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

Islam (pro) vs christianity (con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
JD31720 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 603 times Debate No: 103736
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I will be defending Islam. Opponent will be defending christianity

Definitions :

God - The necessary, uncaused, omnimaximal, timeless, spaceless being.

Rules :
-no trolling
-no forfeits
-no semantics (tweaking definitions in the dictionary)

Versions of the bible:

Please use the protestant bible and to have a fruitful debate, let's exclusively use the KJV or the NIV.

Rounds :
Round one - acceptance
R2) arguments
R3) Rebuttals arguments
R4) Rebuttals
R5) Rebuttals

BOP : Burden of proof will be shared.


I accept the con side of this debate, and I am ready to begin.
Debate Round No. 1


Christianity is false


Deutronomy 6:4 was very clear "Hear O Israel, The Lord is Our God, The Lord is One".

This establishes that Not only is there one God but it establishes that God himself is one, not three as the trinitarians believe.

Jesus corroborates this point by reaffiriming the shema. In Mark 12:29-31, Jesus reaffirms the Jewish doctrine of the oneness of God. A Jewish scribe comes up to Jesus and asks "What is the most important Commandement?" Jesus then reaffrims this scribe who has a jewish understanding of God and is not part of the Jesus movement by any means that "Hear O Israel The lord is our God, The Lord is ONE". Jesus reaffrims that not only is there one God but that the essence of God is ONE not three.

Matthew 24:36 declares that only the Father is omniscient. Isaiah 46:9 - 10, Psalms 139:4, 1 Samuel 2:3, 1 John 3:20, Psalm 147:5 all entail that only God is omniscient. If the father is the only omniscient being and the only omniscient being is only God. Then Only the father is God, not Jesus, not holy spirit, not the seven angels of revelation. NONE execept the omniscient Father is God.

John 17:3 is self-evident. Jesus declares that "Father, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Jesus Christ HIMSELF admits that the Father is the ONLY true God and that Jesus Christ is just a messanger. Jesus Christ, the central figure of Christianity is decalring that he is a mere prophet and that ONLY the father is the Only true God.

Jesus calls himself son of man multiple times. Matthew 20:28 says "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve". Jesus proclaims that he came here to serve God NOT to be served by humans. He, morever, calls himself the Son of Man. Numbers 22:19 is very blunt God is not the son of man. So Jesus is not God.

The holy spirit, is the active force of the father. This is obvious in multiple passages like Psalms 143:10, Numbers 11:17, Micah 3:8; Luke 1:35) God sends out his spirit by projecting his energy to any place to accomplish his will.—Psalm 104:30; 139:7. The holy spirit is God and just a different name of God and it is not a distinct person.

The second reason that Muslims reject the Trinity among multiple other reasons is that it is illogical. Is each person of the Trinity fully God or a third of the divine reality? Since each person of the trinity is distinct from one another, going with the former would mean christiantiy is polytheism and worships three distinct, different fully gods. This would go against Deut 6:4 and Mark 12 and the entire notion of christianity being monotheism. If each person is only the third of God then the hypostatic union of Jesus Christ is false and passages like John 1:14 and Colossian 2:9 (notice how it is Jesus saying that he is God despite Jesus himself bluntly denying his deity), ephesians 3:19 are false and then Jesus Christ is not really God but only a third of God contrary to hypostatic union. Christians love to regurgitate that God is beyond comprehension but the trinity is confusing, contradictory and illogical contrary to Paul who said "God is not the author of confusion" - 1 corinthians 14:33. The trinity is confusing and therefore not from God.

Jesus : God or his servant?

Jesus is called man several times in the bible like in John 8:40. Numbers 22:19 is clear God is not a man.

Matthew 12:40 and Matthew 16:27 declare Jesus to be the son of man but according to Numbers 22:19, God is not son of man.

Jesus straight up denied being God in Luke 18:19, Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18 when a man came to Jesus calling Jesus good then Jesus denied being good and said that only God is good.

John 17:3, Jesus is very blunt once again. He is only a messenger and only the Father is the ONLY true God.

Jesus even told his disciples to direct all prayer to the Father in Luke 11:2. If he was God why did he not say : "and the son as well" or something like "When praying, mention my name along the Father". Jesus is clear : All worship is for the Father, the only true God.

His disciples and followers denied Jesus being God and they said that Jesus was a mere servant of God in Acts 3:13, Acts 2:22, Acts 3:26, Acts 5:30, Acts 4:24, Acts 4:27, Acts 4:30, etc.

The most respect that the followers of Jesus were willing to give him was to be called lord which means having authority over something. - Acts 2:36

But everybody was called lord back then:

1) property owners (Matt. 20:8)
2) heads of households (Mark 13:35)
3) slave owners (Matt. 10:24)
4) husbands (1 Pet. 3:6)
5) a son called his father Lord (Matt. 21:30)
6) the Roman Emperor was called Lord (Acts 25:26)
7) Roman authorities were called Lord (Matt. 27:63)

Jesus called everybody the sons of God in Matthew 5 and even Julius Caesar was called a son of God in the sense that we are children of God. However, when the pagan Romans (who later spread Christianity all over Europe and then the world) heard about Jesus being called Son of God they translated that to mean an incarnation of God because the pagans thought that son of God means God or God incarnate in Acts 14: 11-13, however what son of God really means is the righteous people and children of God as preached by Jesus in Matthew 5.

Incarnation is impossible, Hypostatic union is ridicolous

The idea of incarnation is that of a square-circle. Impossible. You simply can not have both God and Man. God is by definition, eternal, perfect, self-sufficient, omniscient, omnipotent,etc. Man on the other hand is imperfect, mortal, ignorant, weak, feeble, etc. You can not have both natures in one singular entity of Jesus Christ because they are both contradictory. It is not even 50% man and 50% God. It is 100% God and 100% man in the 100% entity of Jesus Christ. But that is impossible. It is a violation of the law of noncontradiction. How can one entity be both 100% omniscient and 100% ignorant at the same time. How can something be both 100% perfect and 100% imperfect at the same time? IT CAN NOT. It is literally and logically impossible.

Secondly, can we really believe that the Lord of the heavens and the Earth, the alpha and the omega, from everlasting to everlasting is the almighty, confined himself to 3 inches in the tomb for 9 months? That is blasphemy.


It is obvious that Jesus taught that salvation is based on mercy and following the commandments and NOT sacrifice. (Matthew 9:13, Matthew 19:16-20, Luke 18:18-20, Mark 10:7-11, Luke 15, multiple other passages which are consistent with Old testament salvation in Hosea 6:6) + (All verses which display him saying salvation is by sacrifice or by baptism like mark 16:16 or John 3:16 are either later on fabrications and additions as proven by the codex sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus or they were written very late (john 3:16) allowing for an exponentially greater opportunity to be influenced by pauline theology or they were simply the words of man and other men around Jesus and not the words of Jesus himself). His disciples even preached a similar message that God's mercy + Repentance NOT sacrifice are the framework for our salvation in Acts 3:19 and in Acts 8:22.

The message of Jesus and his early followers got corrupted by Paul who taught that Jesus flipped the bill and died for our sins. The first documented case where Jesus is said to be the saviour and the doctrine of salavation through atonement of Jesus is intorudced is in Acts 13:13-18 by ... Paul.

Jesus had a different view of salvation. Jesus always taught that salvation is based on the mercy of God and on keeping thecommandements. In Matthew 9 verse 13 is alone capable of destroying pauline theology because Jesus establsihes that salvation is based upon mercy of the Lord and NOT sacrifice which is consistent with Luke 15's parable that God's salvation is through mercy and forgiveness and not sacrifice. Matthew 19:16-20 et al. even establishes that Jesus said that salvation is attained by keeping the commandements and NOT by sacrifice.

Three verses might come up in objection to the third point which are mark 16:16, Luke 9:55–56 and John 3:16.

The first two verses are forgeries and later additions that prove the bible is corrupted and not divinely inspired aince mere men can clearly just add and take away from it. Codex sinaiticus and codex vaticanus are the two oldest bibles we have and they do not include those two passages which means they are later additions and corroborates my point that salvation through atonement is not taught by Jesus but made up later by the Chruch. [1][2][3]

The luke passage does not include "but he came to save them" which further proves that the idea of christ's atonment is probably a later development.

Now for 3:16 from John my main two points against this :

1- John is very late (100's) so inevitable high vulnerability to pauline theology is indisputable.

2- I care more about how Jesus said salvation is achieved (not by sacrifice but by mercy and keepin the commandements) than I care about how John thought that salvation is achieved.

The bible is corrupted

The oldest two bibles we have, sinaiticus and vaticanus are radically different than today's bibles. [1][2][3] They do not include the markan ressurection which is pivotal. [3] [4] If mark does not include the ressurection, that means that the earliest, oldest and main source we have testifies that the Ressurection did not happen because if Mark does not include the ressurection and acknoweldges that it did not happen then Luke, Matthew, other gospels which copied Mark and used Mark as their primary source should ALSO not have the ressurection because they copied Mark who does not include the ressurection. This proves that the Bible is corrupted beyond reasonable doubt and that the ressurection is more likely than not to be a later addition by the Church.

Also, not to mention that Catholi bibles have 73 books while protestant bibles have 66 books. [5] This alone testifies that the Bible is corrupted, unreliable and is suffice to prove that Christianity is false.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Moelogy 2 years ago
Made the same error. Everytime I say Numbers 22:19, I mean Numbers 23:19.

Sources for round 2)

[1] - (
[2] - (
[3] - (
[4] - (
[5] - ( + (
Posted by canis 2 years ago
Superman VS Spiderman...Great. I vote Spiderman...
Posted by NihilistRafiqueGenius 2 years ago
Contradictions in the bible?Fak you all are dumb
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.