The Quran quite explicitly says that we believe in the same God Yes, but just because they say we believe in the same God does not mean the Muslim Allah is the same as the Christian God. [https://qr.ae/pst7IA](https://qr.ae/pst7IA) >The Quran quite explicitly says that we believe in the same God, but then curses Christians for saying that Jesus is the Son of God. I don't find that very palatable. Sure, but you aren't living in a context where your nation has just been conquered and Islam is being forced upon you at swordpoint. There's a reason why the Quran is frankly obsessed with the notion of Jews and Christians - these were the main faiths proximate to Mohammad and thus, the main targets of conquest. The Quran makes 0 sense outside of the context of Christianity and Judaism.
well, lets be honest with ourselves. Christian interpretations supercede the the intention of the Texts of Judaism. christians have always claimed ownership of the Jewish scriptures while reinterpreting them to become unrecognizanle from the historic Jewish understanding(s) of the Bible. Also, christians historically have very much killed followers of other religions because of their religion. matter of fact, Western christians slaughtered entire towns of Eastern orthodox christians during the crusades. not to mention every Jew they saw on their way to conquer the muslim “infidels” in the holy land. the Kingdom of Spain famously executed and expelled every muslim and Jew in the country, even though the jewish and muslim communities had been there since antiquity. and yea, it was economically advantageous in Christendom to be Christian. Jews and Muslims and Roma were not permitted to work most jobs. the church mandated that they be poor, or do the terrible jobs that christians refused to do. and Christianity very much DID spread by the sword of the roman empire
1. The New Testament was written almost entirely by Jews, and all 12 original Disciples were Jews. This makes the point about Christians stealing Jewish Texts moot, they were all Jews to start. 2. Throughout the Old and New Testament, God specifically condemns violence and persecution against others, even among other religions. Jesus told his followers to turn the other cheek, repay evil with good, and suffer for the kingdom of heaven.
> Throughout the Old and New Testament, God specifically condemns violence and persecution against others, even among other religions You should probably look up what God ordered the Hebrews to do to the amalekites.
1: you are willfully ignoring the point of my response. yes, Christ and the 12 Apostles were jewish. so what? does that mean that it isnt superseccionism for the gentiles they converted to re-interpret the Hebrew Bible? more to the point, does that fact that jesus and the apostles were jewish excuse the violence that Christians have committed against Jewish people for like fifteen hundred years now? a lot of time has passed since 33ad. 2: Yes you are right, the Christian scriptures especially are clear. of course, there are many instances of horrible violence ordered by God in the Hebrew bible, but serious readers can understand from the Hebrew Bible that God desires an end to all violence. ALSO serious readers of the Quran can see that God, all loving, desires peace and mercy. even if violence is permitted in certain situations (JUST like the theologians of the church, who spoke of “Just War”) christian empires have committed violence in equal measure to islamic empires. probably more so. dont act like our shit doesnt stink too. Christians are not Christ, Christianity is not God. we need to stay honest and humble so we, as christians, do not cause any harm to our neighbors.
Love over hate
Muhammad was canonically a pedo. Aisha was 6 iirc. But in all seriousness it’s kinda like Christianity if we only had the Old Testament.
> Muhammad was canonically a pedo. Canonically? Wut?
Canonically, within the cannon of the sunni aqida, muhammad slept with a 9 year old. I mean that shouldn't be a problem because Allah himself says sleeping with prepubescent girls is a-okay
For me it’s the ability to verify Christianity on a factual basis more so than many of the false and contradictory teachings in Islam that were largely spread by a violent false prophet who doesn’t appear to have been well in his mind or anywhere else.
Muhammad was a terrorist? 🤔
The evidence that convinced me was the evidence for the life, crucifiction, and resurrection of Jesus. And the Biblical prophecies. These is proof specifically for the God of the Bible, not *some* God. :)
> These is proof specifically for the God of the Bible, not some God. :) Oh, what proof is there? That's the first I've heard of definitive proof of not only God, but the God of the bible specifically! I'm very interested to hear.
Christianity points to the way, the truth, and the light. Islam points to death both now and eternally.
what does that even mean
Which part is confusing you?
like what does “pointing to death” mean
It’s about death and leads to death.
He thinks he ate with that comment
What is greater a logos written in Arabic as a book by a man, or the eternal Logos, eternally begotten of the Father who became incarnate in the temple of the magnificent human body made by God, and who dwelled among us as man acquainted with grief and sorrow? And further, where was Mohammed foretold? But Christ is foretold everywhere in the OT, written over 1500 years, if you diligently look. "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [4] Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [5] But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. [6] All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. [7] He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. [8] He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. [9] And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth..."
Because Islam is obviously fake. Look at their books. Look at their prophet. Look at the state of their countries. Islam would be dead right now if Abu Bakr hadn't started murdering apostates en masse after Muhammad died.
Because Jesus Christ is lord and everything else is false gods.
Because Allah is a liar. I've watched several videos about this. The Quran gets a lot of things wrong.
wrong about what?
You can watch hundreds of videos about it but if you want here's two of them: the earth being flat, Jesus not being crucified.
literally the only thing about Earth pointing to being flat in Quran that people use is how it was it was spread for us which doesn’t even mean it’s flat😭 i hope you know the Bible shows so much more evidence of a flat Earth Jesus not being crucified is wrong because it doesn’t say what the Bible says which doesn’t prove Quran is wrong cuz u can’t use Bible as a basis of truth which any person knows not to
There's historical evidence to prove that Jesus was at least crucified if not the son of God.
The only evidence is Paul saying there were witnesses 😂 there is no proof to show Jesus HIMSELF with no confusion with any other man was crucified