The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Who is The True Founder of Christianity? Paul (Pro) or Jesus (Con)?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,906 times Debate No: 70778
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (48)
Votes (1)




About 2000 years ago, in Jerusalem (Palestine), Christianity started its life with the glorious birth of Jesus (peace be upon him). Jesus Christ is known as the Founder of Christianity. His mother was the Virgin Mary. [1]

He was apppinted as the prophet of God at the age of thirty. And after preaching Christianity for three years, he was finally crucified by his enemies, Jews soliders. [2]
Jesus was buried. And after three days, Jesus came back to life and ascended to heavens.

But the Holy Quran narrates the end of his life in a different way:
"And [for] their saying, 'Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.' And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain." (4:157)

After Jesus Christ, his successor Peter, along with other disciples and apostles, preached his new religion. It should be mentioned that they acheived many things.
But all of a sudden, a new person entered the world of Christianity. A person who used to torture the Christians before this. [3]. A person who was consenting unto the death of Stephen, the first martyr of Christianity. [4]. A person who, as the Bible says, made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. [5]. This person was but Paul of Tarsus whose name in Hebrew is Saul.
After all the crueltry, he claimed that on his way to Damascus, he saw a light from heaven saying:"Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?". Hearing this, Paul fell to the earth and fainted. Then the vision ordered him to go to a town and obey a disciple named, Ananias. [6]
Paul claimed that it was the voice of Jesus, of course no one could prove it. This issue was such affective on the world of Christianity that the Christian authors, after Jesus, called Paul the second founder of Christianity. Several verses of New Testament show the harsh struggle between Paul and disciples. He even blamed Peter and accused him of hypocrisy. [7]

After 70 AD, the Christians were hated among the Jews. On the other hand, the Roman Empire considered them as the great danger for their community. In that era, the empror had a high statue. Such that everyone was supposed to prostrate to him for showing loyalty. The Christians, according to religious laws, refused to prostrate and it arouse the anger of Ceasar. As a result, the Romans started to torture the Christians and this situation lasted for three centuries.

- Religious Persecution and The Freedom of Christians
Fourth-century was the turning point of Christians. Diocletian, the Roman Empror who persecuted them, died and four Ceasars (Tetrarchic Emperors) started to conflict over rulership. Finally, the son of a Roman army officer, put the Cross on the flags of his army. Thus he could gain the suppprting of Christians and a new era for Christianity got started. Constantine emerged victorious in a series of civil wars against the emperors Maxentius and Licinius to become sole ruler of both west and east by 324 AD. He was the first Roman emperor to"claim conversion to Christianity, Constantine played an influential role in the proclamation of the"Edict of Milan, which decreed tolerance for Christianity in the empire. [8]
It should be mentioned that Constantine was not Christian. He only wanted to control churches to strengthen his empire.

In the next round, I will explain the relation between Constantine, Paul and the corruption of Christianity. But now, let's know more about Trinity:
The three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as "Tawhid" in Islam, this concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical passage known as the "Shema", or the Jewish creed of faith: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus when he said "...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)
Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again: "And your God is One God: there is no God but He, ..." (The Qur'an 2:163)
Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and without the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - in one divine being.
If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter:
"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity...for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one...they are not three gods, but one God...the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal...he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity..." (excerpts from the Athanasian Creed).
Let's put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father + one person, God the Son, + one person, God the Holy Ghost = one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?
It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.
How did such a confusing doctrine get its start? [9]

I will explain in my next argument.

[1] Luke 1:26-35
[2] Matthew 27:11-27
[3] The Acts of Apostles 9:1
[4] The Acts of Apostles 7:58 - 8:1
[5] The Acts of Apostles 8-3
[6] The Acts of Apostles 9:3-19
[7] Galatians 2:11


thank you for the challenge julia. i wish you luck. for this arguement i will be using the KJV.
Many skeptics assert that Paul of Tarsus (the apostle Paul) hijacked the early Christian religion, changing the theology from what Jesus originally taught. Usually offered as proof for this claim are the doctrines found in Paul's great theological work, his letter to the Romans. Without a doubt, the book of Romans contains the most complete exposition of orthodox Christian doctrines. Are these doctrines contrary to what Jesus taught? Do they conflict with the teachings of the Old Testament from which they were purportedly derived? If Paul really "invented" Christianity, then one would expect that his teachings would be different from Jesus, the other apostles, and disciples.

The claims of Christianity

Christians claim that Paul of Tarsus met Jesus on a trip to persecute Christians in Damascus. Struck blind for three days, Paul waited for Ananias (one of Jesus' followers) to heal him. Converted by the experience, Paul passionately proclaimed the gospel to the Jewish and Gentile world. This gospel included doctrines including the atonement of sin through Jesus' death on the cross and justification through faith. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, indicated that he received this gospel by revelation of Jesus Christ:

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12)

If it were true that Paul received his teaching directly from Jesus Christ, then surely Jesus Himself would have taught what Paul was preaching.

Paul's teaching of the gospel

Paul's Theology Paul of Tarsus

The basis of the gospel is the belief that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. Jesus clearly indicated that His purpose was to come to die on a cross for the sins of the world.2 This concept was not a new one, since Isaiah first prophesied that the Messiah would die for our sins.1 Paul, of course taught this doctrine,3 as did John, Luke, and Peter.4 Other crucial doctrines taught by Paul were also taught by Jesus and the disciples:

Belief in Jesus for eternal life 5-8

Righteousness by faith 9-12

Justification by faith 13-16

Forgiveness of sin through faith 17-20

Repentance 21-24

For a list of verses, see the table below.

Were Paul's Doctrines Taught by Jesus? Yes and here are the verses.

Atonement by death on cross- Isaiah 53:5-121 Matthew 10:38, 16:24, 26:28, Mark 8:34, 14:24, Luke 9:23, 14:27, 22:20, John 12:32-332 1 Corinthians 1:18, 11:25, Ephesians 2:8, 16, Colossians 1:20, 2:143 John 1:29, 36, Acts 8:32, 1 Peter 1:18-19, 2:24, Revelation 5:12-14, 7:144

Believe in Jesus for eternal life- Job 19:25-265 Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29-30, Luke 9:24, John 3:166 Romans 5:21, 6:23, 1 Timothy 1:16, Jude 1:217 Acts 11:17-18, 1 John 5:118

Righteousness by faith- Genesis 15:6, Habakkuk 2:49 Mark 11:22, Luke 7:501 Romans 1:17, 3:22, 3:25-26, 4:3, 9, 11, 13, 5:17, 9:30, 10:4, 10, Galatians 3:6, 11, Philippians 3:911 Hebrews 11:4, 7, 2 Peter 1:112

Justification by faith- Genesis 15:6, Isaiah 53:1113 Luke 7:50, 8:12 Mark 16:16, John 3:18, 5:2414 Romans 3:28, 30, 5:1, 18, Galatians 2:16, 3:8, 2415 James 2:2316

Forgiveness of sin through faith - 2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalm 86:5, Jeremiah 31:33-3417 Matthew 9:2, 6, 26:27-28, Mark 2:5, 10-11, Luke 5:20, 24, Acts 26:1818 Acts 26:18, Ephesians 1:7, 4:32, Colossians 1:13-14, 2:13, 3:1319 Luke 1:76-77, Acts 2:38, 5:31, 10:43, 13:38, Hebrews 10:18-20, James 5:15, 1 John 1:7-9, 2:1220

Repentance- Isaiah 1:27, 30:15, Ezekiel 18:3221 Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15, Luke 5:32, 13:3, 24:46-4722 Romans 2:4, 2 Corinthians 7:9-1023 Matthew 3:2, Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38, 17:30, 20:21, 2 Peter 3:924

Other Teachings

Besides the core doctrines of Christianity, Paul taught on many other theological topics, also taught by Jesus. Below is a list of some of these teachings (found in the gospels) compared to what Paul taught in his letters to the churches.

Was Paul Aware of Jesus' Teachings?

Teaching Paul (1) Jesus (2)

Parable of sower (1) 1 Corinthians 3:6-10 (2) Matthew 13:1-23

Stumbling stone (1) Romans 9:33 (2) Matthew 18:7

Ruling against divorce (1) 1 Corinthians 7:10 (2) Mark 10:11

Support for apostles (1) 1 Corinthians 9:14 (2) Luke 10:7

Institution of Lord's supper (1) 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (2) Matthew 26:26-28

Command concerning prophets (1) 1 Corinthians 14:37 (2) Matthew 23:34

Lord's return (1) 1 Thessalonians 4:15 (2) Matthew 24:1-51

Blessing of the persecuted (1) Romans 12:14 (2) Luke 6:27

Don't repay evil with evil (1) Romans 12:17 and 1 Thessalonians 5:15 (2) Matthew 5:38-48, Luke 6:27

Pay taxes to authorities (1) Romans 13:7 (2) Mark 12:12-17

No stumbling block (1) Romans 14:13 (2) Mark 9:42

Nothing is unclean (1) Romans 14:14 (2) Mark 7:15

Thief in the night (1) 1 Thessalonians 5:2 (2) Luke 12:39

Peace among yourselves (1) 1 Thessalonians 5:13 (2) Mark 9:50

Peace with everyone (1) Romans 12:18 (2) Mark 9:50

Do not judge (1) Romans 13:10 (2) Luke 6:37

Paul's Jesus isn't real?

The claim is often made in skeptical circles that Paul never describes the man Jesus of Nazareth, but only refers to a celestial Jesus. Of course, the claim is false, although the claim seems to be believed by a number of skeptics who probably never read any of Paul's New Testament books. In reality, Paul indicates that Jesus came into the world,25 and that he himself saw Him.26 In addition, Paul states that Jesus was a man27 made of flesh,28 ate and drank,29 bled,30 was crucified,31 died,32 and was raised from the dead.33 These are not the kinds of things that happen to some ghost Jesus. In virtually every book he authored (over 80 verses that I found), Paul clearly makes reference to Jesus the man, who lived and died on earth.

Paul Describes the Physical Jesus

Physical Attribute

Jesus came into the world - 1 Timothy 1:15, Philippians 2:5-825

Jesus was seen by Paul- 1 Corinthians 9:126

Jesus was a man- Romans 5:15, 1 Timothy 2:5, Philippians 2:5-827

Jesus was flesh- Romans 1:3, 8:3, 9:5, 2 Corinthians 5:16, Ephesians 2:14-15, 1 Timothy 3:1628

Jesus ate and drank - 1 Corinthians 11:23-2529

Jesus bled- Romans 3:24-25, 5:9, 1 Corinthians 10:16, 11:25, 27 Ephesians 1:7, 2:13, Colossians 1:2030

Jesus was crucified- 1 Corinthians 1:13, 23, 2:2, 8, 2 Corinthians 13:4, Galatians 3:1, Philippians 2:831

Jesus died- Romans 5:6, 8, 10 6:3, 5, 9-10, 8:34, 14:9, 15, 1 Corinthians 8:11, 11:26 15:3, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, Galatians 2:21, Philippians 2:8, 3:10, Colossians 1:22, 1 Thessalonians 4:14, 5:1032

Jesus was raised from the dead- Romans 1:4, 4:24-25, 6:4-5 9, 7:4, 8:11, 34, 9:17, 10:9, 1 Corinthians 6:14, 15:4, 12-17, 20, 2 Corinthians 4:14, 5:15 Galatians 1:1, Ephesians 1:20, Colossians 2:12, 1 Thessalonians 1:10, 4:1433Conclusion Top of page

The idea that Paul invented Christianity out of some theological vacuum is completely without merit. Although Paul's Letter to the Romans is radically different from just about any other book of the Bible, the teachings found in the Book of Romans is also found in the Old Testament, the teachings of Jesus, and the teachings of the disciples. So, Paul didn't just make up doctrines to create a new religion. However, he did write the greatest theological treatise of all time in the Book of Romans. Not only are the core doctrines of Christianity found outside Paul's writings, but Paul himself taught many other theological issues that reflect the teachings of Jesus during His years of ministry. Contrary to the claims of some, Paul did not just write about some "cosmic Jesus," but described Jesus as a real man who lived and died on planet earth. In conclusion, Paul of Tarsus did not invent Christianity, but clarified the teachings of the Bible as no other Bible author ever has. In addition to his great theological writings, Paul was Christianity's greatest evangelist.


Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? by David Wenham. Oxford New Testament lecturer Wenham examines the question, Was Paul thoroughly aware of Jesus' life and teaching, or did he largely create Christianity himself? Most of the discussion utilizes comparison of brief passages from the Epistles to the final written Gospels. Wenham points out both parallels and divergences, considering how Paul's writings and teachings may have influenced the oral traditions and early written texts that coalesced into the Gospels, and vice versa. He explains that Paul's beliefs conform to the received Jesus tradition.

Debate Round No. 1


Brother, in your agument, you just tried to show that Paul was taught by Jesus and you quote some verses of the Bible. But can you present an evidence which prove the Bible is reliable? Can you prove, for example, the Gosple of John has been written by John the Beloved himself?

The Priest, Dr. Faheem Aziz says:" Only God knows who has written the Gosple of John."

Or Archibald Robertson (1853-1931), a bishop, in his book "Jesus: Myth or History?" wrote aboutt the Epistles of John, Peter and Jude: " It is possible that none of these Epistles are relieble."

About the second Epistle of Peter, Floyd V. Filson writes:" There are many literary differences between the Second Epistle of Peter and the First one. The researches discovered that this Epistle has been written in 150 AD. Unquestionably, the author of this Epistle is not Peter."

Also, Archibald Robertson writes:" The Second Epistle of Peter is the last and the most corrupted Gosple in the Bible."

But, there is no disagreement over the Gosples of Paul!!

Oh, I want to share some funny verses in the Bible with you!

1. In Deuteronomy 27:16, we read:" Cursed be he that setteth light by his father ot his mother."
This verse orders us to respect our parents. But let's know what Jesus said to his mother, Saint Mary!
"Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:3)
Does it show that Jesus is cursed?

2. The Bible says:" Wine is a mocker, strong drink is ragging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." (Proverbs 19:7)

But the Bible narrates that Jesus waw called a winebibber (Matthew 11:19) and his first miracle was turning water into wine. (John 2:1-11)

So, not only Jesus was not cursed, but also he was ignorant!

3. Jesus said that he had come to guide and help the children of Israel, not anyone else:
"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24).

So when a Greek woman came and asked him to cure her doughter, instead of soothing or being compassionate with her, Jesus said:" Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast in unto the dogs." (Mark 7:27)

The Jesus whom I know is merciful, not the cruel and stone-harted person that the Bible describes...

In my next argument, we will know more interested things about Jesus in the view of the Bible.

Anyway, Let's know some people who rejected the teachings of Paul

- Ebionites
History shows that the Christians who lived during the"early centuries of the Christian Era regarded"Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity. These Christians who are called "Ebionites" rejected"Paul as anapostate from the Law.
Ebionites were monotheist. They believed God was One and Jesus was His messenger. They were the true followers of Jesus Christ.

But what happened to them?

In 375, Epiphanius records the settlement of Ebionites on Cyprus, but by the mid-5th century,"Theodoret of Cyrrhus reported that they were no longer present in the region. [1]

- Michael Servetus
Servetus rejected the classical conception of the Trinity, stating that it was not based on the Bible. He argued that it arose from teachings of Greek"philosophers, and he advocated a return to the simplicity of the Gospels and the teachings of the early"Church Fathers that he believed pre-dated the development of Nicene trinitarianism. Servetus hoped that the dismissal of the trinitarian dogma would make Christianity more appealing to believers in"Judaism and Islam, which had preserved the unity of God in their teachings. According to Servetus, trinitarians had turned Christianity into a form of "tritheism", or belief in three gods.

But what happened to him?

he was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a"heretic by order of the city's Protestant governing council. [2]

I told you about the people who rejected the Trinity and divinity of Jesus. But they were killed. Do you know why? Were they misguided and other Christians kill them to protect their religion? Or were they right and Christians kill them to preach their false beliefs easier? To your mind, which one is true?

Servetus claimed that Trinity was not based on the Bible. If it is right, so how was Trinity invented?

Before answering this question, let's know what the Bible has to say:

1. "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." (John 3:35)

We can understand from above verse that God has given everything to Jesus. In other word, all Jesus owns (like his existence), has been given to him by God and Jesus himself has nothing. For example, if God had willed, Jesus would not have existed. So how can we say that Jesus has divin attributes?

2. "To us there is but One God, The Father," (1 Corinthians 8:6). But the Trinity says:" To us there is but One God, The Father and, The Holy Spirit."
You believe in three person who are the same. How can you say that you believe in One God?

3. Jesus himelf says that he cannot do anything. Do you understand? Jesus cannot do anything without the power of God. So how can you say he is the same as God?
"Verily, verily, I say unto you. The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son." (John 5:19)

4. Peter, the successor of Jesus, says that the miracles and signs of Jesus have been caused by God, not by himself.
"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know." (The Acts of Apostles 2:22)

5. Jesus himself admits that he is not all-knowing. He admits that he is not aware of many things such as the day of his Ascension:
"But of that day and that hour knowth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32)

So, how can Jesus have the divin attributes and at the same time, says such things?

If you believe God and Jesus are the same, it means that:
1. You don't know who God really is;
2. Or you don't know who Jesus really is.

Anyway, let's get back to that question. How was Trinity invented? And who did it?
It is too simple. Paul invented it. Why? Because he wanted to attract the polytheists to his new sect. As you know, polytheists worship more than one God. So by inventing Trinity, Paul showed them that Christians are like them.

References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.
In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. While this "Great Commission" does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase " baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spiritt" is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text " that is, not the actual words of Jesus " as can be seen by two factors:
1) baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and"
2) the "Great Commission" was found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Spirit " see Mark 16:15.
The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of 1 John 5:7. Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase " There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is definitely a "later addition" to Biblical text, and it is not found in any of today's versions of the Bible.
It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.
While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a "divine Son". After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God's revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.
Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third-century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word "Trinity" (Trinitas) when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.

I have so many things to tell you about Paul.



Since you would like to question the bibles reliability, yet while you using the quran. I am left no choice but to compare the two of them. What makes the bible more reliable than the quran? Let me show you.

We've all seen itbefore , and we've seen it all too often. The topic of discussion might be Muhammad, Islamic theology, or the Quran. When evidence that challenges the Muslim position is proffered, a regular response is: "But your Bible is corrupt...". For examples of Muslims committing the tu quoque fallacy, you simply go online and find thousands of examples.

The Muslims who do this, though logically fallacious, do ultimately have a good point. The New Testament and the Quran are the holy scriptures of Christianity and Islam, and as such they merit some degree of comparison. This article compares the basics of textual integrity. I will attempt to be as unbiased in my presentation as possible before concluding. (+ or - denotes years from either Muhammad's death or Jesus' death). NOTE: Detailed discussions concerning canonicity and inspiration are out of the scope of this article.

Inception of scripture:

Quran: -23 years (Recorded during Muhammad's life)

NT: +2 years (Creed from 1 Cor 15:3-8)

Number of Divinely Sanctioned Forms:

Quran: 7 ahruf (Sahih Bukhari 3.601)

NT: 1 form

Earliest Records of Corruption:

Quran: +0 (Some verses eaten by a goat; Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, p.39)

+12 (Umar records the missing verses; Bukhari 8.82.816 & 817)

NT: Uncertain, but late

State-Controlled Recension (revision) of All Manuscripts:

Quran: +20 (Uthman)

NT: Never

State-Controlled Destruction of All Manuscripts:

Quran: +20 (Uthman)

NT: Never

Importance of Textual Preservation for the Religion's Truth Claims:

Quran: Extreme importance (Muhammad's one sign for his truth)

NT: Peripheral importance (Jesus' main sign was his resurrection)


The New Testament had a period of about 3 centuries when it was not openly proliferating throughout the Roman empire. This was because of edicts issued by Roman authorities which persecuted Christians and/or called for the destruction of the Bible (e.g. the Diocletian Edict). During this time, a core of books was well known throughout Christendom while the rest of the books were better known in various regions.

In addition to this, no one person controlled the manuscripts. They were in the possession of individuals and churches who revered these scriptures and saw to their safe-keeping. Later, when Constantine's Edict of Milan legalized Christianity in 313 AD, people began openly assembling to officially discuss and agree upon the finer points of the Christian faith. Thus the Council of Nicaea in 325, and later the Council of Hippo in 393 (which officially canonized the books of the NT).

Though at first glance this seems to be a mark against New Testament integrity, one thing is certain: there is extremely low possibility for textually undetectable corruption in the New Testament. Here are the reasons:

If any errors crept into a manuscript being copied in, for example, Asia Minor, a manuscript from Rome would not contain those errors. Comparing the two (along with other manuscripts) would rectify the mistakes.

Since no one person controlled all the manuscripts, it would be impossible to uniformly corrupt all the manuscripts.

Since there was no uniform revision of the all the manuscripts, surviving manuscripts can help us piece together the original text, not a revised version of that text.

There was no universal destruction of all the texts. Though many attempted this, such as Diocletian, surviving manuscripts and historical accounts are proof that these attempts were unsuccessful.

The Quran, on the other hand, suffers severely on all four above counts:

It was controlled by one person, the khalifa (as evidenced by Uthman's ability to recall all the manuscripts).

It was uniformly revised by Uthman.

During this time, if any error crept into the manuscript which would serve as the official text, this error would only be detectable by comparing it to previous manuscripts.

Unfortunately, all the previous manuscripts were put to the flames.

Thus, we can conclude the following:

It is virtually impossible for the New Testament to have been uniformly corrupted in a textually undetectable manner.

It is extremely easy for the Quran to have been uniformly corrupted in a textually undetectable manner.

Of course, this does not necessitate that the Quran was corrupt, it just means that it was extremely prone to textually undetectable corruption.

But when historical data indicates missing verses as early as the death of Muhammad and the reign of Umar, the argument that the Quran has been corrupted becomes extremely plausible.

When we add to this that Muhammad's chosen teachers of the Quran disagreed with Uthman's final product, the argument that the Quran has been corrupted becomes extremely likely.

When topped off by quotations from early Muslims which say that "much of the Quran has been lost", the argument that the Quran has been corrupted becomes incontrovertible.

The coup de grace occurs when we realize that the Quran's textual integrity is central to the truth of Islam. Muhammad offered the Quran as his most miraculous sign to vindicate his truth. If the Quran is false about its protection from Allah (15:9), then Islam is false. This is in contrast to the NT, which does not rely on its textual integrity as a sign for us.


The history of the New Testament allows its text to be investigated and verified. The Quran cannot allow us to come any closer to the original text than the Uthmanic Revised Standard Version 20 years removed from Muhammad. Any errors which found their way into the URSV would be permanent and uncorrectable. And, unfortunately, historical accounts from early Islam tell us such errors exist.

When pitting the New Testament against the Quran, at least in terms of textual integrity, there is no possible way to vindicate the Quran.


Sulaiman Abu Dawud, Sunan Abu-Dawud (translator: Prof. Ahmad Hasan).

Habib Ur Rahman Azami, The Sunnah in Islam, U.K.: UK Islamic Academy, 1995.

Prof. Masud-ul-Hasan, History of Islam, Delhi: Adam Publishers & Distributors, 2002.

Cyril Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.

Please read:


Debate Round No. 2


Well, first of all I must mention some things:

1. Brother, I'm a bit confused. Why did you change the subject of our debate all of a sudden?! We're debating over Paul and Jesus. I am proving the corruption of Christianity rationally. I only use history and the Bible, which as you claim, is the Word of God. Have I said something about Quran? No. So why did you talked about Quran and Muhammad?!

2. Have you forgot our previous debate? I asked you to prove that God and Satan aren't the same. But you refused and said that the subject of our debate was Muhammad, not the Bible. Now, our debate is about Paul. Why did you wrote about the Holy Quran?! There is a contradiction in your sayings!

3. You failed to disprove that Jesus was cursed. It shows that, according to the Bible, Jesus is really cursed.

4. You failed to disprove the ignorance and crueltry of Jesus. So it means that, as the Bible says, Jesus was insane and stone-hearted.

5. You failed to prove the divinity of Jesus. We can conclude that Jesus was just a prophet, not the same as God. God is all-knowing, but Jesus was ignorant!

If the Bible is true, so Jesus is cursed, so clear!

As I said, our debate is about the Bible, but you argued over compilation of Quran. I can prove you are wrong. But this issue is too complicated and long. If I want to explain how the Quran was complied, I can't write here all I have to say. But the following articles can conveince you that you are wrong.

See the above webpages, if you can't understand the compliation of the Quran, I will explain it myself in the last round.

Ok, let's go back to the main subject:

In 313, Constantine, started to protect Christians and provided safety for them. He also provided a situation that, as you mentiomed, "people began openly assembling to officially discuss and agree upon the finer points of the Christian faith." And sometimes, these discussions led to harsh arguments. For example there was a controversy between Arius and Alexander
Arius was another one who rejected the teachings of Paul:

Arius (250 or 256"336) was an"ascetic Christian presbyter of"Libyan birth, possibly of Berber extraction, and"priest in Alexandria, Egypt, of the church of the Baucalis. His teachings about the nature of the"Godhead, which emphasized the"Father's divinity over the Son and his"opposition to Homoousian Trinitarian Christology, made him a primary topic of the"First Council of Nicea , convened by"Roman Emperor Constantine in AD 325. [1]

When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria - Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.

Will Durant in his book "The Story of Civilization vol.3" wrote about this event:
"Constantine, in order to prevent chaos, wrote some letters to Arius and Alexander and threated them."

But it wasn't the end of this story. Not only Arius and Alexander gave up, but also other people got involved in the controversy.

Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to Constantine, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.
Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism" became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who didn't hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Was Constantine a priest, bishop or pope? No.
Was he a Christian? No.
Was he aware of Christian theology? No.
So why did he interfere in Christian theology? Because he just want to control his empire. He just wanted to settle the arguments and prevent chaos. Do you understand? Constantine corrupted Christianity for his own benefits. Now, you have false beliefs because of him.

In 325,"Constantine had facilitated the Church's bishops to convene the Council of Nicea, which affirmed the prevailing view that Jesus, the Son, was equal to the Father, one with the Father, and of the same substance ("homoousios""in Greek). The council condemned the teachings of the heterodox theologian"Arius: that the Son was a created being and inferior to God the Father. Despite the council's ruling, controversy continued. By the time of Theodosius' accession, there were still several different Church factions that promoted alternative Christology.
On 27 February 380, together with Gratian and"Valentinian II, Theodosius issued the decree ""Cunctos populos"", the so-called "Edict of Thessalonica", recorded in the"Codex Theodosianus xvi.1.2. This declared the"Nicene Trinitarian Christianity to be the only legitimate Imperial religion and the only one entitled to call itself"Catholic. Other Christians he described as "foolish madmen".
He also ended official state support for the traditional Polytheism religions and customs.
On 26 November 380, two days after he had arrived in Constantinople, Theodosius expelled the non-Nicene bishop Demophilus of Constantinople, and appointed"Meletius patriarch of Antioch, and Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the"Cappadocian Fathers"from Antioch"(today in Turkey), patriarch of Constantinople. Theodosius had just been baptized, by bishop"Acholius of Thessalonica, during a severe illness, as was common in the early Christian world. [2]

It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.
Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.
The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than "I believe it because I was told to do so." It is explained away as "mystery" yet the Bible says in I Corinthians 14:33 that " God is not the author of confusion"
The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the preachings of Jesus: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:8)

It was the story of Trinity. Paul invented it. Some people rejected it. Some priests and bishops argued over it. Constantine put it in the Christian theology, because he was afraid that his kingdom might be in danger. And other emperors, who used the Churches as the instrument to protect their kingdom, supported it. Trinity is not of the teachings of Jesus, believe it or not. Trinity shows the corruption of your religion.



Julia you don’t seem to be getting anywhere with your arguments with all these ignorant claims you make… I will inform you, I was not changing the debate. The only reason I brought the Quran into play was because of your first argument where you used the Qurans teachings to try and disprove my arguments. I was left no chopice but to compare the two. As I did.

Your claim that Jesus was a curse is true. So you stating it as if it were a victory to you by saying that baffles me a bit? Muslims don’t usually agree that Jesus was cursed, since this is agreeing with what the bible teaches. The bible says

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Deuteronomy states that anyone put to death by hanging/crucifixion is cursed by God. Islam asserts that Jesus could not be cursed by God and that he did not die by crucifixion.

Qur'an 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.

However, the Bible is clear in saying Jesus was crucified at Calvary.

Matthew 27:35 When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

And Paul maintains:

1 Corinthians 1:23 ...but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.

Additionally, the Bible is clear that Jesus was cursed as an essential part of the atonement.

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole."

So, the idea that Jesus could not be cursed by God is merely an assumption by Islam - not proven in the Bible! Jesus was made to be a curse for his people. In reality, the curse was a significant reason why Jesus had to die!

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

1 Corinthians 12:3- Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Over the years I have been asked rather frequently about Constantine. There is lots of misinformation and rumour that circulates about him. Popular books/movies such as the Da Vinci Code or Holy Blood, Holy Grail portray him as the Roman Emperor who basically invented the Gospel for his own political ends. Is that true? Let us start with some easy-to-verify facts about him.


Constantine was Roman Emperor from 306-337 AD. Prior to his rule many of the Roman Emperors were openly hostile to the Gospel, killing and persecuting many of the followers of the gospel. The Emperor Nero started this trend in 64 AD, when he took first century followers of the gospel, bound and dipped them in oil, and burned them alive as human torches for lighting in his palace gardens! Successive Emperors Domitian, Marcus Aurelius (of Gladiator movie fame), Diocletian and others continued this kind of treatment. But Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, granting religious tolerance to all views. Constantine became sole emperor of Rome by being victorious in a series of military campaigns against other rivals. During these campaigns he converted to Christianity (from paganism). There is much debate today whether his ‘conversion’ was sincere, or whether he did so for political gain.


In 325 AD Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea, the first empire-wide meeting of church leaders to discuss various controversies. People often wonder if the gospels were changed or corrupted, or even selected (in some back-room conspiracy) for inclusion in the Bible at this time. In fact, the main point of discussion was the theological understanding of the relationship between Jesus and God. One camp (led by Arius) held that they were of different essences, and the other camp (led by Athanasius) held that they were of the same essences. Therefore we know that theological understandings were staked out and the summary Nicene Creed was authored from this council convened by Constantine.


But were the gospels changed and/or selected at this council? As you should already know Julia, There are many manuscripts on-hand today that come from up to two hundred years before the time of Constantine (and the Council of Nicaea). If this council (or Constantine) changed the documents of the New Testament then we would see this change in the copies that pre-date the Council of Nicaea from those that come after. But the copies show no such change. We see this in the timeline in the source provided taken from that post where the manuscripts for Bibles today predate Constantine and the Council of Nicaea by up to two hundred years.

Where we get the modern Bible versions from.

But were the ‘wrong’ gospels selected into the Bible at this point? We also know that this was not the case because both sides of the debate (Arius and Athanasius) used the same gospels and epistles (the ones that are in the Bible now) to argue their case. Arius and Athanasius did not disagree on what the scriptural documents stated, nor did they disagree on which documents should be ‘in’ the Bible. They disagreed, with heated debate, on the interpretation of these same scriptures. We know this because an account of the debates and intrigues of the Council of Nicaea and Constantine’s role in it is preserved for us in the reporting of Eusebius who was one of the delegates to this council. The writings of Athanasius are also preserved.


Constantine did have a huge impact on the development of Christianity. Christian celebrations like Christmas on December 25, how the date for the Easter celebration is calculated, and a reversal of the gospel from being counter-cultural and viewed with mistrust by the government, to becoming the cultural standard of Europe, in alliance with government, started with Constantine. But the Gospel is not about culture or government power. It is about a good news message from God freely received in the hearts and minds of people – and then changing their hearts. And just like barnacles collecting on the hull of a ship can distort the hydrodynamics of a streamlined keel – and must be removed for the ship to regain its ability to move gracefully in the water – so a lot of Christianity that has developed since Constantine might need to be scraped away so we can access the pure gospel. But it can be done. And the ‘scraper’ with which we can find the pure Good News is the Bible. Since the books in the Bible were not invented, modified or corrupted by Constantine we can use them to get a view of Jesus and his Gospel that has been around since his disciples went forth proclaiming his message. This also allows us to better understand the various conspiracy theories about Jesus, (like did he have a wife or was he ‘invented’ from the ancient Egyptian mystery religion of Osiris, Isis and Horus). It also allows us to understand where terms like ‘Christ’ originate.

But what about the theology and creeds that came from the Council of Nicaea? Are they corrupt? The really good news is that since the scriptures upon which these interpretations were debated are open and available to us today, we ourselves can consider the scriptures, understand its message, and assess those very same interpretations and creeds. Whatever we conclude about creeds and theology we can then ‘own it’ since we will have examined it for ourselves.

We may decide for a multitude of reasons not to believe or accept the Gospel. Or we may decide to embrace it. But let us avoid the really foolish notion of bringing Constantine into the mix. He would be a poor excuse whichever way we land.


Christianity Through the Centuries by Earle Cairns

Debate Round No. 3


Julia5678 forfeited this round.


shipman37 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Julia5678 forfeited this round.


Check Mate.
Debate Round No. 5
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by salam.morcos 2 years ago
Conduct: Tied. Both were poor for forfeiting.
Language and sources: Tied. Both were ok.
Arguments: No side deserves to win. This was a terrible debate. Here are the reasons to my decision:

Pro starts by stating that Paul used to prosecute Christians and killing them. Pro then challenges that Paul really saw Jesus, saying "of course no one could prove it." Pro also shows that there were differences between Paul and other disciples. Con rebuts this argument by showing that Paul's teaching are in line with Jesus teachings. Con wins this argument.

Pro's argument about Christians being prosecuted by Romans is a red herring. No points.

Pro's argument in R1 that Constantine wasn't a Christian and only declared Christianity as the religion of the state is a red herring - It doesn't support or hurt who was the founder of Christianity. No points.

Pro challenges trinity. She argues that Paul invented the trinity. The problem in her argument is that she doesn't show why "Paul" was responsible for this belief. Pro actually states that Athanasius was the bishop who formulated this doctrine! Contradicting, and Con responds vaguely at best. No points.

Pro argues that the Bible is not a reliable source. Pro cites the Bible in her assertions in R1, yet at the same time doesn't agree with the same source that Con uses! The reliability (or lack thereof) of the bible doesn't help either claim. How does this support the claim that Paul is the father of Christianity? Pro is "picking and choosing" from the main source in this debate (the bible). Red herring.

Pro argues that Jesus is a man, and not a God. And again challenges the trinity. This would be relevant if the debate was called "Is Jesus God?" Red herring.

Con's arguments in R2 were even worse. He went on to challenge the reliability of the Quran. Which is completely unrelated. Pro, correctly, challenges Con for changing the subject. Red herring.

I was very disappointed at this debate, because it wasn't a d
Posted by shipman37 3 years ago
Julia... come back.
Posted by shipman37 3 years ago
i believe i have already proven my points.. i will get back in touch with you next monday.
Posted by shipman37 3 years ago
what do you think julia?
Posted by shipman37 3 years ago
sorry i had to do some research in the book i listed. Also, i will not be here all next week. i am going out of town and will not have access to a computer. just know i will be back next Monday. this is the reason for me not posting any more arguments.
Posted by shipman37 3 years ago
I agree with you elimination.
Posted by shipman37 3 years ago
oh. HAHA Excuse me... i apologize for that. i assumed it was Julia making a fals accusation since you both have the same profile picture.
Posted by Julia5678 3 years ago
Austine, why don't you post your argument? You do not know what to say?! I want to ask my question again. You said it was an easy debate, right? An easy debate for whom?
Posted by Julia5678 3 years ago
Brother, he/she was talking to me! I said Jesus was crucified by Jews soliders
Posted by shipman37 3 years ago
where did i state that jesus was not crucified by romans?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.