Islam or christianity which is true and why do you believe it is

[RoseofMary1]

No, everything you say is inaccurate.

 

[upant]

The religion is valid for those sincerely seeking the good of God.imo

but is it of God?

i think the problem with people and Islam is that they think because it has good aspect it is ok to just follow those. unfortunately Islam doesn’t work that way.

now you are free in this country to follow specific aspects but it will not go in a Muslim country or Muslim no go zone

 

[Benadam]

I lean towards thinking it was for nefarious purposes. Well, since I believe their religion is founded on dialogue with a fallen angel the christian elements are to provide a tool to proselytize christians. I think they might also be inserted for eschatological purposes. After all the angel’s name was Gabriel. That’s the angel that announced the Incarnation to the Virgin Mary. Why would God send Gabriel to deliver a message that initiates a religion meant to convert the world, then send him again six hundred years later to initiate another one that deliberately opposes it? It just doesn’t pass the smell test.

 

[Apache75]

Islam, LDS, JW or any religion that denies Christ divinty are all the same, FALSE. Any religion that thinks God would just change His mind or let His own Son die for no reason is b.s. If that’s the case then what reason was there for Jesus to be born? Was all that Jesus said and did for nothing? No. Not at all. Islam though is the worst of all these religions. I have no love for them or their beliefs. Especially how they deny Christ.

 

[drac16]

The Shariah developed over time. The commandment to kill apostates did not happen until Islam had gained immense popularity. When Muhammad started Islam, it was more or less about Judgment Day and the fact that everyone will be judged by God; that’s what the early Surahs are about. As it grew, outrageous teachings emerged, like the ideas that men can beat their wives, apostates must be killed and the luscious virgin wives in Paradise being given to martyrs. Muhammad was a military genius, but I don’t believe he was a prophet.

After studying the Qur’an for a few years and having been part of Islam for 6 years, I have come to the conclusion that Shariah was not given by God-- it was a system slowly developed over 22 years by Muhammad. It goes against the most authentic fact in ancient history; that Jesus died on a cross in the first century. We have more reason to believe that than almost anything in ancient history.

 

[Benadam]

I believe Muhammed really was communicating with an angel. Called himself Gabriel. I don’t believe the angel is Gabriel. So I’m not disposed to believe the spiritual source of their revelation is of God.

 

[arthra]

In the Koran an impostor died on the cross

4:157 And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

Actually I think the translation should read:

Pickthall: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Yusuf Ali: That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

“… It was made to appear” to them is based on the Arabic word “Shubiha”
See:
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=$bh#(4:157:15)

The meaning I would suggest is that they thought they had killed or crucified His Spirit thinking that by immolating His body they had killed His Spirit and Cause but such as we know was not the case.

 

[studiouscatholic]

I believe Christianity (catholicism specifically) is true because Christianity was established hundreds of years before Islam and the Bible was written by eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life and miracles. We not only have the Bible as proof of this but there is a lot of history and historical records which show Christianity to be in existence before Islam. I do believe that some of Islam has been based on Christianity though and I can respect those aspects.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

In the cases of Peter and Paul, it is generally believed they used secretaries to transcribe what they said.

As for your other claims, there is no evidence to conclude that the Gospels are not written by who they are attributed to. Doing so is historical revisionism because it seeks to replaced established understanding with conjecture based on no evidence.

People can think whatever they want, unless they have some evidence to support their positions, they are baseless and not a valid reason to discount the Bible. The people of the first century were not stupid, and many, many letters and other works attributed to various apostles were proven as forgeries. If the Biblical writings had been forgeries, there’s no reason to think they would not have suffered the same fate. You have to remember, these people were genuinely interested in the Truth. Christianity did not bring them fame, power, money, pleasures, or any of the other motives generally attributed to charlatans. It brought them suffering, derision, exile, and the most excruciating deaths. They did not take it lightly, and thoroughly vetted what they taught and read.

 

[De_Maria]

I’ve studied the evidence for Mohamed’s claims and here’s why I don’t believe the Quran.

The first thing to remember is:

There are two types of evidence which are regularly judged inadmissible in a court of law. Anyone making a claim which is supported by this type of evidence is regularly thrown out of court. In other words, the court will not even consider their case.

These types of evidence are:

1. Hearsay - Evidence given by anyone other than by the person giving the testimony.

For example: Jane said that John took the marbles. Did you see John take the marbles? No. Then we need to talk to Jane and not to you.

1. Copies of maliciously destroyed originals

For example. Sir, did you bring the documents we asked for? No, but I jotted down some notes that summarize the documents. How will we know that until we can compare your notes to the actual documents?

Hearsay

Mohamed is the founder of the Islamic religion. In Mohamed’s case, he says that an Angel appeared to him and said that he should write the Quran (the Islamic version of the Bible) and that the Angel told him what to write in the Quran. Therefore, all of Mohamed’s case is based on the testimony of the Angel which no one else saw and no one else heard. According to Mohamed, the Angel himself was not speaking for himself but for Allah.

Thus Mohamed’s claims can’t be verified nor confirmed.

That’s the first reason I don’t believe in Islam.

 

[De_Maria]

The second reason I don’t believe in Islam, is because the modern Quran can’t be verified. It is a copy of a maliciously destroyed original.

Copies of maliciously destroyed originals.

The second type of evidence that gets turned out of court regularly is a copy of an original document which was destroyed in order to prevent anyone from comparing the alleged copy to the original. In other words, a person destroys the original and substitutes the copy as evidence. If the copy was the duplicate of the original, and both were available, why not present the original?

This part of Islamic history is, well, unbelievable. But truth is sometimes, stranger than fiction. You be the judge.

Let me give you a bit of background in case you aren’t familiar with Islamic history:

It turns out that Mohamed never did what he claimed he was instructed by the angel to do. Mohamed never compiled the Quran into a single book. Although Muslims claim that he edited the Quran, it seems unlikely since the Quran was never even in one place during his life.

So, when Mohamed died, Muslims began to dispute over who had the true Quran. But they couldn’t agree. Along comes Uthman, a powerful sheik. He decides to BURN the originals and impose his own version of the Quran on Muslims.

If you don’t believe me, here it is in their own words:
Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to Uthman, O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before. So Uthman sent amessage to Hafsa, saying, Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa’id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).

What does that mean for us?

Well, if that were to happen in court, the copy which is being substituted for the destroyed original would be unacceptable as evidence. Why? Because the original was destroyed in order to prevent it being put into evidence. Therefore, the copy which is now being provided in its place would be unacceptable.

And that’s why I don’t believe in Islam.

 

[De_Maria]

Why I believe the Christian evidence.

As I noted, Mohamed claimed that he was given the Quran by an angel. But no one else ever saw the angel.

The Christian equivalent of Mohamed’s angel, is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ brought the Word of God to the world. He established a Church and commanded the Church to Teach all which He commanded.

In His Church there were thousands of people who heard His claims and witnessed the miracles which proved that He was who He said He was.

Now, since we’re comparing Christianity to Islam, people frequently compare Mohamed to Jesus. But that is wrong. Mohamed claimed he was given the Quran by an angel whom no one ever saw. So, Mohamed must be compared to Christ’s Church. The Church was given the Word of God from Jesus. Then Jesus ascended into heaven and has not been seen (except in Visions) since. The Church then passed Christ’s Teachings down through Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

Note that, unlike Mohamed, who never finished the Quran, Jesus accomplished all He set out to do. He established a Church and the Church has continued to Teach His Word through all generations to this very day.

So, I mentioned the unacceptable forms of evidence which led me to reject Islam.

1. Hearsay - Evidence given by anyone other than by the person giving the testimony.
2. Copies of maliciously destroyed originals

Are the Gospels examples of either of these types of evidence? No. The Gospels are examples of eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is acceptable in every court of the world.

1. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John are the personal accounts of the eyewitnesses.
2. The Gospel of Luke is the account of an interested party who interviewed the eyewitnesses.

Let’s go through the Gospels in order

 

[IWantGod]

I guess i just find the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ both spiritually and historically more compelling than the claims of Muhammad who was apparently visited by an angel on a mission to correct history hundreds of years after the fact…

I dunno… it just feels like a power move to me.

 

[Benadam]

Another thing, for me is, all the prophets before Muhammed are in agreement. Jesus didn’t appose the teaching of prophets before Him either. Muhammed is the first prophet I know of that opposes the teaching of former prophets. For instance, to them, God isn’t the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob but just the God of Abraham.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

People sometimes wrote things in the name of someone famous, in the hope that their ideas would get more respect. That is a reason why I think it is quite likely that the gospels attributed to Matthew and John were not really written by the apostles Matthew and John. And similarly the epistles attributed to John and Peter.

Once again, I’d like to point out that this is an absolutely baseless assumption. You are building the foundation of your world view on thin air. There is no evidence to support this position, and significant reason to dispute it, as mentioned above.

The fact that people do do that does not mean that they absolutely did do that. Add to this the devotion and dedication of the Apostles and first Christians, who would certainly have taken steps to verify the extreme claims presented in the NT, and there’s very, very little reason to doubt their attributions.

The same angel who was reported to have spoken to Muhammad was also reported to have spoken to Mary. In neither case are there other eyewitnesses seeing the angel or hearing him. So it is hearsay. Neither Muhammad’s claims nor Mary’s claims can be verified nor confirmed. So we can’t even know if angel Gabriel exists.

Yes, Mohammad used the same name as the Angel in the NT, but that doesn’t actually mean it was the same angel. Given the massive discontinuity between the NT, the Qu’ran, and extra-Biblical historical accounts of Jesus’ time, it’s quite clear that Mohammad was making stuff up as he went along. This means that, unlike your presumption of faulty attribution of the NT, there actually is a basis for concluding that Mohammad’s account was false. Combine this with the above-mentioned fact that the original Qu’ran was maliciously destroyed, and a heavily edited copy was promulgated in its place, and that’s even further reason to reject its claims.

 

[De_Maria]

[> quote=“TomMartin, post:45, topic:451994, full:true”]

The same angel who was reported to have spoken to Muhammad was also reported to have spoken to Mary. In neither case are there other eyewitnesses seeing the angel or hearing him. So it is hearsay. Neither Muhammad’s claims nor Mary’s claims can be verified nor confirmed. So we can’t even know if angel Gabriel exists.

[/QUOTE]
Wrong. The name is similar but not identical. Gibreel is the name of Mohamed’s purported angel. The name means God’s wind. Gabriel is Mary’s Angel. The name means Power of God.

We know that the Anunciation is true because of the veracity of the Gospels. We can trust the Gospels because of the signs and miracles provided by Jesus Christ.

Mohamed provided no signs or miracles to back up his claims.

 

[De_Maria]

People sometimes wrote things in the name of someone famous, in the hope that their ideas would get more respect. That is a reason why I think it is quite likely that the gospels attributed to Matthew and John were not really written by the apostles Matthew and John. And similarly the epistles attributed to John and Peter.

Lets see. Sacred Tradition says that Matthew and John were written by Sts Matthew and John. But Tom says maybe they were nt based on mere suspicion. Fellow Catholics, whom do you believe?

 

[SeekersElite]

Actually, I am a Muslim and I choose Islam because it has answers to every doubt or question. It fends for itself I mean, unlike Christianity where even some Christian leaders fear to answer certain questions about Christianity. Thanks

 

[De_Maria]

Actually, there is little evidence that the original Qur’an was destroyed.

I posted the evidence and it is well attested by historical Muslims.

The tradition says that Muhammad was illiterate, so he did not write anything, he just recited the Qur’an,

Lol! That is the lie that Muhammad put forth. But, there is another historical witness who proves that was false. This is a verse from the Quran, where the purported angel is commanding Muhammad to read.

Read! (Iqra) In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists) … Read! (Iqra) And your Lord is the Most Generous, Who has taught (the writing) by the pen [the first person to write was Prophet Idrees (Enoch)], S. 96:1, 3-4 Hilali-Khan

So, you have a choice, you either believe that Muhammad was illiterate and contradict the Quran. Or you believe the Quran.

and others memorized parts and even wrote parts.

Here’s what Uthman wrote about that state of affairs.

Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to Uthman, O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before. So Uthman sent amessage to Hafsa, saying, Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa’id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).

Uthman was Muhammad’s contemporary. He did what he thought was necessary. He destroyed all the conflicting versions of the Quran and replaced them with his own.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d with TomMartin

Later whole Qur’ans were written, and the wording of a few verses disagreed in different copies, so then a decision was made to write an inspired copy and destroy the other copies, so it would not cause confusion, that they disagreed in a few verses with the new copy. No evidence that the destruction was meant maliciously.

The destruction was meant to hide the fact that there was no agreement in any of the versions of the Quran.

And as far as the few disagreements between the Qur’an and the Bible are concerned, Islam teaches that some copyists altered verses in the Bible maliciously, for example by calling Jesus the Son of God, and calling God the Father.

All versions of the New Testament call Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Not that I am calling the whole Qur’an inspired, I feel that if God exists and inspired some books, then he or she could not have inspired the whole Qur’an or the whole Bible, but maybe parts of both.

I am calling the whole Quran a fabrication by Muhammad and Uthman’s version an attempt to salvage the mess that Muhammad left behind. And I am saying that neither of them were inspired by God.

I am saying that the entire Bible, 73 books, are the inspired Word of God.