How is Christianity true while Islam is false?

[atrophy none]

I am wondering how Christianity is considered "true" as a faith, while Islam, for example, is false? I am well versed in the Christian/Jewish bible and have read the Qur'an as well, though my knowledge of the Qur'an isn't as good.

I am wanting to know some hard evidence why Christianity is true over other religions. The more detailed sources the better. I am a serious seeker and investigating the truth, historically and factually behind these faiths.

Thanks for replying, I will try to address every point if I can.

 

[Jonathan95]

Because Jesus is the promised Messiah and Savior even since Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:15), and then throughout the whole Old Testament.

Most (if even ALL) other religions are almost all about trying to merit heaven by works - prayer, meditation etc.

God desires perfection, and the Bible teaches all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

Even if one had more good deeds (this isn't possible) than evil ones, one evil deed would be enough to condemn him before a holy and just God, just like a murderer in an earthly court wouldn't be justified because he has done many previous good deeds.

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10

But Christianity teaches we are saved by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-10), because Jesus Christ perfectly kept the law and died in our place like as completely spotless sinless sacrifice, and rose again on the third day.

EDIT: I pray that you will be led into the truth.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am wondering how Christianity is considered "true" as a faith, while Islam, for example, is false? I am well versed in the Christian/Jewish bible and have read the Qur'an as well, though my knowledge of the Qur'an isn't as good.

I am wanting to know some hard evidence why Christianity is true over other religions. The more detailed sources the better. I am a serious seeker and investigating the truth, historically and factually behind these faiths.

Thanks for replying, I will try to address every point if I can.

If Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Christ and the Son of God, only-begotten of God the Father from all eternity, and thus is Himself true God of true God, who was crucified, buried, dead and raised on the third day; and if He ascended and now sits at the right hand of God until He comes again. If that is true, then Christianity is true, and Islam is not true.

Is it true?

Well as a Christian that's certainly my faith and confession, indeed I've put all my chips in on that bet.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ebia]

I am wondering how Christianity is considered "true" as a faith, while Islam, for example, is false? I am well versed in the Christian/Jewish bible and have read the Qur'an as well, though my knowledge of the Qur'an isn't as good. I am wanting to know some hard evidence why Christianity is true over other religions. The more detailed sources the better. I am a serious seeker and investigating the truth, historically and factually behind these faiths. Thanks for replying, I will try to address every point if I can.

Well, they can't both be 100% true since they make mutually exclusive claims.

Most religions, including Islam, make few claims that are at all falsifiable - at least not claims that are fundamental to the faith. One could not, in principle even, test whether Gabriel actually appeared to Mohammed - it's not a public event.

Christianity, on the other hand, stands or falls on a the reality of an extraordinary and public historical event - the resurrection of Jesus. That is open to historical investigation. One cannot, of course, prove an event like the resurrection, but one can ask "can the data that exists be otherwise satisfactorily explained" and is there proof that it didn't happen beyond "resurrections do not happen".

That said, I would also look at what the books claim to be. The bible makes few claims about itself except that it is all "useful..." The Quran claims to be an eternal divine book: does it look like that? I would have to say "no - it very much looks like the product of the 7th century middle-east with some factual errors".

 

[juvenissun]

I am wondering how Christianity is considered "true" as a faith, while Islam, for example, is false? I am well versed in the Christian/Jewish bible and have read the Qur'an as well, though my knowledge of the Qur'an isn't as good.

I am wanting to know some hard evidence why Christianity is true over other religions. The more detailed sources the better. I am a serious seeker and investigating the truth, historically and factually behind these faiths.

Thanks for replying, I will try to address every point if I can.

Welcome.

The answer to your question does not need any evidence. It is a simple logic question and has a simple logic answer.

If one believe in Christianity (which is true), then any other religion is false. Because Christianity says that there is only one true God.

With that said, you do can compare answers given by various religions to a same question. I did that and I am still doing it. So far, I think Christianity is able to provide a much better answers. They might not be true answers to a seeker. But it should be clear that the answers are BETTER.

 

[football5680]

I am wondering how Christianity is considered "true" as a faith, while Islam, for example, is false? I am well versed in the Christian/Jewish bible and have read the Qur'an as well, though my knowledge of the Qur'an isn't as good.

I am wanting to know some hard evidence why Christianity is true over other religions. The more detailed sources the better. I am a serious seeker and investigating the truth, historically and factually behind these faiths.

Thanks for replying, I will try to address every point if I can.

If something is completely true then everything that contradicts it is false. Islam along with every other religion is false if we begin from the standpoint that Christianity is true which is why that is said.

Islam is false because Muhammad was not a prophet. The Quran is basically a short summary of some of the stories in the bible and all of the stories existed long before Muhammad came and declared he was a prophet. Muhammad never did any miracles but people are still supposed to believe that he was the final prophet even though he simply retold stories. Anybody who knows the stories of the bible is just as qualified as Muhammad was to claim they were a prophet.

Muslims supposedly believe in Jesus even though they have no real idea on who he was or what he said. Jesus in the Quran is not a person, he is an argument for the prophethood of Muhammad.

 

[ebia]

If something is completely true then everything that contradicts it is false. Islam along with every other religion is false if we begin from the standpoint that Christianity is true which is why that is said. Islam is false because Muhammad was not a prophet. The Quran is basically a short summary of some of the stories in the bible and all of the stories existed long before Muhammad came and declared he was a prophet.

Most of the Quran is not story at all

Muhammad never did any miracles

Most biblical prophets didn't do miracles.

 

[Serendipity..]

I think maybe the Koran is a bit suspect compared to the bible. The Koran was written by an illiterate guy over 23 years.


The bible was written by many learned writers over thousands of years. The foretold prophecies came true and considering the amount of books and authors it has an extremely low level of contradiction and error.

Those are the basis of the 2 faiths.

 

[football5680]

Most biblical prophets didn't do miracles.

Biblical prophets never claimed they were the final messenger bringing a revelation that contradicts everything else. The prophet right before Muhammad did plenty of miracles and then Muhammad came and contradicted his message and said it was false. For somebody to believe that they would need proof and Muhammad did not have any proof.

Moses did miracles so that the Israelites would know that he was sent by God. Other prophets were not recognized as prophets during their life but when their prophecies came true they were accepted.

If Muhammad was the last prophet for mankind that everybody needed to accept then I would expect miracles like Moses and Jesus performed.

 

[atrophy none]

Because Jesus is the promised Messiah and Savior even since Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:15), and then throughout the whole Old Testament.

Most (if even ALL) other religions are almost all about trying to merit heaven by works - prayer, meditation etc.

God desires perfection, and the Bible teaches all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

Even if one had more good deeds (this isn't possible) than evil ones, one evil deed would be enough to condemn him before a holy and just God, just like a murderer in an earthly court wouldn't be justified because he has done many previous good deeds.

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10

But Christianity teaches we are saved by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-10), because Jesus Christ perfectly kept the law and died in our place like as completely spotless sinless sacrifice, and rose again on the third day.

EDIT: I pray that you will be led into the truth.

Yes, I know all of this, thank you. What I'm asking is, How do we know this is true?

What makes you so sure your Christian doctrine is the "truth"? Just because the bible says something doesn't make it true. The Qur'an, for example, also claims to be divinely inspired/written. I'm sure the Buddhists would say the same of their holy writings. For example, I could write a book, claim it is holy and then 500 years from now, someone could find my writings and believe they are divine and start a new religion (not that I want that of course). So the issue is, on what basis do you have evidence to believe the bible (specifically the Christian bible) is true? Do the Jews also not believe in 3/4 of the same bible, yet they do not believe in Jesus one bit?

These are my questions, hopefully you can address them better. And I ask these things not to make others doubt their own faith, but in order to gain a better understanding of what is supposed to make Christianity "true." I look forward to your future responses.

 

[atrophy none]

If Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Christ and the Son of God, only-begotten of God the Father from all eternity, and thus is Himself true God of true God, who was crucified, buried, dead and raised on the third day; and if He ascended and now sits at the right hand of God until He comes again. If that is true, then Christianity is true, and Islam is not true.

Is it true?

Well as a Christian that's certainly my faith and confession, indeed I've put all my chips in on that bet.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes but do you have any evidence to support your beliefs? At present, it sounds as though you are merely "placing a bet" on something that you should not be wagering on. Pascal's wager never really convinced me of anything. It presupposes either Christianity or nothing, when there are a myriad of other belief systems available. So do you have any evidence to support your claims?

My question wasn't to center out Islam specifically, but to make a valid comparison. Both religions claim to be true and if you refuse to convert, their god will torture you mercilessly and without end for all of time for rejecting it. Serious claims, but where is the evidence? Both religions claim to have holy books written directly as the "Word of God", again serious, but where is the evidence? If you're just simply "placing your chips" into a proverbial crapshoot, then I am not convinced. This is simply playing Russian Roulette with one's soul, if we have such a thing to begin with. Do you think that is wise? I'm asking because I'm having trouble with the concept of "betting" your soul on things without any evidence. No disrespect intended.

 

[ebia]

Biblical prophets never claimed they were the final messenger bringing a revelation that contradicts everything else. The prophet right before Muhammad did plenty of miracles and then Muhammad came and contradicted his message and said it was false.

Not exactly. Rather he claimed that Isa had been misrepresented. That wouldn't be completely without biblical precedent either b

For somebody to believe that they would need proof and Muhammad did not have any proof. Moses did miracles so that the Israelites would know that he was sent by God. Other prophets were not recognized as prophets during their life but when their prophecies came true they were accepted. If Muhammad was the last prophet for mankind that everybody needed to accept then I would expect miracles like Moses and Jesus performed.

Uh, no. That is not a Christian (Catholic or otherwise) understanding of what it is to be a prophet. At least not outside some modern largely North American evangelicalism.

 

[atrophy none]

Well, they can't both be 100% true since they make mutually exclusive claims.

Most religions, including Islam, make few claims that are at all falsifiable - at least not claims that are fundamental to the faith. One could not, in principle even, test whether Gabriel actually appeared to Mohammed - it's not a public event.

Christianity, on the other hand, stands or falls on a the reality of an extraordinary and public historical event - the resurrection of Jesus. That is open to historical investigation. One cannot, of course, prove an event like the resurrection, but one can ask "can the data that exists be otherwise satisfactorily explained" and is there proof that it didn't happen beyond "resurrections do not happen".

That said, I would also look at what the books claim to be. The bible makes few claims about itself except that it is all "useful..." The Quran claims to be an eternal divine book: does it look like that? I would have to say "no - it very much looks like the product of the 7th century middle-east with some factual errors".

Yes, I've heard the "produce the body" argument from some Christians. The problem is:

1. We don't know where Jesus' grave is.

2. The disciples or someone else could have moved the body.

3. This presupposes that the bible's account of his crucifixion, and existence, is accurate.

We need evidence outside of the bible for these concerns.

I agree that the Qur'an is not divine. I don't think it is in any context, but Christians make the exact same claims as the Muslims with regard to their bible. I am pretty sure, correct me if I'm wrong, that both Christians and the bible itself claim divinity for the bible itself. Is it not the very "Word of God" himself? I have always been taught by other Christians that it is just that. That is a very serious claim and requires some very serious evidence. My example of me writing a book, claiming God wrote it, later to be discovered and revered as the artifact of a new religion in the future is a valid example. So what is our evidence for the bible's claim to divinity?

 

[atrophy none]

Welcome.

The answer to your question does not need any evidence. It is a simple logic question and has a simple logic answer.

If one believe in Christianity (which is true), then any other religion is false. Because Christianity says that there is only one true God.

With that said, you do can compare answers given by various religions to a same question. I did that and I am still doing it. So far, I think Christianity is able to provide a much better answers. They might not be true answers to a seeker. But it should be clear that the answers are BETTER.

It depends on how serious you take the claims for exclusivity. Some groups take it to the ultimate extreme, like a certain group in Kansas for example. Regardless of that, the question I have, that I'm asking everyone else is, where is the evidence for this religion being the "right" one? Beyond the bible, that is.

 

[ebia]

Yes, I've heard the "produce the body" argument from some Christians. The problem is: 1. We don't know where Jesus' grave is. 2. The disciples or someone else could have moved the body. 3. This presupposes that the bible's account of his crucifixion, and existence, is accurate. We need evidence outside of the bible for these concerns.

Well, no. Historians work with the evidence that there is, not what they might like.

And I said nothing about "producing the body" (though that would, of course, falsify the claim).
I said we should ask the question "if the resurrection is not true, how did the data that exists (the New Testament, the community that produced it) come to exist in the form it did?" That's not a question that historians have satisfactorily been able to answer without glossing over the problems in their hypotheses.

 

[atrophy none]

If something is completely true then everything that contradicts it is false. Islam along with every other religion is false if we begin from the standpoint that Christianity is true which is why that is said.

Islam is false because Muhammad was not a prophet. The Quran is basically a short summary of some of the stories in the bible and all of the stories existed long before Muhammad came and declared he was a prophet. Muhammad never did any miracles but people are still supposed to believe that he was the final prophet even though he simply retold stories. Anybody who knows the stories of the bible is just as qualified as Muhammad was to claim they were a prophet.

Muslims supposedly believe in Jesus even though they have no real idea on who he was or what he said. Jesus in the Quran is not a person, he is an argument for the prophethood of Muhammad.

A good refutation of the Qur'an, but you provided nothing that in any way could be used as evidence in favor of Christianity. Do you have any such evidence to support your beliefs?

Muslims do, however, believe in Isa (Jesus). They just deny the doctrine of the trinity that only Christians have.

 

[atrophy none]

I think maybe the Koran is a bit suspect compared to the bible. The Koran was written by an illiterate guy over 23 years.


The bible was written by many learned writers over thousands of years. The foretold prophecies came true and considering the amount of books and authors it has an extremely low level of contradiction and error.

Those are the basis of the 2 faiths.

Perhaps, but the bible was written over almost 1000 years by over 100 or so authors, none of whom we know the identity of. Even the gospels are actually anonymous, if contemporary scholarship is accurate. That says nothing also of the books which the church deliberately rejected.

The prophecies may well have been written a posteriori, that is after the fact. Do you have any evidence that shows the old testament prophecies, say of the Babylonian siege for instance, happened prior to the prophecies, and not after? As far as I know, there is no such evidence. They may well have been written long after the event itself and are merely describing such things. What is more credible, from a historical perspective?

The bible may have a low degree of contradiction or error, but it is not without either. This is particularly troublesome for a book that claims to be divine and the very "Word of God" himself. If God wrote the bible, he got a few facts wrong. If God is omniscient, as Christian doctrine says, how could God get several facts completely wrong? I ask in sincerity because I want to know, not to be argumentative. If I have sufficient evidence to believe the bible, I would certainly accept it.

 

[atrophy none]

Well, no. Historians work with the evidence that there is, not what they might like.

And I said nothing about "producing the body" (though that would, of course, falsify the claim).
I said we should ask the question "if the resurrection is not true, how did the data that exists (the New Testament, the community that produced it) come to exist in the form it did?" That's not a question that historians have satisfactorily been able to answer without glossing over the problems in their hypotheses.

The question then becomes, "Is the new testament a reliable source?" You believe that it is, but what is the source for that belief? Christians usually point to the claims of Lee Strobel or Josh MacDowell and they leave something to be desired to authenticate any such claims to support the divinity of the bible.

The gospels themselves have contradictory accounts of what happened at the tomb of Jesus. How can all of them be "true" while entirely contradictory in their details? Truth would infer that it is factually accurate, not vaguely corroborative. The gospels were also written as evangelical texts, not historical records. Outside of the bible, what evidence do we have for any such event? Also, would any such support for the resurrection of Jesus automatically authenticate every other statement contained within the Christian bible? If so, how? (Though it would be a good start.)

I am trying to see how Christians' claims about the bible are true, and merely used the Qur'an as an example. I have no interest in learning any further about Islam. But as I sit right now, I don't see the bible as much different in scope from the Qur'an, which is why I ask these questions. I'm much more acquainted with Christianity and Christians, as I live in the West, so I would like to see if there is any evidence that clearly gives merit to these beliefs. At the present, these seem like nothing more than "beliefs", which is okay, but not something worth wagering my eternal soul on.

 

[ebia]

Perhaps, but the bible was written over almost 1000 years by over 100 or so authors, none of whom we know the identity of.

Not quite true, but so what? Most texts stand or fall on their content, not on knowing a few facts about the person who wrote it.

 

[ebia]

The question then becomes, "Is the new testament a reliable source?"

No it doesn't. The new testament is raw data. We know that these texts came to be written in the first century by a community that we have some other additional data about. That fact, that historical data, demands explanation. That's completely different from saying "the texts are reliable - what they say is true". If the resurrection did not happen you have to explain how that community came to exist, and how it came to believe what it did and write what it did.

If one doesn't believe the Quran one can see where it's various ideas draw from and how it took much of the shape it did.

That isn't true of the NT.