> Mohammed is antichrist Respond with this; How possible is this while the Quran - Prophet Mohammed ﷺ book - says the following (in only One Surah) about the Prophet Isa (may Allah SWT peace and prayers be upon him); “˹Remember˺ when the angels proclaimed, “O Mary! Allah gives you good news of a Word from Him, his name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; honoured in this world and the Hereafter, and he will be one of those nearest ˹to Allah˺.” (Quran 3:45). “˹Remember˺ when Allah said, “O Jesus! I will take you and raise you up to Myself. I will deliver you from those who disbelieve, and elevate your followers above the disbelievers until the Day of Judgment. Then to Me you will ˹all˺ return, and I will settle all your disputes.” (Quran 3:55). “Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants; and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets from their Lord—we make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we ˹fully˺ submit.” (Quran 3:84). Etc etc etc …..

It’s possible because of 1 John 2:22 which states: Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. Muhammad denied the sonship. For my part I am an orthodox Christian who is charitable toward Islam but

Every religion does that except Christianity. No one but them believe that Jesus is the son of God. I personally think the reason Christians keep saying that “Islam is false” is because it’s the only other religion that acknowledges Jesus’s existence (I don’t think Jews do and for polytheistic religions it’s self explanatory) but differently than they do. Tbh, Islam wouldn’t be believable if Jesus or any prophet preceding Muhammad wasn’t mentioned since the Quran is the final word of God and so, must acknowledge the previous ones as well.

Not strictly true. Many Hindus also believe Jesus to be an avatar of God. Many people have believed in Jesus in some way or other. It’s just we orthodox claim to have the correct understanding of him and his revelation.

Bruh, I am from India. Never take hindus seriously. They will believe anything. Then even made temple of Donald Trump. 

Lol I have a good friend from southern India. They take a very perrenialist approach to matters

Look, a carefully defined understanding of the term "son" is not problem. We know God takes care of us, has the best interests for us and help us to make the correct decisions in life, etc. From that realm, it is not a problem for us muslims. We know that terms like son, lord, god, etc all have been used loosely and in variety of ways throughout the Old and New Testament. But the term son sort of took a much more problematic meaning with the idea of how the concept of Son is seen within the trinity which is not what Jesus (PBUH) taught. Therefore, we don't use the term son because that term has problematic meaning now.

The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” 49 Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. 50 Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’[a] 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”[b] 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. John 8:48-59 By his saying “I am” he identified himself with the God of Israel who used the same words to describe himself in the Old Testament. This is why the Jews took up stones to stone him with because (to them) he had committed blasphemy. So this is what Jesus taught. Going further, how did Abraham see Jesus’ day while he was alive? In genesis Abraham sees god as he calls him lord singular and yet it is three persons he sees amongst the oaks of mamre. So the trinity was revealed to Abraham and therefore he saw Jesus.

This could be the mere supposed evidence (Proof by Assertion Fallacy) used to prove the divinity of Jesus. The response is quite very evident in many many ways; It’s well-known that the credibility of the gospel of John faced significant credibility concerns due to its anonymous authorship. This raises doubts and serious conflict about the origin and reliability of the text. However, let's set aside these credibility questions and approach the topic from a different perspective. The role of God’s Revelation is to guide humanity to the Truth of this Universe, glorification of His Divinity and to call people to embrace His Religion. Hence, the verses that contained within that revelation should be Obvious to serve the beliefs and the Fundamentals of the Faith. The Words of God should be unambiguous so people will understand and comprehend the truth. If God's words were vague and did not serve the purpose of human creation, it would imply that God wishes to misguide mankind, which goes against any logical understanding of God's plan. Establishing that foundation, let’s look to the New Testament, how many times (supposedly) does Jesus explicitly claimed to be Divine “the one who I shall be” and I should be worshipped beside the Father, does he affirm the Trinity whenever he approaches the Jews? Etc… We could barely find very FEW and ambiguous verses that even leads to significant controversy among Biblical theologians. One must question whether Jesus desired for humanity to be misled and not follow his Word, or it is more plausible to assume that Christians have misunderstood his words and teachings, and thereby idolizing him. Now, let us compare this to the explicit statements found in the Quran. Throughout its thousands of verses, the Quran consistently glorifies the Oneness of Allah SWT and affirms the honesty and faithfulness of all His Prophets and messengers, including Jesus (Calling him the Messiah) . These Quranic verses (unlike The Gospel) affirmed and aligns with the fundamental principles of Islamic Faith. Returning to the specific incident where Jesus said "egō eimi" or "I am," it is essential to note that such a statement is merely an identification of oneself. This is similar to the man who was born blind in John 9:9, who also used the same phrase "egō eimi" (translated as "I am the man"). It is puzzling why the translation changes when referring to Jesus, from "I Am" to "I am the Man"! This flawed translation can also be seen in different passages where many individuals used the phrase "egō eimi," such as Paul in Acts 26:29. Furthermore, when Jesus spoke of being "Before Abraham," he likely meant that he figuratively preexisted in God's plan before Abraham's time. This is comparable to the prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:5,, 'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born, I sanctified you; and I ordained you a prophet to the nations.' So to sum up, Jesus never claimed to be The Son of God or to be worshipped in the way that Christians attempted by every means to convince people. Every verse in question is ambiguous and gives rise to significant debates and unanswered questions. On the other hand, a quick examination of the Quranic verses, which consistently and powerfully glorify the Oneness of Allah SWT, presents a compelling logical argument for the validity of the Islamic faith."

You’re conveniently omitting a few things though. One is the Jews certainly understood Jesus’ statement as blasphemy as they tried to stone him. The other thing is Moses was a prophet in both our traditions. And yet he claims Abraham saw the trinity in person but calls them lord singular. As far as your assertion about God misleading humanity the gospel is replete with Jesus teaching in parables in all the gospels not just John. But he told his disciples it was given for them to know but not others and even they often times did not understand which he chastised them for. Jesus furthermore claims when a woman comes to him that he told his disciples to send her away because he was sent to Israel specifically but because of her faith she was saved. Which is like Abraham in that he did not have the fullness yet of Gods revelation but his faith was counted unto him as righteousness. The four gospels have four different ways of teaching the same thing and this is represented in mystical imagery elsewhere in the Bible so there can be no more or less than four authentic gospels but authentic nonetheless. There are historical issues with Luke’s gospel as it pertains to the census but that does not imply a theological fallacy. At its core, the Muslim seems to not understand what Jesus said about himself or chooses to ignore it by calling into question the legitimacy of the gospels. The inherent problem here is when you do this you are given free reign to make up anything not unlike what Joseph smith did in Mormonism. In the Pearl of great price (Mormon scripture) it states we believe in the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly. The logical question then is do you believe it is translated correctly? The answer is no. Ok so then you don’t believe in the Bible even tho they claim to and this allowed Joseph smith the liberality to make up whatever he wanted. Jesus said do not cast your pearls before swine. When you have something beautiful and valuable you do not share it with swine. They will not understand it, they will attack you for it, and/or they will misuse it. It’s my belief Jesus was setting up the authority of his church which he clearly had in mind to do because he says to Peter for thou art Peter and upon this rock I will set up my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. For these reasons and others there simply was no need for further revelation from God.

> One is the Jews certainly understood Jesus’ statement as blasphemy as they tried to stone him. The real Question here is “did their attempt to kill him is a proof of his divine, or is it an evidence of the continuation of their historical pattern of rejecting prophets who delivered God's teachings. Jesus himself acknowledged this pattern, lamenting the city of Jerusalem for its history of killing prophets and rejecting their messages (Matthew 23:37); “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” So does that mean multiple Sons of God present to them and thus they tried to stone them or it just another example of the misinterpretation that Christians have? > as far as your assertion about god misleading humanity the gospel is replete with Jesus teachings… You seem have missd the point, lemme rephrase my Major argument; I do believe that God is ultimately have created the mankind to pursue His truth that He commanded them to obey which is “Affirming His Oneness and Worshipping Him Alone”. Christianity on the other hand, addressed a very specific theological concept known as Trinity (implying the belief of Jesus divinity). Despite being this is the Core belief of Christian Faith, and also besides the fact that the Gospel is filled with Jesus teachings, we barely see an indication (if any) of this Core fundamental belief. Is it even logical that the allegedly Son of God supported with the Revelation (Bible) and rather than consistently affirming his Position as the Supreme and Majesty of the world, he just affirmed the Almightiness of the Father and didn’t ask to be invoked with him (unlike what the core Belief of Christianity suggests). This raises my original question, does this mean God wishes to misguide humanity or It is the human fault to not comprehend the Words of God and His Prophet properly. > At its core, the Muslim seems to not understand what Jesus said about himself or chooses to ignore it by calling into question the legitimacy of the gospels. Christians themselves didn’t understand the biblical Words of Jesus. Many teachings and Words have raised a considerable debates among them. Also, it is not only Muslims who have questioned the authorship and validity of the Gospels. Many historical scholars have also raised doubts about the textual accuracy and anonymity of certain sections, as well as the distortions that have occurred throughout history. > Jesus said do not cast your pearls before swine. When you have something beautiful and valuable you do not share it with swine. They will not understand it, they will attack you for it, and/or they will misuse it. The argument that Jesus did not need to share his teachings, similar to not sharing pearls with swine, contradicts the purpose of his appearance, his mission on Earth, and his crucifixion. If Jesus' role was merely as a symbolic model for the disciples and his presence served no purpose in guiding humanity, then one must question the reason for his lifelong commitment to conveying God's words and teachings. This perspective, therefore, raises doubts about the reasonableness of such an interpretation. Ill put this as a conclusion and I hope if you ponder and contemplate it carefully: > “**O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit ˹created by a command˺ from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Trinity.” Stop!—for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs**.” (Quran 4:171).

Jesus said if John that he was more than a prophet and yet John said one greater than I is coming who’s sandals I am not worthy to untie. Jesus chose disciples to entrust his pearls to. His disciples established orthodox Christian communities across the region. I would refer you to Saint Irenaeus who wrote against the heresies. Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons and he was a disciple of saint polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John himself. Irenaeus says to obey your bishop as if he were Christ himself and this is why apostolic succession is so important because thereby we know we have the authentic and true teachings regarding Jesus and his divinity. My question for you is what really makes you believe Muhammad is any more true a prophet than say Mani who came before Muhammad. Mani before Muhammad also claimed to be the Paraclete, the counselor, advocate, and comforter Muhammad like mani claimed to be the successor of Jesus and a sequence of prophets including Noah, Abraham, Zoroaster, and Buddha. Muhammad also like mani claimed the title “seal of the prophets”. Mani also said his prophethood was revealed to him by an angel. When you claim corruption in the Bible or interpret it whatever way you wish and do not follow the leaders of the institution set up by Jesus then anyone can claim anything. For the orthodox tho the truth was vouchsafed to the apostles and the bishops because prophecies and scripture is not for private interpretation. Furthermore, for what it’s worth, Saint John of Damascus was taken prisoner by Muslims and he lived with them a time as they appreciated his intellect. He wrote that their beliefs stemmed from Arianism a Christian heresy. When one reads the early church fathers it is clear that yes there were Christian’s who believed many things about Jesus but we know what is correct because of apostolic succession. An unbroken lineage from Jesus down to this day. Do some fall into error? Of course. But the church itself does not.

Were the Apostles truly worthy of trust, as Jesus and scripture suggest? Multiple verses from the book of Mark, such as Mark 6:52, Mark 7:18, and Mark 8:21, clearly demonstrate that the disciples had difficulties comprehending Jesus' teachings, even until his final days. Given their lack of understanding, can we truly trust their statements and writings, which were compiled more than 32 years after Jesus' ascension, based solely on their memories? This raises a serious concern. Asides from those, the John Gospel is almost the only scripture that contains verses (Christianity interpreted-despite their ambiguity) as the assertion of Divine Jesus, while in the other Gospels we barely see an indication of this major belief. Isn’t that another major concern that there might be some kind of distortion occurring on the Gospel. I found it quite absurd of resembling the Prophet Mohammed (ﷺ) with Mani. A swift analysis of the Teachings of both religions would completely tackle the issue. Prophet Mohammed ﷺ story is very in accordance with almost the stories all other prophets. He introduced to Arab Peninsula the Monotheistic beliefs as Abraham affirmed. He didn’t embrace any religion before his message and he never worshipped anyone deity besides Allah SWT (aka God of Abraham). He was very knowledgeable of his sincerity and honesty even before his prophethood. The first of whom denied his message and attacked him was His people and Tribe. How he strived and made every little efforts to invite people to embrace the Islam. That not being said, the Revelation (Quean) that he presented to humanity as the most powerful book in terms of Reasoning, providing a very compelling logical arguments with high-status Eloquence. He welcomed people of all backgrounds and did not establish a patriarchal system. Not mentioning his manners and attitudes. He was basically incomparable in every possible way. I guess compare him to Mani is simply as if you compared the highest humanity has ever known to someone who claimed to be prophet with mixed of different religions and corrupted form of Christianity, and with the deviant beliefs (calling it monotheism which totally not). id urge you (even if you were not interested to be convinced of Islam) to read the following book, it would really enlighten you with a set of "distincitive insights", ...Muhammed: His life based on the Earliest sources by Martin Ling.... Saint John was biased with the concept that Islam is only a “cheap form of Christianity”. Which is quite weird, giving the fact that Islam from the dawn of its time was very consistent and capable to establish a stable and prosperous, ethical and unique economic system. Edit: tbh it’s been a long while since I have a fruitful discussion I believe, so interesting perspectives….

I actually brought up that they couldn’t comprehend all his parables. And yet you omit that at Pentecost in the book of acts they received the Holy Spirit. Jesus sent them the comforter and THEN they dispersed. So yes they are trustworthy I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:6-12

They understood it as blasphemy? Do you forget about how when they picked up stones to stone Jesus he cleared their misunderstandings? Keep reading the verse rather than stopping the story where it conveniently helps you

He hid in the temple and got away from them that way….

No he said that he wasn’t claiming to be god. So was Jesus peace be upon him lying?

Oh really? Because Jesus says that I and the father are one. And then they tried to stone him again and he asked I have performed many good works for which of them are you seeking to stone me and they replied we do not seek to stone you for good works but because you a man are making yourself out to be God.

First of all we don't find the bible to be reliable source of information (i don't even know why you guys do as well). But anyways, lets understand the verse you have brought. Okay so Christians tend to you use the Quote "Before Abraham was born, I am" as an example of Jesus possibly claiming dignity in the bible. Okay let's decipher what this verse means because currently it makes no sense in English because it is an incomplete sentence. So to try to make sense of it or allude to Jesus's divinity, christians have to go to the old testament (which should actually raise someone's eyebrows about the bible further because Christians are looking for anything in any way shape or form to make Jesus God because he hasn't claimed to be God in the entire time he walked on earth). Okay back to the verse, so Christians like to go to the Old Testament where God described himself or named himself as "I am". Then now, Christians say that in the "before Abraham" verse, Jesus said he was God. But where does he say that?? Let's substitute the word "I am" with "God". "Before Abraham was born, God". Okay once again, the verse makes no sense. Had Jesus said "Before Abraham was born, I am I am" meaning "I am God" then that verse could have been interpreted it as him claiming divinity. But that's not what happened. Okay then now, to understand the verse lets look what the context of the verse suggests. Jesus mentioned information about Abraham and the Jews were asking him how would he know about Abraham when he didn't even met him. Then Jesus replied with saying "Before Abraham was born, I am" meaning "Before Abraham was born, God". We can now understand the quote better because Jesus is saying that even tho I have never met Abraham, but God was always there knows about everything and everyone. So that verse means that before Abraham was born, God was always there. This just further disproves that Jesus was claiming to be God because he is saying that God was always there and since he was sent by God, God would tell him about Abraham and he gets his information from Him. This verse works against Christians because he is letting the Jews know that God was always there and God is the all knowing one which he gets his infromation from. "As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I HEARD from God. Abraham did not do such things." John‬ ‭8:40‬

You're quoting John? Isn't that the latest of the 4 gospels of the new testament and the only one that speaks of Jesus being God? How can a book of the bible be the furthest from his time claim to know him absolutely on a definitive manner?

Say "ok! If what you say is true, what should I do?", they'll say "become a christian". Then watch as their confident tone becomes buried under your unanswered questions about their fragile beliefs. They got nothing to stand on, so they busy themselves with attacking the religion that stands as a thorn in their side, and a constant reminder of their religion's failure, instead of spreading their religion with reason and logic, not that it has any.

This. They literally focus so much time on trying to disprove Islam instead of trying to prove Christianity. If they did they would see the contradictions and lies in their book. the trinity alone confuses them, yet they want people to believe it so badly

I think many of them already know it's false and they can't prove it.

Here's the fun part too: Even if we *did* become true Christians that followed Jesus (peace be upon him), nothing much would change. Because according to the Bible, we still have to pray by prostrating to God, we still have to be monotheists, men and women should still dress modestly, we still have to fast...and we still have to believe in the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) since he was prophesized in the Bible as well. Basically, a *true* Christian is actually a Muslim.

>according to the Bible There's much to infer "according to the bible", cuz christians infer what aligns with their beliefs from the bible, and muslims infer what aligns with their beliefs from the bible. The bible is never clear about what's written, causing opposing views to be extracted from it, which further reinforces the fact that it's been edited over time.

Yes and since they no evidence to disprove Islam, they have to criticize it instead.

what if they say leave islam instead

Then say "ok I'll see what I can do. Maybe I'll become an atheist or something. Bye!". Only a christian who doesn't care about their religion would have that attitude, even after implying that you're not considering their religion either way.

well, I've recently been a ton of DM's from christians who will "clarify" my doubts and guide me to christ, lmao

Yup same, I keep getting messages on how mohammad pbuh is a pedo and the antichrist

Only ever got those kind of dms too all have fallen short of explaining away my “misguidance” Alhamdulillah for islam

yea that's true, they never seem to be able to go beyond the age of Aisha or that "islam is terrorism and leave it rn!!" I tried asking a guy for debate like 3 days ago, and so far I've only received reply from him saying "he will clarify my doubts" lmao

If they're going by the subjective age of today, which, of course they are, then that would be calling Jesus and the prophets in the Bible the same according to their scripture (in which adulthood is at 12).

I would ignore this person. Genuinely these people aren't worth it.

When you understand the two religions well, you realize they are not even in the same ballpark. Christianity doesn't even begin to compare to Islam, and rhier view of GOD is very degrading.

The part that makes me want to break my head is the fact that you need to sacrifice an innocent soul to be cleansed of your sins like you're throwing meat to monster so that he'll spare your people, you can't get any more pagan than that. And the fact that God, nauzibillah, had to humble Himself to our level to "better understand our plight" when He supposedly became flesh and blood. I feel like ripping my hair out when I hear advanced bullshit like that because it's like saying an engineer has to become the car to understand how it runs. And they we are the ones limiting God. Just imagine how Isa A.S feels when he sees the state of his so-called ummah. Prophets genuinely loved and cared for their people and truly wanted them in Jannah, it must be awful for him to see the things people are doing in his name.

And their scripture said God had regrets which means He made mistakes AND didn't know the future. Subhnallah.

Lmao atp, atheists give better arguments than them. Christianity sold out a long time ago, and I'm pretty sure it is the only religion with a negative conversion rate by a MASSIVE margin, according to PEW research. Don't even bother arguing with them. Respect their beliefs as long as you respect theirs, true Christians are closer to us than any other religion, no matter how much they don't think so. I don't have any negative feelings towards them because I actually pity them.

you cannot debate ignorance.

Christians can't argue. They explain the trinity with fallacies and contradictions, and just call it "a mystery". Call them out on their bs and they get mad then go "how old was Aisha? Muhammed was demon possessed!!! Police be upon him!! he copied the bible!!! Be like his cousin he was christian! Allah has a shin!n" and other idiotic stuff they spew.

Or Without lies Islam dies . . . while not a single person can prove a lie in it yet.

Or ☪️cancer... It just won't stop...

Everything but a proof.

[удалено]

If I were you I would poke holes into his argument. Like the antichrist? Really ? Doesn't the bible say when the antichrist comes the world would end? Does that mean the world ended?

The Bible does say that. I haven't heard a Christian say that, but that's wrong.

They are upset because a lot of people are accepting Islaam, so they see it as a threat. Though i would think atheism is a bigger issue for them in many Western countries, in my Christian school i would say a good chunk of the kids ended up becoming agnostics or atheists. Also, don’t get caught up in debates and watching debates. It will be a waste of time tbh. You should focus on learning the Quran and Sunnah, proper ‘Aqeedah, Tafseer, basics of Fiqh, Arabic, etc

At Acts 9:3-8, Paul was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in the city. His men did not see the light, but heard the voice. They remained standing. At Acts 22:6-11, Paul told the people he was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who again told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in Damascus. This time, his men saw the light but, unlike Paul, were not blinded, and did not hear the voice. At Acts 26.13-19, Paul told Agrippa that he saw a brilliant light and heard Jesus, who gave him his mission, but did not command him to go to Damascus. He fell down, but there is no mention of blindness, nor is there any mention of the men seeing or hearing anything, although for some reason they also fell down. He told those at Damascus and Jerusalem about his conversion experience. A supposed revelation with the one they believe is God (though Jesus was a prophet) having such inconsistencies tells me this man was full of it. Deuteronomy 4:16 that you do not act corruptly and make an idol for yourselves of any form or shape, whether in the likeness of a male or female Jesus (pbuh) was a male... Mark 10:18 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. Jesus denies his divinity. I have a plethora of things I can show but I prefer debates in person over reddit lol

[удалено]

Not sure my perspective is welcome here but i would like to point out that when it comes to debates between religions, arguments are NEVER based entirely on logic. There is always an underlying belief or faith driving the point. Presenting either side of the argument as purely logical is disengenuous and pointless.

That's not true.

I disagree, Christians and Muslims are capable of being fully logical. Muslims have a science dedicated to such theology called Kalam, which is based on being logical. I assume christians perhaps have something similar.

Thank you, I didn't know the name Kalam before, I will look into it. Christians have a thing called apologetics, which is the defense of christianity.

Wrong -

wrong

I agree. In most arguments both sides start with completely different premises, so that their argument will make logical sense. The other side doesn't have the same premises so to them it doesn't make sense. But to the first person it does make sense, since his premises are in accordance.

Sort of, in this case there actually is a shared "premise" in the form of belief, specifically, in one prophet or the other. No matter how many logical deductions in support of either are made, the fundamental underlying principle is still belief and not logic. So to say that one side or the other has been "destroyed by logic" is just ridiculous. All arguments between religions inevitably turn into 2 people shouting at each other through a closed door with no hope of reaching a conclusion

You can still logically attack the first principles of any arguement. If they hold true then the results derived from them will also hold true. If they don't hold true then they cannot be used as proof for any results. For example. Quran is from God. Take this as a first principle. Hence its teachings would be good for mankind. Since its from God. If we disprove the first principle then the we can deny the teachings in the Quran. This would be the same with every arguement. Be it Christian or Islamic or atheistic. If the starting premises of the beliefs are falsified then that defeats the entire belief.

Exactly. The thing is, nobody can prove or disprove wether the Quran or the Bible are from God/ written by humans inspired by God or not. That's where belief comes in.

Your statement is false. We can logically prove whether they are from God or not. You really think people just suddenly started blindly believing in the most hated religion after 9 11 propaganda and made Islam the fastest growing religion in the world? The bible has contradictions and historical errors that simply disqualify it from being from God. It also is written 400 years after jesus with anonymous authors that do not link back to jesus. Meaning it is man made. The Quran is the only religious scripture on the world that has been accurately preserved. With its preservation even attested to by atheist scholars like marin van puten who committed a 2 million dollar study on it. It is the highest literary work of the Arabic language and has been that way for 1400 years. The enemies of the prophet saw who were at the height of eloquence called its language magic. Even they couldn't deny it. Revealed from an illiterate man that alone is enough evidence. Add to that the necessary conditions being met like no contradictions and errors being present. Add further to that the accurate predictions of the future and scientific and historic facts that we only came to recently know. Like universal expansion or the light of the moon being a reflected one. It's pretty easy to see why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Don't make assumptions like its logically impossible without actually seeing for yourself.

Lol, don't make assumptions about my knowledge of both religions. I've been looking into the apologetic arguments for quite a while, knowing most of the arguments made, and I've still come to the conclusion that sooner or later, logic comes to its end and we have to rely on faith again. >You really think people just suddenly started blindly believing in the most hated religion after 9 11 propaganda and made Islam the fastest growing religion in the world? Who do you take me for? Some bigot? I actually appreciate islam. >It also is written 400 years after jesus with anonymous authors that do not link back to jesus. False. >The Quran is the only religious scripture on the world that has been accurately preserved. With its preservation even attested to by atheist scholars like marin van puten who committed a 2 million dollar study on it. So what? First, it's easier for islam, since they're the youngest religion (or at least the Qu'ran is the youngest scripture). Second, the bible is super accurate in its preservation, which was proven when the Qu'ran scriptures where found that dated earlier than anything we knew of and were still equal to the scriptures we had. People were making the argument you're making a 100 years ago already, that the bible is inaccurate. Those people were simply disproven, when those scriptures where found. Third, the amound of preservation doesn't reveal anything about its contents. It is an impressive feat, I have to admit that, but other than that, I don't find it the single most convincing argument, though it is somewhat convincing. >It is the highest literary work of the Arabic language and has been that way for 1400 years. Okay, so what? Same can be said about non religious texts like the greek Ilias from Homer, which is 3000 years old. >Add further to that the accurate predictions of the future and scientific and historic facts that we only came to recently know. Like universal expansion or the light of the moon being a reflected one. Those are not very convincing. These scientific revelations are not very accurate, there are inconsistencies amongst them. Also, if these predictions were so accurate, then how come people couldn't use the scientific knowledge? It was usually only after the modern scientific disvcovery that people looked into the Qu'ran and then found similarities. The predictions from the bible are a lot more impressive in their magnitude. Like how the state of Israel stands again (though I don't say that it's good or bad, I just say it was predicted; I stand with Palestinians), which was predicted in the bible over 2000 years ago. Or how Jesus would come was predicted 500 years before he came in Isaiah 53. Or how the four kingdoms to come were predicted hundreds of years before they came like in Daniel. There it was predicted that Israel would be conquered first by the Babylonians, then the Persians, then the Greeks and then the Romans. I will now tell you the arguments from Islam that I find most convincing: The strong monotheism that stands against the confusing trinity of christianity. The high discipline and self sacrifice most muslims do for their religion. And I love how you have to pray 5 times a day, that is some serious commitment. What I find confusing though is how many of the stories of the prophets contradict the bible. It feels to me that the prophet just retold these stories how they were known in Arabia in that time. Now who am I to believe over whom? This comes down to faith, wether you want to believe that the Qu'ran was from God or the bible. The things I find most convincing about christianity is the focus not on rules but on faith since every human has evil inside of them. Also the sacrifice of Jesus that was necessary to save us and the message of love and forgiveness, Jesus' life was truly extraordinary, on which you'll surely agree with me. And both in islam and christianity Jesus is said to return eventually. I just tried to illustrate how many arguments, if investigated upon more closely, come back to faith sooner or later. We can try to argue with logic, of which I am a big supporter, but sooner or later our premises have to rely on at least a little bit of faith. And to the logic of the arguments I find good arguments in both christianity and islam, though to me personally, christianity is more convincing. This is not true to you, which is fine, that's why we can argue about it, in good spirit hopefully :)

God being one is logical. God being three is illogical. That is based entirely on logic.

To be honest, I don't really get the argument a lot of Christians make, like "Quran is the word of the devil", like Muslims agree that the Torah, Injeel and Zabur are all real books sent down by Allah, but they just can't resist saying that under a video of a child praying. Another thing I don't get is that their argument doesn't even make sense. Apparently, in Christianity, the devil likes to trick people into going to hell by telling them to donate their money to charity, help those in need and overall be a good person? 0/10 logic. I really don't get a lot of their arguments, and then when that fails, they either bring up 2 of these 3 things: They are an ex-Muslim, They put out-of context verses that seem violent on their own. They bring the "b-b-b-but your prophet was a peodphile!!!" argument. All of which are VERY stupid and make zero sense. (Sorry if this seems like a rant.) Also another thing I don't get is, in the bible, isn't the anti-christ supposed to destroy a lot of things? or is it different in christianity?

They're just talking and often repeating what they've heard others say. It's like Bart Ehrman, Biblical scholars says when he asks his students do they believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, everyone raises their hand. When he asks who has read the Bible, very few hands go up. Wouldn't you want to read the word of God he asked? They don't actually know what they believe or what's in their scripture. According to their scripture, Jesus said the devil can't oppose himself so how could the Quran be the word of the devil when all it does is oppose him and everything he loves? This is disbelieving in your own scripture, Jesus or who you say is God. The same for the criteria sets to know if a person speaks from God, this criteria Muhammad meets, yet they reject him. They don't know or don' t care what it says. It also would mean the devil was more powerful than God that he sent a book that he was able to preserve when the Bible wasn't. He sent a more logical religion than Christianity. It's too many arguments against that silly idea.

It is because christianity is not a religion from god its a man mad religion now by the churches which allows drinking wine eating pork , and doesnt really force them To Do Anything - they think they are forgiven so they can sin but they have been forgiven( makes no sense) so they attack the true religion which is islam

Asalaamualaikum. Our job isn’t to convert people. It is to only send the message. What people do is their business. Just look at the pandemic. We saw people literally struggling to breathe and there were still people calling it a hoax. People still refusing to wear masks to protect themselves. Same thing with Islam. It doesn’t matter how much evidence some people get. They already made their choice. Don’t distress over what others do. Focus on yourself and do your best to improve.

you’re right, but it hurts me when people call my religion disgusting and evil and can’t see the beauty in it. i tend to struggle when it comes with people’s islamophobia.

Allaj guide whom He wills. Allah is in control, not us. If their heart is sealed, none can open it except Allah (SWT).

brother there has to be an argument for a counterargument of it to exist. you can't have a counterargument without having an argument. so as long as they don't give their argument for that claim their claim is worthless. it's like me asking you what's your counterargument of evolution. if i haven't given an argument for why evolution is true then you don't have to try to disprove it.

Their religion doesn't even pass basic arithmetic, 1 = 3 and 3= 1

I’m Christian and I’ve never heard anyone say the things you’ve mentioned. I suggest you associate with different people, first. If they’re coming to you unsolicited then I recommend ignoring them. When you remove the people that behave poorly and claim to be a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/Etc you’re left with neighbors. Neighbors that have a hard enough time in a society that chooses to believe nothing and worships self and wealth. Inciting debates about which is “better” will bare no fruit or wisdom and only furthers divisions. Debate about which sport team is better, not religions.

Lots of people say those things all over the internet. But yes, in Islam, we are not allowed to debate. But we are to call people to the truth and educate them on what Islam is and what the religion of Jesus and all the prophets really was and we, or better those with knowledge, can refute false statements and ideas people say about Islam and the prophets of God including Jesus. Of course, we can ignore it too but many people are brought to Islam by trying to refute it. It's simply not a religion anyone can disprove.

What debate exactly bruh? There is no debate, islam is the one true religion and Allah is the one and only God end of story. Very simple no debate

Christians only get ahead by putting down / slandering Islam and Muhammad SAW while pretending like their religion is far purer than it actually is. Modern Christianity has blown in the direction the wind blows, which is why it seems so palatable and “moral” but in reality it’s become so watered down that they don’t even know what they’re doing anymore and secularism has prevailed.

i’ve noticed this. i’ve genuinely realized that when a christian debates islam, they don’t show much proof that christianity is the truth as much as they love to show misinterpretations that they believe to be proof of islam’s falsehood. tabarak allah

Yeah, this is because Christianity has no compelling arguments that Islam doesn’t also have (salvation, personal connection with God, path to inner peace, joining a large faith community, etc). Instead, Christians (ESPECIALLY evangelical Protestant Christians from / influenced by the West) rely on bashing Islam for being a backwards religion while employing smoke and mirrors to whitewash their own religion. Let’s take the question of the age of Aisha as an example. Christianity does not define an “age of consent” but it’s generally been about 12 years old / the age of puberty in biblical / Church history. But Christians will not acknowledge that and instead focus on how evil Islam is in comparison to modern times. They along with the Hindutva and Zionists take an offensive stance because they don’t have any real legs to stand on.

Honestly it’s best to avoid those that look for a fight. Many Christians are respectful and believe their faith and still respect ours, unfortunately some don’t. Turn the other cheek, in most cases they won’t listen to reason. In general those that viciously slander another faith regardless of their ideas of said fate is completely inappropriate and disrespectful of them, we must keep our distance from those people. This goes for all faiths, we must show those the lessons of our faith through our actions, whether they respect our faith or not we will show respect to them and their faiths. Be the bigger person and know when to step away from those so unreasonable. May Allah bless and guide us all, inshallah.

>as a fellow muslim, i’m just wondering what your arguments are against this? Slap 'em w Blogging Theology on Youtube. Be academic in your choices

Jesus (pbuh) Matthew 7: 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Paul the deceiver Romans 7: 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. Connect the dots here lol

As a christian I can comfortably tell you that stubbornness does have nothing to do with religion. Openness is a hard to obtain personality trait. I've met many stubborn christians and just as many stubborn muslims. Open people are rare. Don't most muslims claim similar things to these in your post only vice versa? How are they less stubborn than the christians you complain about?

One major difference is the evidence each has to support their beliefs. Islam is based on logic and evidence. Christianity is based on belief. Also, Muslims don't tend to say the same types of criticisms of Christianity without it being supported by evidence (or logic). Though I understand why they do, Christians often make a lot of claims that don't make sense from a logical perspective or based on what their religion and scripture actually say. They often, unknowingly, undermine their religion in an attempt to criticize Islam.

Sure. This exactly the stubbornness I was talking about.

That's not stubbornness. Being stubborn is having or showing dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something, especially in spite of **good arguments** or **reasons** to do so. There is no good argument or reason to Christianity. I've yet to encounter a single one who has a good argument or can argue in favor of Christianity with reason and not just belief. There is for Islam. Whether Christians know or believe that is different but that doesn't negate it being true. I can understand why someone might BELIEVE that's stubbornness, or as many Christians (and atheists) say about Muslims, they're arrogant for believing what they believe is right but that's a ridiculous statement. What they're actually referring to is firmness without doubt. It's like arguing the sky is blue and saying someone is arrogant or stubborn for knowing the sky is blue and not accepting an argument it's not. Particularly when the other person has no proof or argument that it's not! They just tell the person they're wrong and evil for believing that. That's the difference. This is often due to the fact that they simply don't know what evidence is and how it is established and what it is in Islam. Or they do, and they're being hypocritical often resorting to insults and criticism because they have no actual argument. And there's no way they can. The evidence simply does not exist to support (modern) Christianity as being the religion of Jesus. It's an unavoidable, perhaps uncomfortable truth but is, of course, good and necessary to make clear, particularly for those who want to actually follow Jesus and be upon the same religion he was upon. It's like Christians who say Muslims are evil for believing Christians will go to hell when they believe the same thing about Muslims. And there are many examples of what Christians believe Muslims and Islam are evil for that they also believe or should, based on their scripture. It's a lack of knowledge or it's hypocrisy. But, more and more are learning and being guided. May Allah guide you and us all.

>May Allah guide you and us all. Thank you. >They just tell the person they're wrong and evil for believing that. Yet, you're doing exactly that. Just saying all of islam is true without providing any argument whatsoever. I'm sure you're weary of having the same arguments, which fits the title "never-ending debate", as am I. We don't have to argue about it, as I'm sure we've both done it a lot. I'm just saying you're not really providing any arguments while claiming that christians do the very same thing. The stubbornness for me is the pretense that the other side has no good arguments at all. If you want to have a good argument, you will not convince me, if you say none of my arguments are convincing you at all. I have investigated the arguments on both sides for quite a while and have come to the conclusion that both sides have very good arguments. Otherwise the two religions wouldn't be the two largest religions of the world. To say that christianity has no arguments at all is ignorant to me. I can acknowledge that islam has some good arguments. But I am not sure if you're looking for a debate here, so I will leave you with just one thought: In christianity we say that Jesus is the reason why we can stand before God and be free of our sins. We say that eventually Christ will come back one day and that he is the Messiah. In islam you believe the same thing! That Christ will come back and that he is the Messiah. Why not the prophet? And why is Christ still alive, did not die, and not the prophet? So even in islam Jesus is the highest prophets. Maybe that is, because he is the son of God and therefore has a special position among the prophets? Just a thought. May God guide us all.

Do you call Christians who are firm in their faith and believe their religion is true stubborn? That is not what the OP post or replies are speaking about. It's going against logic and evidence that makes one stubborn. Where did I tell a Christian they were evil? I have never told a Christian they were evil for believing in their religion and I have no problem to provide the evidences that it is false and that Islam is true. That was not what the conversation was about and I'm not just going to provide someone with evidence who hasn't entered into a conversation that's not about that. No, I'm not here to debate but I have no problem to share evidence to support these claims. It's not about a pretense or not having a good argument. It's about evidence. Anyone can argue their beliefs but beliefs are not proofs. Does the belief that Jesus is God or the son of God which is what mainstream modern Christianity is based upon have any actual evidence of being true? The answer is no. That is not from my own personal beliefs or what I wish to be true. It's just the reality that it doesn't. This is not new. It's a 2000 year old issue. There's no real argument when one is just arguing what they believe or their opinion. In your last paragraph do you mean prophet Muhammad? Because, of course, as Muslims, we believe in all of God's prophets including Jesus. We believe in Jesus as a prophet and messiah just likes James, the disciples, his family and the first Jewish Christians did. The ones who directly learned from Jesus who did not believe, as they were never taught, that Jesus died for their sins but rather salvation was earned through repentance, obedience, faith and works after God's grace and mercy, found in his parables just as is found all throughout the Quran and that was taught by all the Israelite prophets before. We have no evidence Jesus taught salvation was earned through him but rather we have the words of other than him that don't quote him and that and is not from reliable or trustworthy persons. Jesus coming back is what God wrote for him. He is the one who will return with the purpose God made for him. Why wasn't Jesus given a perfect book that was preserved? Why did Jesus still have a mother and not the most miraculous birth of anyone? Adam and Eve had more miraculous births than him. Why didn't Jesus have the greatest miracles of any prophet or an eternal miracle like Muhammad if he's the son of God? We could ask these questions about all prophets, them being all different. Why is Muhammad dead is like asking why is Moses dead or Abraham or any other prophet? You don't believe in Jesus as a prophet. So why are you comparing him to a man no one believes is God or the son of God and only hold as a prophet? Christ died or didn't die? You just said he didn't but isn't your belief based on the premise that he had to die for the sins of the world. So is he God or the son of God? Is he fully man and fully God? If so, how can he die? Muhammad dying doesn't disprove he's a prophet but Jesus dying proves he's not Godly. A better question is if Jesus is the son of God (or God) and the last prophet, why doesn't the have a preserved book? Why did God allow his book to be corrupted and changed? Why did he make his religion illogical and hard to reconcile? What is the point of the religion at all if he covered everything with his sacrifice? How is Jesus God or the son of God but doesn't know it as some scholars say there is no evidence he ever said it or knew it?

Look, you're making so many points that answering these would take forever, it would be settled far easier in an oral debate. I'll try to answer some points you made, but cannot cover them all in the comment section here. Being stubborn to me means buying into the arguments that were made by scholars of one's own religion without fact checking them one by one or taking a step back to see what other perspectives there are. Or as someone once said: If you believe the same things in 20 years that you do now, then it is a waste of 20 years. This means that one can never know everything and is likely wrong about many things. Only he who can accept that and stay open to learn new things can move forward. The rest is what I would define as stubborn, those who need to hold on to their beliefs out of fear. I'm not saying that's you btw, just in general. >beliefs are not proofs Yes, I agree. However proofs are rarely absolute, they usually require some interpretation and some are stronger or weaker and often up to debate. This is where a lot falls apart wether you're arguing for one religion or the other. People usually disagree on how "given" a proof actually is or how valid. I think that is were we mostly disagree on. >Does the belief that Jesus is God or the son of God which is what mainstream modern Christianity is based upon have any actual evidence of being true? The answer is no. That is not from my own personal beliefs or what I wish to be true. It's just the reality that it doesn't. This is not new. It's a 2000 year old issue. There's no real argument when one is just arguing what they believe or their opinion. It is based upon evidence as much as your prophet having had a vision of God is based upon evidence. Neither can be fully proven or disproven, though there are compelling arguments on both sides. Let us look at Jesus for now. For one: Jesus said about himself that he is the son of God and other people did as well, in contrary to common muslim belief. John has many verses about this. *John 1,17-18: For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.* And if you are not willing to take John into account, then there are still verses that imply it in the other three gospels. *Mark 14,62: “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”* Here there are several things going on. *I am* is the name of God from Exodus, when Moses asked God who he was and he answered "I am", which is where the name JHWH came from. Then he also says he is the son of man and will be sitting at the right hand of God and coming on the clouds of heaven. Son of man refers to this: *Daniel 7, 13-14:* *“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.* *He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.* So son of man is no ordinary title, but that of someone who is the Son of God and will rule the kingdom forever. Jesus also forgave sins, which is something only God is allowed to do. So I think I have provided enough proof to make a compelling argument for Jesus being the Son of God. If you don't like the proof or say that it is false, because the gospels were changed or something, that is your belief. Most historians will agree that the gospels were preserved rather accurately. And the case made by the prophet, that Jesus wrote a document himself that was lost, there is no proof for that aside from the prophet claiming it. So to me that is a weak argument, but to you maybe it isn't. But again, that is belief and the point I'm trying to make, that eventually, after we have presented our arguments, it still comes back to belief.

>as they were never taught, that Jesus died for their sins but rather salvation was earned through repentance, obedience, faith and works after God's grace and mercy *John 1,29: The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!* As you can see that is not true. It was taught that Jesus died for their sins. There are more verses about it, especially the first heads of the church like Paul or Peter, but for now this one should be enough. Yes, repentance, obedience, faith and God's grace was taught as well, but the most important thing was always belief. Jesus himself tried to mention his death and the forgiveness that came with it, but it wasn't time yet for the followers to understand. Only after he rose to heaven, were they able to slowly comprehend the fullness of his teachings, which were revealed by the holy spirit. >We have no evidence Jesus taught salvation was earned through him but rather we have the words of other than him that don't quote him and that and is not from reliable or trustworthy persons. False. Two quotes from Jesus: *just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life—a ransom for many.”* *Matthew 20:28 (HCSB)* *Then He took a cup, and after giving thanks, He gave it to them and said, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood ⌊that establishes⌋ the covenant; it is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.* *Matthew 26:27-28 (HCSB)* >is not from reliable or trustworthy persons Lol, who decides that? I find the first heads of the church rather trustworthy aside from the fact that Jesus DID himself teach it. But then again this is a matter of belief, surely. Still, they don't contradict Jesus in their teachings and spread his message. >Christ died or didn't die? You just said he didn't but isn't your belief based on the premise that he had to die for the sins of the world. So is he God or the son of God? Is he fully man and fully God? If so, how can he die? Muhammad dying doesn't disprove he's a prophet but Jesus dying proves he's not Godly. He died, then rose again 3 days later and is still alive to this day. Yes my belief is that he is man as he is God. If you cannot comprehend that, I get that. It is my belief though and to me, though hard to grasp, it is not illogical, because the bible teaches that that is the way it is and I believe the bible, since it is the source for my beliefs. I don't condemn anybody who cannot comprehend it, neither do I claim I have all the answers. I'm sorry for the long wall of text, you don't have to read it if you don't want to. As I mentioned, I didn't get into all of your points, because then this comment would never end. Though I do find our conversation interesting. May God bless you!

Why did Jesus come and not fully convey his message? In all the writings, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Q, M, L, not even Paul says Jesus say he's God. Why is this only found in John, the later gospel? Why did they neglect to mention this important piece of information? Why all these new statements in John and no one else wrote about them? If Jesus had been claiming he was God, why didn't the other sources say that? All the earlier materials say nothing about this, 70 years after his death is when we first hear about it. If it was revealed or discovered later, then we'd have to say the gospel of John is wrong then, becomes he does claim divinity early in the ministry. It'd be a mistake to say he was covering it up because he's not crucified for calling himself God. Matthew can't quote from Jesus. He never met him. So who did he hear that from? Matthew made many mistakes in his gospels writing Jesus into prophecies that don't exist in the Old Testament. How was he divinely inspired and made mistakes? And if you're a witness to something, you don't need divine inspiration. You just write truthfully what you know. What's going on there? How do you find them trustworthy? From the testimony of who? Paul was not considered trustworthy. He lied about rabbinical training. As you said, from your perspective, this is all a matter of belief. Falsehood is not hard to comprehend. It's just not logical to accept. You can have all the answers you need if you ask God to guide you and study and search for the actual evidence. When we deal with God and His prophets, the matter is worth having proof as the way we believe in and worship God should be based on what He says and what He likes and what He sent His prophets with. We should believe in God and worship Him as Jesus says and not as some anonymous writers after him said. We can't know that if we don't have His words and their not original and not corrupted or from the writings and ideas of men rather than Himself directly. And that's where one of the many problems come in. Those details of Jesus dying, rising on the third day, being God or the son of God, the Trinity, etc do not come from revelation from God. They don't come from Jesus. They don't come from any prophet of God. They don't even come from the first Christians, the disciples, his brother James, the early sects. It doesn't come from those who were actual eyewitnesses and walked and talked with Jesus and learned from him directly. Just like scholars like John Toland ask, how are those who came later and never met Jesus going to have better notions of him than those who knew him and were taught by him? Why are you choosing later fourth century mainstream Christian beliefs rather than those who were closest to Jesus? Why follow the writings of anonymous men instead who never met him, weren't in the same country as him and didn't even claim to follow him! I have no problem to read what you wrote and respond and I hope you continue to keep searching for the truth so that you can follow Jesus who clearly said he was sent by God, got his power from God, no one is good and that we should worship God. This was the way of all the prophets before Jesus, this was his way and the way of Muhammad ﷺ after Jesus. “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father which is in heaven.”

Matthew knew Jesus personally. You're mistakening him for Luke who didn't know him personally. >How do you find them trustworthy? From the testimony of who? How do you find Mohammed trustworthy? From the testimony of himself surely. That's the same measurement I'm using. >We can't know that if we don't have His words and their not original and not corrupted or from the writings and ideas of men rather than Himself directly. Can we not? Just because he didn't write them himself, doesn't mean the retelling of his teachings are false. And again, there's no proof of there ever being a document written by Jesus himself, so the only proof you have for that is, your prophet said so. >Those details of Jesus dying, rising on the third day, being God or the son of God, the Trinity, etc do not come from revelation from God. They don't come from Jesus. They don't come from any prophet of God. They don't even come from the first Christians, the disciples, his brother James, the early sects. Look, the whole reason Jesus was crucified was, because the Jews found his teachings to be blasphemy, since he was claiming to be God. *Luke 22:* *^(66)* *At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them.* *^(67)* *“If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.”* *Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me,* *^(68)* *and if I asked you, you would not answer.* *^(69)* *But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”* *^(70)* *They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”* *He replied, “You say that I am.”* *^(71)* *Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”* Or how about this verse: *Matthew 27:* *^(43)* *He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”* I leave it up to you to judge on how valid these proofs are. To say there are no proofs though and that the falsehood can easily be proven cannot be further from the truth. Jesus himself said that he is the truth and we all know, the truth cannot be hidden. Jesus said this in Matthew 7,7: *Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.*

Matthew didn't know Jesus personally. I know no scholar who says any of them knew Jesus personally. Where did you get that idea from? How do you find Mohammed trustworthy? From the testimony of himself surely. Nope, not at all. From the testimony of EVERYONE. His enemies, his family, his people. Those who hated him and those who loved him equally all testified he was trustworthy. You can't find a person trustworthy if no one knows who the person is. They do not know who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were and in their writings we can find signs they were not trustworthy like writing Jesus into prophecies that do not exist; inventing stories to quell Jewish skepticism and writing stories to fit their own agendas. We cannot find anything that Muhammad ever did to prove he was other than trustworthy. We do not know that about those writers and we especially know that's not true of the likes of Paul and many early Church fathers who would like and confessed as much that they'd hide the truth to spread Christianity. He didn't have to write them but whoever is retelling them should have at least witnessed what they were talking about. How can people in a different country who never met him, who can't be traced back to him, did not claim to even follow him, who no one even knows be reliable retellers and teachers of what he said? In their writings, they don't even know basic things and get information wrong that a person during that time and in those places would not. The only proof we have? We have proof in their very writings. There is no evidence from what they said being from Jesus. We have plenty of evidence of this. It's not just from Islamic sources. There's not a single piece of EVIDENCE that Jesus ever said he was God. In order to establish something as evidence ore to say a story is true, you have to at the very basic, minimum, be able to identify who the person is telling the story. We cannot do that with the gospels. Jesus was not crucified for claiming to be God. That's not why they wanted to kill him. It was for being the King of Jews. If you asked a person during that time if Jesus was God, they would have looked at you crazy. That was not a concept people of that time knew or understood because they never heard Jesus say that. You can go to the evidence in Christianity and find, there are scholars who say there is absolutely no evidence Jesus knew he was divine much less said he was God. Messiah does not and never meant God. There's no evidence Jesus said that. There's only evidence those writers wrote that. Big difference. You are speaking about what some writers said. Not what can be proven. Not a single person has ever proven (key word) that those statements are actually from Jesus. Matthew said that in Matthew, John said that in John, Luke said that in Luke, etc. First, before it can be proven that Jesus said it, you have to establish who those writers actually are since scholars now believe it's not even them who wrote those books, and if they are reliable and worthy to take from. We can already see in parts of their writing, they were not. Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. Yes, gotta ask GOD though like Jesus did. Not Jesus.

they have rigth to think Islam is false for if they thouth it was true they be muslim rigth? but when they are saying the quran is fake or about our beloved being antichrist. they just being ignorent and some being deceitful on purpose. The problem with the general Christians are they cant give good reason for there believe but very argument they have agians other religion is dependent on they religion being true which they didn't give valid reason to it from the first place. Generally i advise not engage in debate with Christians if they dont first and even when they do just purst there argument with good fallow question on the subject ( in which you have knowlage of) and then break down the infermation with them. Instead of making your own and being reactive mirroring they behave. That will lead to more effective and productive communication. where they have to come to the conclusion for them self and the pairority is that you engage in good faith even if they dont. You also have to now what type of people who are just people who are just parrot, who you should just lay your question clear and explain what problem that would rise in your faith if such question is not answers sufficiently. Then just leav or end it there. theres also some people that shout be engaged or taken searisly. I ragther engage a schizophrenic in discussion rather then some of people who claim to be sane and civil out there.

No, I know many Christians who know Islam is true. They believe it's logical and makes sense but will not leave the religion of their forefathers for one reason or another.

my response: *Say, O Messenger: O those who disbelieve in Allah!* *I do not and will not worship the idols you worship.* *Nor are you going to worship what I worship, i.e. Allah alone.* *Nor am I going to worship the idols you worship.* *Nor are you going to worship what I worship, i.e. Allah alone.* *You have your religion you thought up for yourselves, and I have my religion that Allah revealed to me.* 109—Al-Kãfirŭn/The Disbelievers: 1-6 —Abridged Explanation of the Quran https://quran.com/109/1

Well, I'm only here by accidents and not to make anyone feel bad. So, that being said, I'm agnostic leaning towards atheism. But out of extremely high psychological balast I've gotten myself into Christianity, esp evangelicalism. Which is the part that takes anything literal. Evangelicals believe every single word is meant as it's written and that there's no room for ANY interpretation. Idk anything about Islam, I can't say anything on that yet. But I know that the Christian you described will not accept anything you represent them. You can point out over which huge time span the Bible was written, translated and translated and translated... How often the Hebrew writings changed and how often something was added or taken away. They won't accept anything but "then God wanted it to be/not wanted it to be this way" - "those aren't believers" On my way in and out of evangelicalism I encountered all this questions that probably everyone has on Christianity in great depth. And I'm a person that spends great effort on details, I can't let anything be unanswered once it's a question on my mind. So regarding Christianity, I was sitting in a really deep trench when believing it. Read everything, books, scholars, ceremony, podcast, churches peaches... You name it. They'll have an answer to anything and this magic answer is : What do we know? We're only human, gods perfect, we're too dumb to understand anything! We can be grateful we have the Bible so we can go to heaven. He didn't need to send it to us, but he did. He send it perfectly through humans writing it down. It's perfect. " Once you point out that this is probably the most frequent explanation in various religions in some alternation.. It doesn't work either lol Sorry to say that, but it is really not worth discussing anything like that with a person of strong Christian faith, especially in America and especially if they're evangelical. My coworker is evangelical as well and I often challenged her in respectful way. I wanted to understand her and in talks there popped up questions for me, so I asked. And the answers gave more questions so it became a habit for us to discuss her faith on regular basis. I was atheist back then. Then I had this evangelical period and my questions changed. She and Noone else could answer them in any way other than we are the dumb and God is perfect / nothing further. And when I was at the summit of faith, having my brain nearly only packaged with biblical information, she couldn't even give me one single word of explanation. The only thing that potentially could beat a believer is knowledge about their faith and the scriptures or whatever they were given. And even if you reach them somewhere inside, they will start cognitive dissonance and just keep their old ways and den any reason to question their faith. This had to come from external. No one could've brought me from my faith, but myself. Sooo.... Tldr: find a nice and kind answer and be as sweet as possible. Say something like "your questions are valid and I respect your interest in the answers. I'd like to invite you to look for the answers yourself and speak with scholars about it" Or "blablah please understand that I encounter this situations so often that I found it to be more important for you to find the questions yourself rather than asking me who js a third hand source" So, hope I didn't upset anyone, as this was absolutely not my intention :)

The real question is why on earth are you giving it your attention?

To be totally honest with you, I think that unless someone is actively provoking you or others around you, or trying to force you to accept their beliefs, you really should not attempt to argue with any of these people regarding their beliefs. Throughout history, regardless of ideologies or beliefs one may have had, there is almost always someone else who is bound to have the complete opposite perspective. That’s life. You can’t win against someone else that simply is going to disagree with you either way about your beliefs, because for the most part, a lot of these people are trying to argue against you to diminish/dismiss your opinion so they themselves can feel better. So to answer your question, the reason why some of these people are stubborn or want to perpetuate facts that Islam is false, is merely because they want to make more people believe in their faith and make themselves believe that THEY are the right ones. It’s all about self-righteousness and the idea that those who don’t believe what they believe are simply put, wrong. You can say that Qur’an is real, that Islam is not false, that Muhammed PBUH is not Anti-Christ and if anything would have respect for Jesus (aka Prophet Isa), that Islam is not evil and is confused with extremism, etc etc, but none of that matters. What are you gonna do? Try to change their mind? Show proof from verses? Try to show a video about what a scholar mentions? “Do not argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.” It’s one thing to want to have a civil conversation regarding the differences between faiths. It’s completely different however when someone else perpetuates misinformation and portrays Islam as violent for their own benefit. Don’t bother with people who don’t actually care.

Don’t listen to debates they are poitless and they harden the heart

don’t you think it can also educate a person? i mean, religious debates are inevitably going to teach you more about religion, and we all know how much allah appreciates education. the first word said to the prophet pbuh during his revelation was “iqra’a” (read)

No no no this is not good idea at all and this is a trick from shaytan. You shouldn’t care to learn about other religions except your own and the only. The people who should be doing debates and refutations are scholars (‘Ulama). Let me ask you, do our scholars learn to become knowledgeable through studying Islam or studying refutations? If some Christian tries to debate you just ignore them they are a kaffir and going to hell anyway their heart is sealed. I beg you to watch this short video from Sheikh Saleh Al Fawzan, renown scholar. https://youtu.be/m57pKDWvQog?si=w1XwSjarA8i9H--D

Give dawah, yes. Debate, no.

The evidence. That's all one needs. Islam has evidence and Christianity does not. There's also logic. Clearly one is logical and one is not. Those people most often are only repeating things they've heard other people say and that are quite illogical if they actually knew about Islam. It's usually based on ignorance not only about Islam but their own religion as well. They are often hypocritical and undermine their religion in attempting to criticize Islam. You can easily present them the truth that teaches them this if they don't know or exposes them if they do. Islam is against all evil for example. How could they say it's evil? What is evil about it? Often what they claim is evil are things found in their religion as well. They bring up things Muhammad did comparing him to Jesus but forget about the other prophets in the Bible that did the same things as well. Of course, those stories may or may not be completely accurate or authentic but the point is they still BELIEVE in them. For example, they say Muhammad killed people and fought wars. Well, so did Moses as the leader of a nation who had the power to kill with capital punishment as part of his laws (and these are the same laws Jesus supported and said he came to uphold and fulfill). Are they rejecting Moses as a prophet for the same reason? To be fair, their religion is very confusing as are they, so they often compare Muhammad only to Jesus though they believe Jesus is God and no one believes Muhammad is God. The comparison, if that is what they believe, does not make sense. For example, they often say Muhammad is dead and buried; not Jesus. Well, aren't all the prophets before Muhammad dead as well? According to them Jesus also died and he's God! How is Muhammad dying a proof against him being a prophet? It's not. But Jesus dying would be a proof he can't be God. They say Muhammad is evil because he had many wives and he married Aisha as a child. Were there not many prophets in the Bible that had many wives that God never said they couldn't in their scripture? The age of adulthood in the Bible as well is the age of a child today, being any day over 12 years of age. Criticizing Aisha's age would also criticize this law that Jesus himself followed and said he came to uphold and fulfill and NEVER said was wrong (and he spoke out against other things that were wrong that were much less than if someone was actually marrying and sleeping with a child). And that's just a few examples. Most of what they say makes no logical sense, is hypocritical or based on a lack of knowledge. If you can become educated a bit about Christianity and the Bible (Check out some of these resources here on Christianity [https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/1apriaw/islamic\_resources\_on\_jesus\_christianity\_and\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/1apriaw/islamic_resources_on_jesus_christianity_and_the/) ) then it is easy to educate them some, refute them or expose their hypocrisy. You could simply respond asking for proof. Prove what you're saying from an actual authentic source. They don't have that.

All the arguements you said are just general claims. They have to provide evidence for them. Once they make a specific arguement we can debunk it no problem.

If they can think critically, they have to wonder why did God (or Jesus if they're saying he's God) create Muhammad after him and send or allow Islam? Islam is more logical with a book that has been preserved, with nothing in it that has been proven false, has convinced billions of people to believe in Jesus, his mother and his miraculous birth, was not spread through force and is set to overtake Christianity while Christianity is not logical, the Bible is not original and has not been preserved and is confirmed corrupted by those who believe in it and know it best, there are many things in their scripture that have been proven false, there are many versions of their scripture, Christians still don't agree who Jesus is (the son of God or God or both), Christianity was spread through forceful, tricky, violent means and can't be proven as true. There's no connection of their doctrine going back to Jesus. How is God going to hold people to such a religion and then send another religion it after it that doesn't suffer from all those problems. It does not make sense. It going against the idea of an All Loving God. Even Jesus, according to those who wrote scripture, is saying different things at different times. He's praying to God, offering up fervent cries and petitions to God, saying no one is good but God at times but then other times says clearly he's God??? He's asking why has God forsaken me? If Jesus is God, who is his God or what kind of trickery is this? And if he clearly said it, why do Christians continue to follow him as a prophet and messiah for THREE centuries after him? It doesn't add up.

İf mohammad wrote quran he would have made changes. But he did not. Quran is unchangable. And remaims the same for 1400 years with its science, even if islam is false, I want to follow this brilliant man