A
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.atrophy none said: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.
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.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.
Most of the Quran is not story at allfootball5680 said: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 biblical prophets didn't do miracles.Muhammad never did any 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.Most biblical prophets didn't do miracles.
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.
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
Not exactly. Rather he claimed that Isa had been misrepresented. That wouldn't be completely without biblical precedent either bfootball5680 said: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.
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.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.
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".
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.
Well, no. Historians work with the evidence that there is, not what they might like.atrophy none said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.atrophy none said:Perhaps, but the bible was written over almost 1000 years by over 100 or so authors, none of whom we know the identity of.
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.atrophy none said:The question then becomes, "Is the new testament a reliable source?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?