Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#5154
Everything that lets you doubt that Islam is the truth
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description
Islam is the true religion, which can be proved with rational evidence. You might have hundreds of different small fragements that cruise through your mind that tell you that Islam can't be true. Whatever it is, write it in the comments(Only one topic, until it is finished), then I will enter into it and we can debate it. You might also have questions about Islam, supposed contradictions inthe Quran or Sunna or whatever.
Be respectful, stay on topic, don't insult and be sincere. Anyone who wants to troll or just have a reason to hate on Islam or religion in general, I won't debate with. So be open minded, actually tying to find the truth.
Bismillah!
Round 1
Con
#2
Thank you for engaging in this debate. My first argument is that Islam simply refutes the Bible. and the Bible has no internal contradiction. In Islam it is said that Jesus did not die on the cross, and Jesus was not God in the flesh. Would we believe a random person saying that Abraham Lincoln was rich all his life? NO! We absolutely would not, so why should we believe the teachings of Islam which say came 600 years after Jesus Christ? We need to take eye witness testimony into account, before we take the words of a man who lived 600 years post Jesus. We can also look at the apostles, and how almost all of them were brutally killed for what they believed in. If you wanted to say you saw Santa Claus, and knew you were lying, but the authorities came and said, "We will brutally beat and kill you if you don't stop spreading lies." You would stop spreading those lies, because it is nonsensical to say that you would die for something you knew was not the truth.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Hi Butterbean!
To summarize, these are your arguments:
1. The Quran refutes the Bible while the Bible has no internal contradiction
2. We shouldn't believe a random person who contradicts eye witness testimony (that Jesus supposedly died on the cross.)
3. Christianity has to be true, as the apostles were brutally killed because they spread the truth although they could've just admit that they lied if they would have lied to stop the killing.
Let's start then:
3. Christianity has to be true, as the apostles were brutally killed because they spread the truth although they could've just admit that they lied if they would have lied to stop the killing.
Let's start then:
1. The Quran refutes the Bible while the Bible has no internal contradiction
The Quran denies Christianity in two main things: 1. God is the Trinity 2. The Quran rejects the terminology of someone being the son of God
The Bible is rejected by the Quran as it is corrupted by man and therefore not God's message anymore. There are many proofs for that:
1. The Christians don't agree on how many books the Bible has. The different Christian denominations have different bibles. Why the Protestants accept 66 books, the Catholics accept 73, the Orthodox 83 and the Ethiopians 88 etc. If we don't know in the first place which Bible is the right one, how could you say that it is God's word when it's not even clear what we are talking about. In Islam, there are different sects besides of the people that follow the sunnah, e.g. the Shia or the Ahbash. But they still follow the exact same Quran with 114 verses, with the exact phrases. So at least one of many Bible versions is a false one.
2. What does it mean, when a book is corrupted: It can be altered, something can be added or removed. We have all of that. For alteration, just look at the different Bibles there are: The most popular ones in the US are the NIV and the King James Bible.
2. What does it mean, when a book is corrupted: It can be altered, something can be added or removed. We have all of that. For alteration, just look at the different Bibles there are: The most popular ones in the US are the NIV and the King James Bible.
1. John 5:7-8
NIV: "7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
KJV: "7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
As you can see, it is totally diffirent. In the NIV we have the Spirit, the water and the blood that testify, while in the KJV there is in the heaven the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost that, while the Spirit, the water and the blood testify on earth.
At least one of those two has to be altered, i.e. corrupted. Not both can be true, as they are two different meanings. You can interpret it they way you want but this is what it says, so you have to be sincere to admit alteration for this one.
At least one of those two has to be altered, i.e. corrupted. Not both can be true, as they are two different meanings. You can interpret it they way you want but this is what it says, so you have to be sincere to admit alteration for this one.
Now lets look at addition:
Lets take the example of the story of a woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11. Most biblical scholars count this as a later addition as it was rarely cited before the fourth century and not found in earlier manuscripts. An addition, a fabrication --> a corruption. I know it is one of the most popular and beloved stories in the bible, but this is not from God. This is the reason this story is not preached by most churches.
Removal:
Removal:
There is a whole list of verses of the New Testament that are not added in English translations.
In conclusion the Bible is corrupted in every way possible: alteration, addition and removal therefore the Quranic critique towards the Bible regarding corruption is absolutely justified. They are indeed internal contradictions in the Bible which we can go into as well if you want but this is specifically why these contradictions arise from the fact that the Bible is corrupted.
2. We shouldn't believe a random person who contradicts eye witness testimony (that Jesus supposedly died on the cross.)
The Quran does not contradict eye witness testimony. It says: 'That they said (in boast), "We killed 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. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.' (4:157-158)
The Quran clearly states that it was made to appear to them that he was crucified. This is no denial of eye witness but rather its confirmation while telling that this testimony is not the reality. We believe that Jesus was raised by Allah and that he did not die and that he will return to kill the Antichrist. The Quran is basically the Final Testament, the last revelation from God, as it confirms the revelatoin Jesus received and was sent by Allah to guide the people back to the right track. God is able to send a new revelation 600 years after the last one. This is no indicator for Islam being false and Christianity the truth.
3. Christianity has to be true, as the apostles were brutally killed because they spread the truth although they could've just admit that they lied if they would have lied to stop the killing.
I suppose you refer to the twelve apostles, the disciples of Jesus. We believe that what Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him, taught is the true message of God. We believe in Jesus as righteous messenger of Allah. His teachings were the same as the Islamic teachings.
The disciples of Jesus were righteous people. They did die for the truth, to only worship one God only, not two in one, not three in one, but one true God (Mark 12:29) who you cal the Father and we Allah, the same God.
The Quran says: 'When Jesus sensed disbelief from his people, he asked, “Who will stand up with me for Allah?” The disciples replied, “We will stand up for Allah. We believe in Allah, so bear witness that we have submitted." They prayed to Allah,˺ “Our Lord! We believe in Your revelations and follow the messenger, so count us among those who bear witness.”' (3:52-53). The disciples were spreading the truth and never preaching the Trinity.
So your point is irrelevant as the apsotles died for the truth which Christians are not following today.
So your point is irrelevant as the apsotles died for the truth which Christians are not following today.
As you can see, your points are all wrong or irrelevant: The Quranic critique of the Bible is justified as the Bible is corrupted, the Quran does not reject eye witness testimony and the apostles died for the one true message to pray to only one God, they didn't die for the belief Christians have today, the Trinity.
The Christians today don't follow Jesus, the Muslims follow him. The Christians today follow Paul, not Jesus. They follow someone else than Jesus. Paul was no eye witness, no disciple. We can go on with this point, that Muslims are the true followers of Jesus not Christians, especially as Jesus and his disciples were Muslims themselves. They did not believe in the Trinity but in following only one God: “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." (Mark 12:29).
Con
#6
Hello, I will just get straight to business.
1. You are correct when you say different denominations have different bibles, the KJV bible was written in 1611, and directly translated by a group of men essentially hired by King James. The NIV was written in 1978, so I am sure you see where this is going, I read KJV, but let's break down this verse here, “7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." This saying that there is the Father, and holy Ghost/Spirit, (remember there is more than one name for the holy spirit.) and the Word. The word is obviously the son of the father, Jesus Christ, because we read in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” We then read in John 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” So this means that in heaven, there are 3 that watch, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. On Earth, it is the same. Would you judge the authenticity of the Quran based on a poor translation someone made? No, because it is not the Qurans fault for a poor translation. We have cut out certain books because we are not sure about their authenticity. If the source is not authentic, why use it? Also, I would like to see this list of verses that were removed.
2. According to the Quran, you are correct, Allah made it appear that Jesus was crucified, which means that Allah had to trick people, if Allah is deceiving people, Allah is no better than Satan. Eyewitness testimony states that they saw Jesus die on the cross, and rise 3 days later, not to mention the eyewitnesses that record Jesus making claims to be God. According to your religion, Jesus can not sin, which means that he couldn’t have been lying about being God, and if according to Islam he is not God, then in fact the Quran does contradict eyewitness testimony.
3. Alright, so what you are saying makes me circle back to my previous point, why should we believe what some text written 600 years after Jesus has to say about Jesus, instead of the gospels written shortly after Jesus’s time? If I want to learn about what Abraham Lincoln believed about religion, I would go look into people who knew him personally and wrote about him, not what some random guy a year ago who could just be making things up says that Abraham Licoln believed, you see, it is all about the credibility of the sources that are being used. Eyewitness testimony will be the most credible, and is the most credible.I do not follow Paul, I do not follow John, I follow my Lord Jesus, Paul and John (obviously more people wrote about Jesus) who wrote about him, are just people, I follow the person they wrote about.
EXTRA ARGUMENT
Your claims of an altered new testament are interesting, but not grounded. You can not find me a single “unaltered” version of the new testament. The writings that were written by eyewitness testimony and those who knew the eyewitnesses will always be more reliable, and you can not argue that a source written centuries after an event is more reliable than a source written a few decades after an event is more reliable.
Round 4
Con
#8
Since Pro forfeited this round, I won't flood him with more argument, I will grant him more time to publish a counterargument.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Hi bro, i didnt get the rounds system first, didnt thought my time was limited. So lets just start
1. What about the water and the blood. If you have an NIV copy and look into the footnote of this verse, you find that the water stands for the baptism while the blood for the crucifixion. This is not the same as The Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. One can interpret it that way but aside from an interpretation, the literal meaning is a different one. So you in the NIV the Spirit, the Water and the Blood testifying, while in the KJV these three testify on earth and the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost testify in the heaven. The NIV does not specify that the three named there only testify in heaven, it talks in a general sense. Also the Father and the Word are not mentioned in the NIV version. This means there is a different, contradictory meaning. So either is at least one of the two of the most popular Bible translations in English (today’s world language) corrupted or the one of the original texts. So you have a corrupted scripture which is an unpreserved scripture although for a scripture to be from God it has to be preserved.
In the case of the Quran we have the original scripture preserved from the time of the prophet Mohammed peace and blessings be upon him. It is in the original Arabic language and you won’t find two Qurans with a different meaning not even in a single verse.
Removed Bible verses in the NT are those that are not included in modern English translations but do not eist in earlier English translations. There were removed because Scholars have regarded these as later additions to the original scripture. So we have either a former addition (corruption of the Bible) of verses or now a removal of actual Bible versions. Which one is actually is is hard to tell as they is no one general original Bible scripture. There is a whole Wikipedia article on those Bible verses I once read, you may find it if you just search for it in Google. Also the Protestant Bible removed whole books from the Bible. Again, which Bible version is the true one has to be established first. Removal sometimes also is uesd in a similar meaning as “Choosing and deciding which of the books in circulation Christians should call the Bible” where certain books don’t get included and some even lost (First Council of Nicea, 327 AD; Council of Carthage, 397 AD)
2. Allah didn’t trick anyone. It was made to appear to them, not Allah made it to appear to them. You may think that this is a minor difference which would just mean the same but it is not. The Arabic language is a very precise one and throughout the Quran consistent. The Quran does very clearly state what is meant in its verses. It says “ٱللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ ۚ” —> It says “shubiha” which is passive form in Arabic. It doesn’t even use active form, which could have been used in a purely grammatical sense as the Arabic Language doesn’t always need pronouns to show who did what, so it could have been in active and then one could argue that Allah made it to appear to them. So there is no deceiving here, just stating the facts. Also there is no contradiction to the eye witness testimony being false in the sense they didn’t saw what happened. So in that sense, the Quran confirms the eye testimony. What I just told you know is not what I personally think the verse mean. I’m not authorized to do this because I’m no scholar. This is general consensus of popular scholars.
You talk about eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ resurrection. What testimony do you mean? There is none. You have in Mark 16:8 the young man telling the women that Jesus is risen and they fled without telling anyone what they saw. It is self evident that this is no actual eyewitness testimony, they didn’t even tell anyone. The “Long Ending”, Mark 16:9-20, is a much later addition (Again, corruption in the Bible) as the earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses don’t have these verses (Footnote NIV).
Other than that you have in 1 Corinthians 15 wwhere it says that Jesus appeared to Cephas. Corinthians is from Paul who is no eyewitness and therefore just a guy living long after Jesus telling you supposed eyewitness without any proof from his side, that Christians follow because the Church told them so - no eye witness testimony, not even hearsay evidence.
You have gospels after Mark that tell the story of Jesus resurrection with different stories of the disciples seeing risen Jesus. We have Matthew’s, Luke’s and John’s Gospel all talking about different eye witnesses seeing the risen Jesus in a different order, all contradicting each other. The Gospels themselves are no eyewitness testimony and in this point they contradict each other (Internal Contradiction in the Bible which you said doesn’t exist; Contradiction doess not happen in the scripture of God), so they cannot be taken as evidence for Jesus resurrection.
Bring me eyewitness testimony of Jesus resurrection you talk about, there is none.
That Jesus peace and blessings be upon him didn’t sin because of his prophethood is right. He never lied. He never even once said he is God or part of the Trinity - he never even mentions the Trinity. Bring me one single time Jesus himself said about himself that he is God. There is no eye witness testimony where Jesus ever said he is God. You won’t be able to as there is none. So there is no external contradiction.
3. God is the All-Knowing. So I don’t see the evidence that should disprove the Quran, if he tells you after 600 years a story about Jesus that doesn’t contradict the things that happened at that time. God can send a new revelation 600 years after. The fact that the Quran came 600 years after Jesus is no proof for or against the truth of the Quran. It is just a gut feeling of some people, like you for example, that makes you feel the Quran is not the truth. The problem with the Bible is that the oldest manuscripts are dated 4 centuries after Jesus. The Quran is provenly preserved from the time of the porphet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him.
So it is more justified to ask why to follow the Bible as the earliest manuscripts are not even from the time it talks about. Also, the earliest manuscripts of the Old Testament are dated 1400 years after Moses. This is the same as if someone would come today and tell you that he fuond a revelation from God that was sent to a man called Muhammad 1400 years ago - not very credible, is it?
You say you follow Jesus and Paul and John are just the people that wrote about him. But they are no eye witnesses. You said that if you wanted to know about A. Lincoln you would look into people who knew him personally and wrote about him. Paul, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark etc. did not know Jesus personally, so you follow what people wrote about him who lived partially over a century after Jesus. You see where you are going?
Now about your extra argument:
I can argue that a source written centuries after an event is more reliable than one that is written a few decades after it, because one can proof through rational evidence that this source is from an All-Knowing and All-Powerful God who is the most reliable source of any knowledge there is. So it doesn’t matter that the Quran is 600 years after Jesus, because we know that the Quran is preserved. Now you have to establish that the Quran is from God and argue on that base, not on that that you personally don’t like the long time period between Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon both of them. So you don’t think emotionally and rationally.
I think if you are sincere you should accept the points I brought to you. Now bring me actual, sincere and genuine, rational evidence that would let you doubt Islam, not an emotional feeling about the fact that it came 600 years after Jesus, which does not proof or disproof the truth of Islam
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Mall and I are having the same debate. Good luck!