The Instigator
tower
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Belief in the Old Testement precudes belief in the New Testement or Koran

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Mirza
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,634 times Debate No: 13234
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (2)

 

tower

Pro

My premise is simple; if you believe in the Old Testement's divinty, ala traditional Christianity or Islam, and that what it says is true, (at least) superficially understandable, and flawless (in the sense a perfect God wrote it) then any subsequent additions that change the message of the text, like the New Testament and the Koran, are inconpatible with the Old Testament, and because they aknoledge the veracity of it, invalidate themselves.

I have two basic proofs:
1) When God introduced the system of comandments in Exodus, he spoke to the entire Jewish nation of 1.2 million people. This presumebly was so no one could call Moses or any other prophet God chose a liar. Either way, it certainly had that effect and, more importantly, set up a standard for divine revalation. If God spoke to you or your grandfather, then a new prophet contradicting what God said, no matter how impressive, is regarded with suspicion. If God changed His mind, why wouldn't He tell you like last time?

2) The Old Testament predicts the coming of Jesus, Mohammed, and the like. In fact, it says that great people rise, perform miracles and wonders, and give signs to prove they are messengers of God. It says they will amass great followings. And then it says that if they change or defy any of the commandments, you should stone them. In fact, one of the best examples, Deut. 13:1-4 specifically says that they will be able to do all these things because God wants to test your faith. So, for an omnipotant being who knows the future, God pretty much painted Himself into a corner, by telling everyone not to believe the people He was going to send. He ensured that people like Jesus or Mohommed would be rejected by anyone educated in His work, as indeed happened. This is not the nature of any caring or just God.

I eagerly await my opponents response.
Mirza

Con

Thank you.

My opponent argues that the Qur'an is invalid because it violates the laws of the Old Testament, namely the Torah. The case for the New Testament is different and I will explain why.

-- Clarification --

Since I am a Muslim, I will argue for the Qur'an because the resolution says, "... or Koran." But it will still have something to do with Jesus (peace be upon him).

-- Arguments --

1. My opponent claimed that it is regarded with suspicion if a Prophet contradicted what God said earlier. I agree entirely. God does not "change His mind." God is the ultimate source of plans. However, did a Prophet actually contradict God, or more specifically, does the Torah invalidate the Qur'an? I will analyze.

One of the books of the Old Testament is called "Isaiah." In this book, we realize that something very important was predicted:

[Isaiah 42:1-4] (1)"Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight;I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations. (2)He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. (3)A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
(4)he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his law the islands will put their hope."

It continues describing the coming of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as my opponent agrees with when it comes to the Torah. Where is the intriguing part? "In his law the islands will put their hope" You see, this mentions "law" and it is exactly in the Old Testament. It already predicts that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) will carry a law with him. This law was no surprise, since the Torah predicted it.

2. My opponent argued that whoever tries to change the commandments, he should be stoned. Firstly, let us see what the Qur'an says about the commandments. If you look at source #1, you will realize that the Qur'an is in no conflict with the 10 Commandments. As for Mosaic Law and Shari'a Law, they are similar, too. However, they do not entirely agree, but the Torah said that whoever changes the law should be stoned. I agree. However, it makes an "exception." That is the key word. The exception applied to none but Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) since the Torah clearly predicted a new law with his coming.

Jesus said,

[Matthew 5:17-18] "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (18)I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Jesus did not do anything to Mosaic Law. Let us see why the Qur'an does nothing wrong with actually changing it.

3. A Prophet "like unto Moses"

Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) was the one that God chose to reveal the Torah to. The Torah is similar to the Qur'an this way.

o It establishes a Law.
o It was revealed unto Prophet Moses.
- He had a family, he was a king, he was rejected by his people and later accepted, he was forced to emigrate (Exodus), etc.
o He was a ruler, he had the power to make use of the law revealed unto him.

I can continue for a long time. Let us look at the Qur'an the same way.

o It establishes a Law.
o It was revealed unto Prophet Muhammad.
- He was a ruler, he was a statesman, he was rejected by his people and later accepted, he was forced to emigrate (Hijrah), tc.

o He had the power to make use of the laws that were revealed unto him.

We already see great similarities between Prophet Moses and Prophet Muhammad.

[Deuteronomy 18:18] [God speaking to Moses] "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him."

God told Moses that a new Prophet "like you," i.e. Moses, shall come, and God will put words in his mouth, and will tell people everything that God tells him. One of the meanings is that God planned bringing a new law with a new Prophet. If God did not plan it, He would not give new commands. But He did, and there is no denial.

As can clearly be seen, the Qur'an is not invalidated even "if" it claims that the Torah is divine in its current form. The Torah clearly predicted the coming of a new Law. But does the Qur'an say that the Old Testament is to be believed?

My opponent said, "... like the New Testament and the Koran, are inconpatible with the Old Testament, and because they aknoledge the veracity of it, invalidate themselves."

I will refute it in the next point.

4. The Qur'an and Torah

[Qur'an 6:91] "No just estimate of Allah do they make when they say: 'Nothing doth Allah send down to man (by way of revelation)' Say: 'Who then sent down the Book which Moses brought?- a light and guidance to man: But ye make it into (separate) sheets for show, while ye conceal much (of its contents): therein were ye taught that which ye knew not- neither ye nor your fathers.' Say: 'Allah (sent it down)": Then leave them to plunge in vain discourse and trifling.'"

The Qur'an acknowledges that the Torah was once revealed unto Moses. Let us see what it says more about it.

[Qur'an 2:74/79] "Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it."

79: "Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby."

The Qur'an not only acknowledges that the Torah was once from God, but that it got corrupted by men. What does this mean? It means that God did not protect the Torah, rather sent the Qur'an as the final testament to humankind, which has no basis on the Old Testament in any way. Islam recognizes the "original" Torah, not the current one. That is why Islam has no basis on the Old Testament or the New Testament. It is as if someone is one's friend; he is your friend if he is good, but if he turns bad, he is not your friend. The Torah got corrupt and that is why the Qur'an makes no divine claim of the current one, only one that was revealed unto Moses.

[Qur'an 3:187] "And remember Allah took a covenant from the People of the Book, to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it; but they threw it away behind their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And vile was the bargain they made!"

My cases stands clear; Islam is not invalidated by any content of the Torah, even "if" it had its basis on it, which it surely has not.

[Qur'an 3:78] "There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, 'That is from Allah,' but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!"

I thank my opponent once more.

-- References --

[1] http://www.submission.org...
Debate Round No. 1
tower

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

Sinces my opponent numbered his arguements, I shall number my responses according to his for easy refernce to which point I am addressing.

1. My opponent quotes Isaiah to prove the Torah predicts a Mohommed bringing a new law. I have three points of contention: Firstly, although those verses speak of the messiah, they do not say they are refering to Mohommed; they can only be applied to him retroactively if you believe he was the messiah. Secondly, the word my opponent translates as "law" is, in Hebrew, "torato" or "his teachings". "His Laws" would be "tzvivato". This merely sounds like the messiah will be a great teacher, not institute laws of his own. Thirdly, this only can prove that he will institute new laws. The verse says nothing about overturning the laws of the Torah, because no one is allowed to do that.
I would also point out that Isaiah himself was a prophet. If God had meant there to be an excption to His rule of no changes, surely He would of written so by the rule, not told it to a prophet hundreds of years later who himself had no authuority to make exceptions to the Torah.

2. My opponent says that Mohommed is the soles exception th the law that changers of the Law should be stoned. there is no source for this.
Incidently, my opponent is right that there is no clear proof that Jesus changed the Law. However, it is pretty clears Paul did, and his gospel is part of the New Testament.

3. My opponent attempts to prove that the Torah predicts the coming of a prophet "like" Moses, who will bring a new Law. The problem is that these passages are dealing with any prophet that arose after Moses; the next verses are full of laws on how to deal with them- these are, in fact, the scriptual prophets who went under the procedures described in the next verse. In context, the word "like" means that the prophet is like Moses in the sense that he is a prophet, nothing more. At the very least, that verse is refering to a dozen Old Tesament-established prophets. Pretty shaky source for God to base his new revalation on.
my opponent attempts to compare Moses and Mohommed by saying they both recieved a Law. But Moses never recieved a Law by himself! As I've stated, the Mosiac Law was given in front of 1.2 million people, as it says numerous times in Exodos. In fact, my opponent totally failed to address this point. Apparently, even Moses was not a great enough personage for God to give the Law through. God gave it in front of 1.2 million people so it would be incontravertable. How could He change His mind without duplicating the feat? This was and still is half my arguement, and I'm still waiting for an answer.

4. My opponent stated in the comments he would not use semantics in his arguement. This, I think, falls into that catagory. My opponent says that the Old Testament is true, just that what we have today is not the Old Testament. I think it is clear from my opening paragraph that I meant the Old Testament we have today. If you want to argue that Islam does not hold it is true and in its original form, all well and good; My premise is based on the fact that if you believe its true , then the Koran is invalid. Therefore, this is really irrelevant to the discussion.

I look foward to my opponents response.
Mirza

Con

Thank you.

-- Rebuttals --

1. Isaiah predicting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

My opponent claimed - without any evidence - that Isaiah 42:1-4 speaks of the Messiah, not the beloved Prophet Muhammad. I will analyze these passages further and prove that they do not speak of Jesus.

[Isaiah 42:1-4] "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations. (2)He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. (3)A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; (4)he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his law the islands will put their hope."

Let us see verse 11 of Isaiah 42:

"Let the desert and its towns raise their voices; let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice. Let the people of Sela sing for joy; let them shout from the mountaintops."

This speaks of the one that is awaited as being a descendant of Kedar.

[Genesis 25:13] "These are the names of Ishmael's sons in the order they were born: Nebaioth, the first son, then Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam..."

Kedar was one of the sons of Ishmael, and he [Ishmael] was exactly the ancestor of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

My opponent moved on to saying that the awaited Prophet will come with new teachings because the translation is "his teachings" not "his laws." There is no big difference. In fact, "his teachings" is even more appropriate since they not only cover laws, but everything else. They cover the teachings of a new scripture, new law, new standards, and so forth.

2. Exception

My opponent claimed that I said that only Prophet Muhammad was an exception to changing the law. First of all, the argument about the 10 Commandments was completely ignored by my opponent. Second of all, none could change the Law except those who were meant to do so. If anything, Islamic Law is similar to Mosaic Law. Also, the Old Testament contradicts itself in several occasions, and what is part of the Mosaic Law could be contradicted within the Old Testament, which means that any new Law that comes without making big changes is just as valid.

3. A Prophet like Moses

My opponent said that the passages predicting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) are actually dealing with all Prophets that came after Moses. This is a very untrue statement. There is not one single Prophet that is as similar to Moses as Prophet Muhammad was. My opponent ignored my comparison between the two.

I will do it again:

o Both were rulers
o Both were rejected by their people, then accepted
o Both got a new scripture revealed unto them
o Both spoke what God commanded directly
o Both established new laws in the nations they ruled
o Both were born naturally (both parents, Jesus only had one)
o Both died naturally (they were not murdered or they did not directly go to Heaven)
o Both were forced to emigrate (Exodus and Hijrah)
o Both had families and offspring

No other Prophets were this similar. Moving on, my opponent said that Moses never received a Law by himself, but in front of 1.2 million people.

By this logic, if I receive a diploma in front of 20 people, they all received it? The entire point is that God revealed the Torah [to] none other but Moses. Other people did not receive it, it was Moses. God commanded Moses to speak through the scripture; no other people did it at his time. No other. I did not ignore the argument. I made it clear that the Torah (hereby Mosaic Law) was revealed [unto] Prophet Moses. [In front of] others has absolutely nothing to change about that fact.

4. Semantics

My opponent falsely said that I used semantical arguments. I never said that we did not have the Old Testament today, nor did I say that it is true. I said that the original was true, and Islam has no basis on it today whatsoever. He said that,

"like the New Testament and the Koran, are inconpatible with the Old Testament, and because they aknoledge the veracity of it, invalidate themselves."

Did I say this? No, my opponent did. [He himself] concluded that because the Qur'an acknowledges the veracity of the OT, it invalidates itself. I am defending the Qur'an and saying that it is not invalid because it holds a different view toward the Torah than what my opponent erroneously said. Moreover, even [if] I say that the Qur'an says that the current Torah is true, I have still made other arguments that make the Qur'an fully valid in both cases. Therefore, my claim stands strong and there are no semantics from my side.

-- References --

http://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 2
tower

Pro

tower forfeited this round.
Mirza

Con

My opponent has forfeited, and I do not want to place a tough burden on him by adding more arguments that he will most probably not have enough character space to refute them. I hope that he is ready for the next rounds.
Debate Round No. 3
tower

Pro

tower forfeited this round.
Mirza

Con

Spiderman, Spiderman,
Does whatever a spider can
Spins a web, any size,
Catches thieves just like flies
Look Out!
Here comes the Spiderman.

Is he strong?
Listen bud,
He's got radioactive blood.
Can he swing from a thread
Take a look overhead
Hey, there
There goes the Spiderman.

In the chill of night
At the scene of a crime
Like a streak of light
He arrives just in time.

Spiderman, Spiderman
Friendly neighborhood Spiderman
Wealth and fame
He's ingnored
Action is his reward.

To him, life is a great big bang up
Whenever there's a hang up
You'll find the Spider man.
Debate Round No. 4
tower

Pro

tower forfeited this round.
Mirza

Con

Batman! Batman!
Batman! Batman!
Batman! Batman! Batman!

Batman! Batman!
Batman! Batman!
Batman! Batman! Batman!

Nanananananananana
Nanananananananana

Batman! Batman!
Batman! Batman!
Batman! Batman! Batman!

Batman! Batman! Batman!

Babababababababa
Batman!
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Well, that was for fun.
Posted by Valtarov 6 years ago
Valtarov
Mirza, you would have won conduct too if you didn't make a mockery of the last 2 rounds.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Your answer is...

Correct!
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
infovnoaienivfnoasjdn BLAH
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Vote-bombing detected!
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
I voted honestly..
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
It could have been a good debate...
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Thank you.
Posted by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
Sorry if it seems petty to point this out Tower, but there is no gospel of Paul, merely his epistles.

Interesting debate, both of you.
Posted by tower 6 years ago
tower
Sorry for the repeat comment. Looking foward to what you have to say.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Valtarov 6 years ago
Valtarov
towerMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
towerMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07