Can we trust the Islamic version of Jesus?
Round 1: Acceptance to debate ONLY
Round 2: Present your case
Round 3: 1st rebuttals
Round 4: 2nd rebuttals
Round 5: Concluding remarks
I would really appreciate it if only a Muslim accepts this debate, and one who actually knows what the Qur'an teaches about Jesus.
Good luck to whoever accepts the call to debate.
I also before we start I would like to clarify the Muslim perspective regarding Prophet Jesus (pbuh), The fact is Islam is the only non-Christian faith, which makes it an article of faith to believe in Jesus (pbuh). No Muslim is a Muslim if he does not believe in Jesus (pbuh), We believe that he was one of the mightiest Messengers of Allah (swt), We believe that he was born miraculously, without any male intervention, which many modern day Christians do not believe, We believe he was the Messiah translated Christ (pbuh), We believe that he gave life to the dead with God's permission, We believe that he healed those born blind, and the lepers with God's permission.
I gladly accept the challenge and advice myself and my opponent to debate with an open mind to each other viewpoint, to keep a mutual respect and understanding, and to strengthen our points with sources from the holy books (the Qur"an & the Bible).
Best of Luck.
Here are reasons why I think Islamic Jesus should NOT be trusted by any rational person:
1) The stories about Jesus in the Qur'an are borrowed from earlier non-inspired sources
for example: in Surah 19:29-31 it states - "The people said, "How shall we talk with him, who is but an infant in the cradle?" Whereupon the child spoke out, "I am a servant of Allah: He has given me the Book and He has appointed me a Prophet, and He has made me blessed wherever I may be. He has enjoined upon me to offer Salat and give Zakat so long as I shall live."
Muhammad is putting words into the mouth of Jesus, essentially turning him into a Muslim. The baby Muslim Jesus uses the word salat or obligatory prayers, the second of Five Pillars in Islam. Jesus the infant uses the word zakat or the charity tax that all Muslims must pay, the third pillar. Muhammad has lost sight of objectivity and facts, and bends reality to his purposes.
A very similar story is found in the Arabic Infancy Gospel:
We have found it recorded in the book of Josephus the Chief Priest, who was in the time of Christ (and men say that he was Caiaphas), that this man said that Jesus spake when He was in the cradle, and said to Mary His Mother, "Verily I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Word which thou hast borne, according as the angel Gabriel gave thee the good news; and My Father hath sent Me for the salvation of the world." (ch.1)
Muhammad it seems like he took this account and revised it to make Jesus deny he was the Son of God and make him accept the pillars of Islam.
I personally already see a huge problem with the Islamic Jesus.
Another example is in Surah 3:49 where it states - [Then Jesus says to the children of Israel:] "I will make a bird for you out of clay, then breathe into it and, with God"s permission, it will become a real bird"
In Surah 5:110, Jesus actually does make clay birds.
This story is borrowed from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, another apocryphal work.
The apocryphal gospel says:
2.1 [Jesus] made soft clay and modeled twelve sparrows from it . . . 4. Jesus clapped his hands and cried to the sparrows, "Be gone." And the sparrows flew off chirping. (The New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, p. 444)
2) Muhammad has put words into the mouth of Jesus that NO ONE before Islam ever claimed that Jesus ever said.
In Surah 61:6 - And remember Jesus the son of Mary said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad."
Did any Church Father ever report that Jesus said this? Did any follower of Jesus from the 1st century ever report Jesus saying this? The answer is no. Imagine if someone put words into the mouths of Muhammad to the same effect, for example: Remember when Muhammad said: "O children of Arabia, I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me and giving the good news of an Apostle to come after me, whose name shall be Mirza Ghulam Ahmed."
Would any Muslim think that Muhammad ever said this? No. Why not? Because no one from the 1st Islamic century or in the Hadiths ever report Muhammad saying such a thing. If you are going to reject Muhammad saying this, then be consistent and reject Jesus saying Muhammad would come after him, when no one before Islam ever made that claim.
3) Islam rejects that Jesus died on the cross:
Surah 4:157 - That they said (in boast) "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah"; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not.
It is strange how Islam rejects a well established fact such as the crucifixion of Jesus. Out of everything we can know about the Historical Jesus scholars agree that his death on the cross is the most certain fact about him.
This is not just the view of believing scholars, it is the consensus even amongst skeptical scholars:
Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd L"demann says:
"Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is INDISPUTABLE."
John Dominic Crossan, a radical skeptical New Testament scholar of the Jesus Seminar states:
"There is NOT THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT about THE FACT of Jesus' crucifixion under Pontius Pilate."
Marcus Borg, of the skeptical Jesus Seminar states:
"Jesus' execution is THE MOST CERTAIN FACT about the Historical Jesus."
Pinchas Lapide, one of the Only Jewish New Testament scholar states:
"Jesus' death by crucifixion is HISTORICALLY CERTAIN."
Paula Fredriksen, an American historian and scholar of Religious studies states:
"The single MOST SOLID FACT about Jesus' life is HIS DEATH."
How is it that Islam can come 600 years after Jesus and make a claim that he didn't die on the cross denying the most established fact about Jesus? If evidence in favor of a historical fact such as the crucifixion of Jesus was a deception on the part of God, then we can't know anything about history, because God could've tricked us into believing a lot of other false facts about history.
4) Jesus had hundreds of followers, and his closest disciples were known as the 12. Well guess what, Jesus' disciples had followers, and we have their writings preserved to this day. IF what Islam says about Jesus is true, I would expect to find them denying Jesus' death on the cross and affirming what Islam said about Jesus.
Clement of Rome (student of the Apostle Peter) in his epistle to the Corinthians states:
"Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the RESURRECTION of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand." (ch.1)
Polycarp (student of the Apostle John) in his epistle to the Philippians states:
"Now may the God and Father of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and THE ETERNAL HIGH PRIEST HIMSELF, THE SON OF GOD JESUS CHRIST, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness and in all freedom from anger and forbearance and steadfastness and patient endurance and purity, and may he give to you a share and a place among his saints, and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in OUR LORD AND GOD JESUS CHRIST and in his Father who raised him from the dead." (ch.12).
"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist; and WHOSOEVER DOES NOT CONFESS THE TESTIMONY OF THE CROSS, IS OF THE DEVIL.
Ignatius of Antioch (another student of the Apostle John) in his Letter to the Romans states:
"Nothing visible is eternal. "For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal." For OUR GOD, JESUS CHRIST, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. (ch.3)
In his epistle to the Smyrnaeans states:
"Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as CERTAIN UNBELIEVERS MAINTAIN, THAT HE ONLY SEEMED TO SUFFER, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits."
Notice what these Church Fathers who were taught and appointed by Jesus' disciples as leaders of churches in different cities have to say:
Jesus Christ is God, Jesus Christ died for our sake, Jesus Christ was risen from the dead.
EVERYTHING Islam denies about Jesus, these Church Fathers affirm. Everything Islam affirms about Jesus, these Church Fathers say make you an unbeliever, an Antichrist, and of the Devil.
According to these students of Jesus' disciples, we most certainly CAN NOT trust the Islamic Jesus.
All the evidence is conclusive, we can NOT trust the Islamic Jesus.
The Qur'an borrows from legendary stories about Jesus, Islam denies what the students of Jesus' disciples affirm about Jesus, Islam affirms what the students of Jesus' disciples say make you an unbeliever.
Before I Began Representing my case of why we should trust and believe the Qur"an description of Jesus Crist (pbuh), I would like to point massive flaws in my opponent argument;
1- My opponent Entire case of why we can"t trust the Islamic version of Jesus rests on;
A)" The stories about Jesus in the Qur'an are borrowed from earlier non-inspired sources"
My opponent does not specify what sources he is referring to, and where we can go to confirm its authenticity and credibility, and since the Arabic Bible simply did not exist until the 8th century, "The earliest fragment of the Old Testament in Arabic is a text of Psalm 77, found in the Umayyad Mosque, dating from the 8th century "(https://en.wikipedia.org...), we also know that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) died in the June 8, 632 AD, So there wasn"t any Arabic Bible available until 150 years after the passing of the prophet.
B) Prophet Muhammad was unlearned man (he couldn't read or write) it is confirmed and documented in the Qur"an "Before this, you did not read any book, nor did you write anything with your hands". (29:48).
See also evidence in (Saheeh Muslim, Book 019, Number 4403) "in the al-Hudaybiyah Treaty, the prophet (pbuh) did not write the treaty, but his cousin `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was the writer. While writing the treaty, Suhail ibn `Amr [Quraish side] rejected that the prophet would have his name signed as the messenger or apostle of Allah (rasoulu Allah). Sohail asked to have it changed to "Muhammad, son of Abdullah". Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) then asked `Ali to omit rasoulu Allah, which means the messenger of Allah. Yet, Ali did not like the idea of omitting it and said: "By Allah I swear I will never omit rasoulu Allah!" Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said to `Ali: "show it to me." After `Ali showed it to him, the prophet omitted it" and there is another 100 examples indicated that prophet Muhammad could of not read or write, and certainly didn't know Hebrew or Greek to copy from any Christian documents.
2- My opponent argument "Muhammad has put words into the mouth of Jesus that NO ONE before Islam ever claimed that Jesus ever said." And "Did any Church Father ever report that Jesus said this? Did any follower of Jesus from the 1st century ever report Jesus saying this? The answer is no."
I would argue which church? And what church fathers is he referring to? Also my opponent assumes that his Bible is the true authentic word of God and is using it as a criterion to judge Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), This is something that he still needs to prove and not just assert.
3- My opponent argument "Islam rejects that Jesus died on the cross" and he call it "a well established fact such as the crucifixion of Jesus".
Again Con assertions is unfounded and baked up by Christian apologists to push down the crucifixion of Jesus (pbuh) up on us, Islam does not deny that A crucifixion has took place, but denies that Jesus (pbuh) is the one who was crucified, and the Bible agrees with the Qur"an in that matter as we read In the Bible (Hebrews 5:7) we clearly see that GOD Almighty had heard Jesus' cries to save him from death. Also in (Mark 14:50) King James Bible "And they all forsook him, and fled." ALL means ALL, so there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion, or who was crucified.
In short my opponent criticizes the Qur"an and Islam regarding the Story of Jesus (pbuh) when he have a major problem deciding which of the 34,000 christian denominations (according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity) is correct followers of Jesus (pbuh).
My opponent source of information regarding this topic is questionable, and it holds no weight to prove that Jesus (pbuh) story in the Qur"an is incorrect.
You've just committed the fallacy of equivocation. When you say you believe in Jesus, please clarify what you mean by that. Do you believe he was the Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins, and rose from the dead after 3 days? If not, then what Jesus do you believe in? The corrupted Jesus that you Muslims accuse us Christians of following? The Jesus that Muhammad preached who was a Muslim? The Jesus who predicted Muhammad? Let me put it like this:
"I believe in Muhammad to! He was one of the mightiest messengers of the Lord Jesus Christ, but some time after his death, the evil Uthman decided to come in and corrupt his message, and his distorted version of Muhammad's teachings are what Islam is today, but I still believe in Muhammad, and I love him". Would ANY Muslim on the planet consider this as "believing in Muhammad"? This is not believing in Muhammad, this is insulting Muhammad that he just couldn't pick followers who wouldn't allow Uthman to corrupt his message. Just as you Muslims accuse Paul of hijacking the message of Jesus.
My opponent said "We believe that he was born miraculously, without any male intervention, which many modern day Christians do not believe"
My opponent said "We believe he was the Messiah translated Christ (pbuh)"
Here is a question i'd like to ask my opponent, Why is Jesus called THE Messiah in Islam? If he was just another Muslim prophet, why does Jesus get the title "The Messiah", and not Muhammad? What's The Messiah suppose to do in Islam? Does Islamic Jesus fulfill any of the prophecies from the Old Testament that Old Testament scholars have pointed out refer to the Messiah? If so, which ones?
Many modern day Christians reject Jesus' virgin birth? Says who? Where is the evidence for that? If there was evidence I would respond to it. But let's assume for the sake of argument that it is in fact true. That proves nothing, the New Testament teaches the virgin birth of Jesus and that's all that matters.
My opponent said "My opponent does not specify what sources he is referring to, and where we can go to confirm its authenticity and credibility"
Yes I did, I cited the Apocryphal Gospels they came from and demonstrated how the Qur'an basically decided to change a few words here and there and turn Jesus into a Muslim who predicts the coming of Muhammad, very convenient for Muhammad, but as a Christian, I am not impressed.
My opponent said "he earliest fragment of the Old Testament in Arabic is a text of Psalm 77, found in the Umayyad Mosque, dating from the 8th century" there fore this shows that Muhammad knowing the Bible is quite impressive.
First of all, it is not hard for Muhammad to have heard stories from Jews or Christians in his travels. Your own sources testify that he was a caravan trader. He heard stories from various peoples that he interacted with. And also, his cousin was supposedly a Nestorian Christian monk named Bahira. And Muhammad's first wife Khadijah was Nestorian as well. So he had ample opportunity to learn stories from them or from the people he interacted with during his caravan adventures.
My opponent said "Muhammad could not read or write"
I find this difficult to believe. The reason being is how on earth is a caravan trader illiterate? Caravan traders being business workers keep records of their transactions. Why would Muhammad do a job that requires him to be literate when he is in fact illiterate? But let's assume for the sake of argument he was illiterate. Remember what I said earlier, Muhammad had Christian relatives who could have taught him stories and then have his companions write them down. Or he could of picked up on the stories while he was traveling on his caravan trades.
My opponent said "Con assertions is unfounded and baked up by Christian apologists to push down the crucifixion of Jesus (pbuh) up on us"
It seems like my opponent didn't see the people I quoted. I quoted Gerd Ludemann an ATHEIST New Testament scholar. I quoted John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, these gentlemen are on the far left of radical skepticism, in other words they have a big bias against Christianity. Still they say "THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT about THE FACT of JESUS' CRUCIFIXION".
My opponent said "Islam only denies it was Jesus was the one on the cross"
It seems like my opponent has no hesitation to accuse God of deceiving and duping Jesus' disciples into thinking Jesus died on the cross. The thought of God pulling something off like this is just shocking and disturbing. Are Jesus' disciples going to Hell for falling for Allah's deception? Because they most certainly were NOT Muslims as the Qur'an claims.
My opponent said "I would argue which church? And what church fathers is he referring to? Also my opponent assumes that his Bible is the true authentic word of God and is using it as a criterion to judge Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), This is something that he still needs to prove and not just assert."
First of all, I never even appealed to the Bible in my opening argument, so this point is irrelevant. The Church Fathers I am talking about are people who learned about Jesus Christ directly from the Apostles, and were appointed by them as bishops of various churches. Church Father Clement of Rome learned about Jesus Christ DIRECTLY from the Apostle Peter, Jesus' chief apostle, and Clement of Rome was consecrated by the Apostle Peter himself as bishop. Church Father Polycarp became the Apostle John's disciple when John was an old man, He travelled with John setting up churches in various cities. The Apostle John appointed him as bishop of Smyrna. Church Father Ignatius of Antioch was another disciple of the Apostle John. Some laster Church Fathers even report that the Apostle Peter appointed him as bishop of Antioch. These are the Church Fathers I am talking about, those who talked with the eyewitnesses to Jesus' life, and Church Fathers who knew someone who knew an eyewitness such as Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were disciples of Polycarp who was an eyewitness of the Apostle John's teachings. Like I said, there is no evidence that Jesus predicted the coming of Muhammad BEFORE Islam. If you have evidence, present it here and i'll take a look at it.
My opponent said "(Hebrews 5:7) we clearly see that GOD Almighty had heard Jesus' cries to save him from death. Also in (Mark 14:50) King James Bible "And they all forsook him, and fled."
My opponent took Hebrews 5:7 completely out of context. In order to under stand what this verse is saying, read it in the context of the chapter it's in, the context of the book it's in, the context of the New Testament as a whole. Let's read Hebrews 1:3 - "After MAKING PURIFICATION FOR SINS, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high".
Hebrews 2:9-10 - "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for THE SUFFERING DEATH crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.
So in light of the context of the book as a whole, Jesus clearly died on the cross, according to the same Book of Hebrews he appealed to. So now it is easy to know what Hebrews 5:7 REALLY means and not how my opponent distorted the verse. The verse IN CONTEXT means that Jesus after dying would be raised back up to life. Mark 14:50, again my opponent has no hesitation distorting the New Testament when it suits his purposes. The context of Mark 14:50 is Jesus' BETRAYAL and TRIAL, it was not his crucifixion. I would appreciate it if my opponent could stop distorting my scriptures, just as he doesn't like it when people do that with the Qur'an.
My opponent said "In short my opponent criticizes the Qur'an and Islam regarding the Story of Jesus (pbuh) when he have a major problem deciding which of the 34,000 christian denominations (according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity) is correct followers of Jesus (pbuh)."
And this proves what? These "denominations" are defined in terms of being separate organisations, NOT NECESSARILY SEPERATE BELIEFS. This is a critical difference, not commonly noted by critics. (source: https://theway21stcentury.wordpress.com...)
The beliefs of every Christian denominations are for the most part the same, Jesus is the Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins, and rose again on the third day. We might disagree on certain issues, but we all have the same core beliefs, so your argument is irrelevant. And besides this doesn't substantiate the Islamic version of Jesus, even if it were a problem for us Christians.
My opponent is pointing out all these supposed problems with Christianity all while forgetting to provide POSITIVE EVIDENCE in favor of Islamic Jesus. What evidence can my opponent provide that convinces me, someone who doesn't believe in Islam to trust Islamic Jesus? I am waiting for some positive evidence.
Con is trying to shift the burden of proof completely on Pro, when it is his Burden to proof that we can’t trust the Islamic version of Jesus.
“You've just committed the fallacy of equivocation. When you say you believe in Jesus, please clarify what you mean by that”
Con is getting emotional here “Let me put it like this: “I believe in Muhammad to! He was one of the mightiest messengers of the Lord Jesus Christ, but sometime after his death, the evil Uthman ………… Just as you Muslims accuse Paul of hijacking the message of Jesus.”
Here is another example of Con shifting the burden of proof on Pro, when it is his to bear;
“If he was just another Muslim prophet, why does Jesus get the title "The Messiah", and not Muhammad?”
What's The Messiah suppose to do in Islam?
50) “And [I have come] confirming what was before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so fear Allah and obey me.”
51) “Indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is the straight path."
So the Messiah massage was the same massage every prophet of Allah convoyed to their people “Indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is the straight path."
“Does Islamic Jesus fulfill any of the prophecies from the Old Testament that Old Testament scholars have pointed out refer to the Messiah? If so, which ones?”
“Yes I did, I cited the Apocryphal Gospels they came from and demonstrated how the Qur'an basically decided to change a few words here and there and turn Jesus into a Muslim who predicts the coming of Muhammad, very convenient for Muhammad, but as a Christian, I am not impressed.”
“I quoted Gerd Ludemann an ATHEIST New Testament scholar. I quoted John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, these gentlemen are on the far left of radical skepticism, in other words they have a big bias against Christianity. Still they say "THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT about THE FACT of JESUS' CRUCIFIXION".
And why not take to considiration the other Atheist scholars Like Lloyd Graham? “In the nineteenth century an eminent scholar, Rabbi Wise, searched the records of Pilate’s court, still extant, for evidence of this trial He found nothing." (Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 343), my point is beside scholar’s opinions to agree or disagrees on the crucifixion of Jesus (pbuh), they have no concrete evidence that it was Jesus (pbuh) on that cross and not someone else.
“Church Father Clement of Rome learned about Jesus Christ DIRECTLY from the Apostle Peter”
Again Con answers to why we can’t trust the Islamic version of Jesus, and he is trying to convince us that we should trust Christian version of Jesus (pbuh) because, The Bible Said so, Churches fathers and bishops said so, and some of the Atheist and Christians scholars said so, which is all irrelevant if none can provide hard unquestionable evidence of Jesus (pbuh) crucifixion.
“The beliefs of every Christian denominations are for the most part the same, Jesus is the Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins, and rose again on the third day.”
“What evidence can my opponent provide that convinces me, someone who doesn't believe in Islam to trust Islamic Jesus?”
Islamic view of Jesus (pbuh);
And I still awaiting my opponent to come up with hard evidence better than the here say he is been providing so far,Thanks
Well, that's the point of this debate, for you the Muslim to convince me the skeptic of Islam that Islam's version of Jesus can be trusted. We can't start with the assumption that the Qur'an is inspired, or we will be arguing in circles.
"I would argue this is irrelevant to the subject debated, and it only put further burden of proof on pro which he still didn"t produced to us of why we can"t trust the Islamic version of Jesus. "
What proof? The point of this debate is for you to show us WHY we (kafirs) can trust what Islam says about Jesus. I am arguing against the position that we can trust Islamic Jesus, so it is YOUR job to prove to me what Islam says about Jesus can be trusted.
My opponent said "In Arabic, Jesus is known as Eesa. In sixteen of the 25 places in the Quran where Eesa is used, he is called "the son of Mary" (Ibn Maryam). Since he had no father, he was named so after his mother, The Descriptive Titles of Jesus in the Quran "The Messiah", it is not a name it is a title, all prophets in Islam have titles (Ibrahim (pbuh) the friend of Allah "AL Khalil", Muses (pbuh) the talker with Allah "Al Kaleem", Jesus (pbuh) The anointed "Al Masseeh", Muhammad (pbuh) the seal of prophets "Al Khatam "), So it is titles to the prophets of God to always remember them with honor and respect which Muslims are required to.
You didn't answer my question, i'll ask again, why is Jesus called the Messiah if he is just another Muslim prophet?
My opponent said "The Quran answers this question very clearly (3:49-51)"
The point I am trying to make is that The Messiah has 2 specific roles in the Hebrew Bible. Role 1 - Suffering servant ; Role 2 - Conquering King. The Hebrew Scriptures DO NOT say the Messiah will come the first time to preach the Torah. People already know that Torah, so if that was the point of the Messiah's whole first mission, then there was no point for him to come in the first place.
My opponent said "This is uncalled for and disrespectful, and still provides no evidence of which verses did prophet Muhammad (pbuh) copied from "the apocryphal Gospels"? And when did he copy them? Where are the witnesses?"
It seems like my opponent just wants to dance around the issue. I don't even think he read the references I gave. THE INFANCY GOSPEL OF THOMAS and THE ARABIC INFANCY GOSPEL. If my opponent is going to be truthful to himself, I encourage him to look at the references I gave. Stop trying to act like an Atheist who rejects anything as evidence and then ask "What's the evidence?".
My opponent said "here is a bigger challenge for you if you like to compare 6th century to the 21st century, how on earth there is (according to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy) 32 million adults in the U.S. can't read? So yes 1400 years ago most traders (ex. Sheep herders and orphans like the prophet) didn"t have the chance to be educated or to learn how to read or write, and again it is Con burden to proof otherwise, and then shows when? And where? And how did the Prophet copied from the Christians or the Jews scriptures?"
I already answered your questions, I said for the sake of argument, even if Muhammad was illiterate, that wouldn't prove he didn't plagiarize. He HEARD THE STORIES, HE REMEMBERED them, then he TOLD HIS FOLLOWERS AN ALTERED VERSION OF IT, and THEY WROTE IT DOWN.
My opponent said "then why not agree with them also that "only about five per cent of the sayings attributed to Jesus are genuine and the historical evidence does not support the claims of traditional Christianity"? (https://en.wikipedia.org......)"
Notice what my opponent did, instead of responding to scholars who state Jesus' crucifixion is a historical fact he tried to change subjects. What scholars have to say about the New Testament is not the topic of this debate, this debate is on can we trust the Islamic version of Jesus. If you want to debate on the Gospels, we can do so, but stay on topic please. Just because I use a skeptical scholar's opinion on a historical fact, DOES NOT MEAN that I must now believe them on what they say about the New Testament's reliability. I was simply quoting them because you said that "only Christians believe in the crucifixion" and now that I give you skeptical scholars when you asked for it, you still aren't satisfied.
My opponent said "Again that is not true Major Christian denomination (Anglicanism, Catholicism, Lutheran, Methodism, Eastern Orthodox and Presbyterian) disagrees on the nature of Jesus (example is he God? Is he the Son of God? Is he a part of the triune God? Just like they are deferring regarding the Trinity Doctrine (http://www.religionfacts.com......)"
Name one denomination which believes that Islam's portrayal of Jesus is accurate. Yes, some Christians ERRONEOUSLY think that Jesus is not God according to the New Testament. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between what scriptures teach and what the followers of the scriptures believe. The New Testament teaches the deity of Christ. That's exactly what Son of God means, being equal with God. If you said to a 1st century Jew that God was your Father or that you are THE Son of God (not simply a Son of God), they would pick up stones to stone you for blasphemy.
The Apostle John explains what THE Son of God means: John 5:18 - Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but ALSO SAID THAT GOD WAS HIS FATHER, MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL WITH GOD.
My opponent said "Islamic view of Jesus (pbuh);
1- He was a man born miraculously without a male intervention.
2- He was a prophet of God to the children of Israel.
3- He performed many miracles in his life time.
4- He was saved by God from dying on the cross.
5- He will return to confirm God"s Commandments and Laws.
6- He breached monotheism to the people (there is only one God), and he never claimed divinity to himself.
This is the Islamic believe and each of those 6 points can be verified from the Qur"an and also from the Bible."
You don't need to tell me what the Qur'an says about Jesus, I already know what it says, that's not the point of this debate, the point of this debate is to show me how this view of Jesus can be trusted.
My opponent is seriously out of his mind if he seriously thinks that according to the Bible Jesus didn't die on the cross. He also erroneously assumes that the Bible doesn't teach the deity of Christ? The deity of Christ is written all over the New Testament, and you must seriously be delusional to think otherwise. I find it ironic how my opponent after making the statement "why not trust scholars when they say 5% of the sayings in the New Testament are attributed to Jesus" then turns right around and says "The Bible confirms the Islamic Jesus". If you're going to attack the Bible, then stop using it to prove Islamic Jesus. Why are you quoting from the Bible if you don't trust it in the first place? And by the way, do you honestly think that those same skeptical scholars who doubt everything in the Bible would turn right around and say "Oh yeah, everything the Qur'an says about Jesus is accurate".
I am still waiting for my opponent to give positive evidence in favor of Islamic Jesus. All the other issues we are talking about are irrelevant to the debate, such as whether Muhammad was illiterate or not. Simply quoting what the Qur'an says about Jesus doesn't prove that we can trust it.
Rebuttal: Can we trust the Islamic version of Jesus?
Con: “when it is his Burden to proof that we can"t trust the Islamic version of Jesus"
Islam doesn’t have to prove that Jesus (Pbuh) is not God;
Islam does not need to prove that is Jesus is a prophet of God;
Verse after verse shoots the truth in to the eye of the reader that Jesus (pbuh) is a prophet and a massager of God and he NEVER claimed divinity or orders any one to worship him or to address him as God.
Con:“What proof? The point of this debate is for you to show us WHY we (kafirs) can trust what Islam says about Jesus”
Con:“You didn't answer my question, i'll ask again, why is Jesus called the Messiah if he is just another Muslim prophet?”
Con: “The Hebrew Scriptures DO NOT say the Messiah will come the first time to preach the Torah. People already know that Torah”
Con: “I don't even think he read the references I gave. THE INFANCY GOSPEL OF THOMAS and THE ARABIC INFANCY GOSPEL.”
Con: “Stop trying to act like an Atheist who rejects anything as evidence and then ask "What's the evidence?".
Con: “even if Muhammad was illiterate, that wouldn't prove he didn't plagiarize. He HEARD THE STORIES, HE REMEMBERED them, then he TOLD HIS FOLLOWERS AN ALTERED VERSION OF IT, and THEY WROTE IT DOWN.”
Con: “Notice what my opponent did, instead of responding to scholars who state Jesus' crucifixion is a historical fact he tried to change subjects.”
Con: “Name one denomination which believes that Islam's portrayal of Jesus is accurate”
Co:. “If you said to a 1st century Jew that God was your Father or that you are THE Son of God (not simply a Son of God), they would pick up stones to stone you for blasphemy.”
So “Son of God” or “The Son of God” is used in many places in the bible not only to address Jesus (pbuh) and he is defiantly not the only Son of God according to the Bible.
And I agree with Imam Shabir Ally (http://www.whyislam.org...) “Some people mistakenly thought that the disciples called Jesus Son of God. An inconsistency of translation actually helped to give this wrong impression. In the King James Bible, the translators call Jesus “Son of God” in Acts 3:13, 26, and “child of God” in Acts 4:27. They simply translated the Greek word paida as “son” or “child”. But the word paida also means “servant”, and the present context demands this translation since the author of Acts is trying in this passage to establish that Jesus is indeed the servant of God.
The translators knew that the Greek word paida means servant. When the same word was used for David in chapter 4, verse 25, they translated it “servant”. Why not call Jesus also by the same title? Or, if they feel that “son” is the correct translation, why not also call David “Son of God”? Jesus and David are both called by the same title in Greek. Why not call them by a same title in English also?
Other translators recognised this inconsistency and corrected it in the modern translations of the Bible. Therefore the New International Version of the Bible and many others call Jesus Servant of God in the verses already quoted above. Nevertheless, the fact that Jesus was God’s servant was so well known that even the King James Bible called him by this title in Matthew 12:18. Referring back to Isaiah 42:1, Matthew identified Jesus as the servant of the one true God Yahweh.”
Con:” John 5:18 - Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but ALSO SAID THAT GOD WAS HIS FATHER, MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL WITH GOD.”
All the points above clearly states that Jesus was a human, prophet chosen by God to the Sons of Israel to bring them back to the commandments and the teachings of the Torah, and all the reasons above it makes it clear why we should truest the Islamic story of Jesus (pbuh).
Let me just address some things he said...
"Islam don"t have to prove that Jesus (pbuh) was a man or the son of man (the Qur"an said it 16 times; the Bible said it 81 times) that he is the Son of marry or the Son of man."
Doesn't seem like my opponent knows how the Bible defines its terms. Yes, Jesus was a man, but that's not all the Bible says, the Bible explicitly calls Jesus God in John 1:1, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 2:9, and Philippians 2:5-11. No Christian denies that Jesus was a man, but that's not all he was, he was God Incarnate. In Philippians 2:5-11, it will explain to you in a nutshell the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
"t is mentioned in many places in the Qur"an also in the Bible in
Matt 21:10-11 who is this?" So the multitudes said, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee."
In Luke 24:19 Peter is recorded saying "And He said to them, "What things?" So they said to Him, "The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people
John 6:14 "Then those men, when they had seen the sign that Jesus did, said, "This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.""
Again, I already explained this, Jesus Christ took on human flesh, so it is not a denial of his deity to call him a "man" or a "prophet". This is just ignorance on the part of my opponent, he doesn't understand the incarnation. If the verses said that "he was ONLY a man" then my opponent may have a point.
"The Qur"an doesn"t challenge their knowing of the Torah, it challenge their actions which deviated from the Torah and prophet Jesus Job is to bring them back to the commandments of God , let"s read Verse 50 again;
50) "And [I have come] confirming what was before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so fear Allah and obey me.""
The Jews at the time of Jesus were already Torah believing Jews. And even if we were to assume that that's what the point of Jesus' first mission was, how is it that immediately after Jesus left the scene, his followers very quickly came to the realization that Jesus Christ is not a mere man, but God. Remember, the first Christians were Jews, so how is it that Jews could view Jesus as God. My explanation of this is that Jesus did claim to be God and his Resurrection appearances demonstrated the truth of his claims to his followers. It doesn't make any sense how Jesus never claimed to be God, yet strict monotheists like Jews would come to that conclusion rather quickly.
"Thanks and there is no need for capital letters and These are not a references these are BOOKS that Con needs to show us what did Prophet Muhammad took exactly and pasted into the Qur'an (verse by verse), Con is making unjust accusations about the most documented man ever lived which is prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and I proved earlier from the Qur"an and the Verified Hadith with witnesses that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was unlearned man who couldn"t read or write."
Even if Muhammad was the most documented man to ever live, that doesn't prove anything. Many cult leaders are well documented by their followers, so are we to assume that they were all inspired by God?
My opponent wants the references...here you go:
Surah 3:49 - [Then Jesus says to the children of Israel:] "I will make a bird for you out of clay, then breathe into it and, with God"s permission, it will become a real bird"
In Surah 5:110, Jesus actually does make clay birds.
This story is borrowed from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, an apocryphal work.
The apocryphal gospel says:
II. 1 This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word alone. 2 And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things (or made them). And there were also many other little children playing with him. (source: http://gnosis.org...)
Surah 19:29-31 it states - "The people said, "How shall we talk with him, who is but an infant in the cradle?" Whereupon the child spoke out, "I am a servant of Allah: He has given me the Book and He has appointed me a Prophet, and He has made me blessed wherever I may be. He has enjoined upon me to offer Salat and give Zakat so long as I shall live."
Muhammad is putting words into the mouth of Jesus, essentially turning him into a Muslim.
The baby Muslim Jesus uses the word salat or obligatory prayers, the second of Five Pillars in Islam. Jesus the infant uses the word zakat or the charity tax that all Muslims must pay, the third pillar. Muhammad has lost sight of objectivity and facts, and bends reality to his purposes.
A very similar story is found in the Arabic Infancy Gospel:
1. We have found it recorded in the book of Josephus the Chief Priest, who was in the time of Christ (and men say that he was Caiaphas), that this man said that Jesus spake when He was in the cradle, and said to Mary His Mother, "Verily I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Word which thou hast borne, according as the angel Gabriel gave thee the good news; and My Father hath sent Me for the salvation of the world." (source: http://www.gnosis.org...)
"That is not true; according to the Bible God has many Sons and "The Son of God""
First of all, I find it ironic how my opponent agrees with the Bible that prophets were called sons of god as well, because if that is true, Muhammad is a false prophet for denying this in Surah 5:18.
Secondly, my opponent has to understand that a term doesn't always mean one thing in every case, yes other prophets were called Sons of God, But when the title was used for Jesus, it was clearly in a more exalted sense
Read this article for a complete answer to your objection:
"19- Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does"
So clearly he is not making himself equal to God as Con preached.
I'm trying to think...is my opponent really this ignorant? Or does he just love quoting passages out of context...I already explained why Jesus had limitations, Philippians 2:5-11 explains it in detail. Secondly, my opponent obviously missed the part IN THE SAME PASSAGE where Jesus said "whatever the Father does, the Son does". Is this something a mere creature says? Could Muhammad say "whatever Allah does, I do". No Muslim would answer yes to this question. Secondly, my opponent seems to love accusing me of taking passages out of context...so let's use his own criteria against him:
John 5:20 - For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.
John 5:21 - For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also THE SON GIVES LIFE TO WHOM HE WILLS.
John 5:22 - The Father judges no one, but HAS GIVEN ALL JUDGEMENT TO THE SON.
John 5:23 - that all may HONOR THE SON, JUST AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
John 5:25 - Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when THE DEAD WILL HEAR THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD, AND THOSE WHO HEAR WILL LIVE.
Is this something mere prophets say? Could Muhammad say "you must honor me the same way you honor Allah"? You want Jesus demanding worship? Well I just gave it to you...John 5:23.
At the voice of Jesus, EVERY living creature comes to life.
"all the reasons above it makes it clear why we should truest the Islamic story of Jesus (pbuh)."
Well I pretty much refuted really everything you said, so how does the reasons you gave substantiate Islamic Jesus again? The Islamic view of Jesus is that Jesus preached Islam, his followers were good Muslims, and he didn't die on the cross.
Are you honestly saying that the Bible supports this? I mean, did I miss something? What did you say that proves Islamic Jesus?
I'd like to end this discussion by making note of the following:
I demonstrated that the Quran's stories of Jesus were plagiarized. My opponent will obviously deny it, but I gave the references like he asked.
I showed how the students of Jesus' disciples like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp all affirmed things about Jesus that Islam denies. I showed how what Islam says about Jesus makes you an Antichrist and of the Devil according to those who learned about Jesus Christ from his disciples.
All my opponent said in response to this is "I take it my opponent is a catholic so I will let the protestant scholars answer him on that, as a Muslims do not believe in apostle peter or the church"s fathers, as they are a part of why God needed to send a massager after Jesus (pbuh)."
My opponent attacked Jesus chief Apostle, Peter, someone who knew Jesus for 3 years, and he also decided to attack the Church Fathers who were taught by Jesus' disciples as being deceptive. This is just laughable and absurd, if you want to know more about someone, you go to someone who knows them personally. Like if I want to know about Muhammad I go to Abu Bakr or Ibn Abbas. Same thing with Jesus, if I want to know who the historical Jesus was, I go to the people who knew him personally. And yet my opponent has no hesitation to accuse them of being deceptive, but is more than willing to accept Muhammad's testimony about Jesus, a man who WAS NOT AN EYEWITNESS, a man who lived 600 years after the event, a man who did not know an eyewitness to the life of Jesus. This is a classical case of double standard and inconsistent criteria.
I have proved my case, we can't trust the Islamic Jesus
As this round was agreed up on to be set only for the party’s conclusion statement, I will follow the rules set by Con.
As I Stated in my opining statement Islam makes it clear to all mankind in general and to all Muslims that Jesus (pbuh) was an honorable prophet and one of the strongest massagers of God, Just like the prophets before him (from Adam to Muses, Allah peace and blessing be on them both) came to fulfill not to start a new religion, not to divide and certainly not to confuse people away from God’s chosen faith to mankind which is the Abrahamic Faith which teaches pure monotheism (pure belief in the oneness of God without partners or helpers), To peacefully submitting ones will to the will of his creator (translated “Islam” in Arabic).
What it means to be a Muslim?
“A Muslim is a person who has dedicated his worship exclusively to God...Islam means making one's religion and faith God's alone” (Commentary on the Qur'an, Razi, I, p. 432, Cairo, 1318/1900)
The Quran also explain to us what a Muslim means [Quran 2:131] “When his Lord said to him (Abraham), “Submit”, he said “I have submitted [in Islam] to the Lord of the worlds.”
So in Islam “A Muslim is by definition one who submits his will to Allah and adheres to the principles of Allah’s religion”. We therefore believe that all Prophets (including Jesus PBUH) were by definition Muslim.
Jesus (pbuh) in his own words in the Bible explains that he is a Muslim by definition and as a Prophet and a messenger of Allah, Jesus explicitly declares in the 8th chapter of john: "I have not come on my own; but he (God) sent me."He says further, “my father is greater than I.” Jesus’ mission was to convey the message given to him by his Lord. He was no more than a messenger. He says: “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”
So the conclusion here is Jesus (pbuh) is a Muslim by definition, according to the Qur’an and according to the words of Jesus in the bible.
There for we can definitely trust the Islamic version of Jesus (pbuh) that he was a man and a great prophet of God, that he submitted his will to the will of God and never did he claimed divinity or did he preached trinity and he was a faithful servant of Allah.
Thank you for your time :)