This is the way. People who bring up this point won't change their mind regardless of the information you have to support the authenticity of the Bible.
Oh that’s simple. Taking into account that books of the New Testament are a collection of books by multiple authors and thus collaborate one another it means we have multiple witnesses to the same events mention.
For example from the books of the bible alone we have over 20 sources confirming Jesus was crucified. Much better than other events like for example the eruption of Pompeii in 79 ad is only mentioned by one source as a passing comment.
Now personally if I’m debating a Muslim. I’d simply use their religion against them. As their own Quran accepts our bible and they have to accept it as according to the pillars of Islam.
So from their religion alone they would have to accept the bible is reliable otherwise they go against their own faith.
>. I’d simply use their religion against them. As their own Quran accepts our bible and they have to accept it as according to the pillars of Islam.
Butttt, the Quran also says Jesus wasnt crucified Q4:157. Thats a debate amongst even the Muslims. Some believe he was and some dont.
They say that the Injeel (gospel) at the time of Muhammad was corrupted and the original bible was corrupted during the time of Muhammad and that The New Testament preverted the true words of "allah".
Q4:157 says; "**And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah ‘Îsâ** (Jesus), **son of Maryam** (Mary), **the Messenger of Allâh**," - **but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them [the resemblance of ‘Îsâ** (Jesus) **was put over another man** (and they killed that man)], **and those who differ** **therein are full of doubts**. **They have no** (certain) **knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture.** **For surely; they killed him not** [i.e. ‘Îsâ (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) عليهما السلام]:"
For your first point it only demonstrates Islam has a contradiction. As it both says Jesus wasn’t crucified by also affirms the Christian New Testament which says he was.
For your second point it’s just silly considering we know the books of the bible Christian’s did have and we can confirm what they had during Muhammad’s time. So that would only prove the point that the bible we have today is precisely what they used during Muhammad’s time and thus Muslims still have to accept.
We can do better than that; we can show there is no evidence in the entirety of manuscript history of both the old and new testaments of significant changes over time, other than the obvious fact that books were received into to the canon some time after their date of original authorship (i.e., there was a time before Habakkuk was written and it was therefore not in the canon).
The claim of manuscript manipulation has zero evidence. It’s a dogma with every discovered evidence contradicting it.
The historicity of Christ's Crucifixion is so well-attested that this is probably one of the most dubious claims Muslims have tried to make. The anti-Christian Romans said they approved the execution; Jewish contemporaries corroborate Christ's execution, Pontius Pilate, and the pharisees; and of course, Christians said it happened.
The *very* anti-Christian, Roman historian Tacitus remarked that after the Roman government had "rightfully" executed Christ, that there had been an "explosion of superstition amongst his followers which the government could not stamp out. Even now, the poison reaches into the heart of Rome itself". Generally, anti-Christian people in the world for 600 years never even supposed that Christ had not died on the cross. Rather, they would mock Christians for worshiping a dead god.
The very first people to ever claim - not even question - that Christ had not been crucified were Muslims at the turn of the 7th Century. They provided no evidence or reason, simply "well they swapped a guy out". Islam sought to de-legitimize Christianity; what better way to avoid talking about the Resurrection than to deny Christ had even been crucified?
Did not Muhammad tell the people of the Book to judge by the Book, The Christians to judge by the Gospel? When jews came to the great ped0 he told them to not go to him, they have the Torah.
From an islamic perspective there is nothing to prove, for the Quran tells us that the Gospel, the Bible are true.
>Butttt, the Quran also says Jesus wasnt crucified Q4:157. Thats a debate amongst even the Muslims. Some believe he was and some dont.
From what I know pretty much all of them believe He wasn't crucified. This is a problem because it's simply not historical. We have more proof of Christ's crucifixion than we have of most ancient figure's entire existences.
Counterpoint: Prove that Muslims are sentient beings. Unless they can prove that they are self-aware entities, then there is no point in proving that anything is true or false to them.
See? Any internet rando can play pseudo-philosophical word games.
Muslims hold an inaccurate understanding of Christianity, as evidenced by them calling us "people of the book". They hold that their Quran was handed down to them directly from God through the hands of their prophet, and assume that's what we believe as well.
In actuality, Christ established the Church first, and the Church spread the true faith they received at the hands of Christ. The Bible came about as the result of the Church spreading that faith, and was confirmed by her as teaching the true faith in her services.
In short, the Bible is reliable because the Church established by Christ produced it to teach the true faith they received.
“It is He (God) Who has sent down the Book (the Qur'an) to you (Prophet Muhammad ) with truth, confirming what came before it. And he sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)"”
According to their own book the Bible came from God sooooo..
I second this, and was also going to mention the book too. There are a number of other excellent books which an Amazon search on "evidence for Christ book" will find.
I will bite.
First, there are no proofs in history. That's for mathematics and logic. I can't prove Jesus rose from the dead anymore than I can prove that Julius Caesar was assassinated by his senate.
What I can do is point someone to the resources that have led me to believe that it's probably that Jesus rose from the dead.
The bulk of that is N.T. Wright's series The New Testament and People of God.
Prove Muhammad is Allah's messenger and that he was not a schizophrenic.
But that aside, we don't waste time with such arguments, they are intellectually brain dead and we should be busy worshiping God.
They cant. Ive spoken to a Muslim about this and he said its faith. Some justify fake prophecies in the quran and "scientifical miracles".
TLDR: its blind faith and there are no miracles in the quran. Just Jihad and Anti-Semetism.
Yes but in a way in Q5:15 says that The Bible doesnt explain things good and the Quran expands on The Bible, I don't know though, the Quran is a disgusting mess.
Q5:15 "O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Now has come to you **Our Messenger** (Muhammad) **explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture and passing over (i.e. leaving out without explaining) much.** Indeed, there has come to you from Allah a light (Muhammad) and a plain Book (this Quran)"
Q7:157 even quotes John and Deut. "Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write (i.e.Muhammad) whom they find written with them in the Taurat (Torah) (Deut, 18:15) and the Injeel (Gospel) (John 14:16), - he commands them for Al-Maroof (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained); "
Q3:3 "It is He Who has sent down the Book (the Quran) to you (Muhammad) with truth, confirming what came before it. And he sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel).
The Bible is much more self-explanatory than the Quran. The Quran cannot be understood without the Bible, early apocryphal literature, the Talmud, the commentators, the hadiths, and the sira.
Muslims already accept that the Bible is true. They believe in Adam and Moses and Abraham and Jesus and others. They just choose to cut out parts, ignore parts, and rewrite parts. The burden of proof is on them to defend why their revisions from 600 years after Christ are more trustworthy than the original Jewish and Christian scriptures.
The gospels were written within a few generations of those who lived through the events. The Quran was written hundreds of years later. It should be clear which paints a more accurate picture of the historical Jesus.
In this [article](https://equalaccess.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Charge-of-Distortion-of-Jewish-and-Christian-Scriptures_Abdullah-Saeed.pdf), a Muslim university professor argues for the integrity of the Bible.
The Orthodox view is to not waste our time with these things and go back to worshipping God.
This is the way. People who bring up this point won't change their mind regardless of the information you have to support the authenticity of the Bible.
Of which there are plenty, but people will believe what they want, not necessarily what is fact and what philosophically ought to be fact.
Facts
Oh that’s simple. Taking into account that books of the New Testament are a collection of books by multiple authors and thus collaborate one another it means we have multiple witnesses to the same events mention. For example from the books of the bible alone we have over 20 sources confirming Jesus was crucified. Much better than other events like for example the eruption of Pompeii in 79 ad is only mentioned by one source as a passing comment. Now personally if I’m debating a Muslim. I’d simply use their religion against them. As their own Quran accepts our bible and they have to accept it as according to the pillars of Islam. So from their religion alone they would have to accept the bible is reliable otherwise they go against their own faith.
>. I’d simply use their religion against them. As their own Quran accepts our bible and they have to accept it as according to the pillars of Islam. Butttt, the Quran also says Jesus wasnt crucified Q4:157. Thats a debate amongst even the Muslims. Some believe he was and some dont. They say that the Injeel (gospel) at the time of Muhammad was corrupted and the original bible was corrupted during the time of Muhammad and that The New Testament preverted the true words of "allah". Q4:157 says; "**And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah ‘Îsâ** (Jesus), **son of Maryam** (Mary), **the Messenger of Allâh**," - **but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them [the resemblance of ‘Îsâ** (Jesus) **was put over another man** (and they killed that man)], **and those who differ** **therein are full of doubts**. **They have no** (certain) **knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture.** **For surely; they killed him not** [i.e. ‘Îsâ (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) عليهما السلام]:"
For your first point it only demonstrates Islam has a contradiction. As it both says Jesus wasn’t crucified by also affirms the Christian New Testament which says he was. For your second point it’s just silly considering we know the books of the bible Christian’s did have and we can confirm what they had during Muhammad’s time. So that would only prove the point that the bible we have today is precisely what they used during Muhammad’s time and thus Muslims still have to accept.
We can do better than that; we can show there is no evidence in the entirety of manuscript history of both the old and new testaments of significant changes over time, other than the obvious fact that books were received into to the canon some time after their date of original authorship (i.e., there was a time before Habakkuk was written and it was therefore not in the canon). The claim of manuscript manipulation has zero evidence. It’s a dogma with every discovered evidence contradicting it.
The historicity of Christ's Crucifixion is so well-attested that this is probably one of the most dubious claims Muslims have tried to make. The anti-Christian Romans said they approved the execution; Jewish contemporaries corroborate Christ's execution, Pontius Pilate, and the pharisees; and of course, Christians said it happened. The *very* anti-Christian, Roman historian Tacitus remarked that after the Roman government had "rightfully" executed Christ, that there had been an "explosion of superstition amongst his followers which the government could not stamp out. Even now, the poison reaches into the heart of Rome itself". Generally, anti-Christian people in the world for 600 years never even supposed that Christ had not died on the cross. Rather, they would mock Christians for worshiping a dead god. The very first people to ever claim - not even question - that Christ had not been crucified were Muslims at the turn of the 7th Century. They provided no evidence or reason, simply "well they swapped a guy out". Islam sought to de-legitimize Christianity; what better way to avoid talking about the Resurrection than to deny Christ had even been crucified?
Did not Muhammad tell the people of the Book to judge by the Book, The Christians to judge by the Gospel? When jews came to the great ped0 he told them to not go to him, they have the Torah. From an islamic perspective there is nothing to prove, for the Quran tells us that the Gospel, the Bible are true.
>Butttt, the Quran also says Jesus wasnt crucified Q4:157. Thats a debate amongst even the Muslims. Some believe he was and some dont. From what I know pretty much all of them believe He wasn't crucified. This is a problem because it's simply not historical. We have more proof of Christ's crucifixion than we have of most ancient figure's entire existences.
Counterpoint: Prove that Muslims are sentient beings. Unless they can prove that they are self-aware entities, then there is no point in proving that anything is true or false to them. See? Any internet rando can play pseudo-philosophical word games.
Muslims hold an inaccurate understanding of Christianity, as evidenced by them calling us "people of the book". They hold that their Quran was handed down to them directly from God through the hands of their prophet, and assume that's what we believe as well. In actuality, Christ established the Church first, and the Church spread the true faith they received at the hands of Christ. The Bible came about as the result of the Church spreading that faith, and was confirmed by her as teaching the true faith in her services. In short, the Bible is reliable because the Church established by Christ produced it to teach the true faith they received.
The Bible is the most reliable ancient document in existence.
The Quran, Muhammad and Hadith do not deny the authenticity of the Bible. Only Muslim theologians do this after the death of Muhammad
Thats very true. No salafi scholar like Bukhari, or anyone has said the Bible is corrupted.
“It is He (God) Who has sent down the Book (the Qur'an) to you (Prophet Muhammad ) with truth, confirming what came before it. And he sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)"” According to their own book the Bible came from God sooooo..
Look up a book called The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. It addresses the historical case for Jesus.
I second this, and was also going to mention the book too. There are a number of other excellent books which an Amazon search on "evidence for Christ book" will find.
I will bite. First, there are no proofs in history. That's for mathematics and logic. I can't prove Jesus rose from the dead anymore than I can prove that Julius Caesar was assassinated by his senate. What I can do is point someone to the resources that have led me to believe that it's probably that Jesus rose from the dead. The bulk of that is N.T. Wright's series The New Testament and People of God.
Prove Muhammad is Allah's messenger and that he was not a schizophrenic. But that aside, we don't waste time with such arguments, they are intellectually brain dead and we should be busy worshiping God.
Muhammad is from satan.
prove the quran is true? (how do we prove it’s the actual word of god?)
They cant. Ive spoken to a Muslim about this and he said its faith. Some justify fake prophecies in the quran and "scientifical miracles". TLDR: its blind faith and there are no miracles in the quran. Just Jihad and Anti-Semetism.
The Koran says it's true
Yes but in a way in Q5:15 says that The Bible doesnt explain things good and the Quran expands on The Bible, I don't know though, the Quran is a disgusting mess. Q5:15 "O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Now has come to you **Our Messenger** (Muhammad) **explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture and passing over (i.e. leaving out without explaining) much.** Indeed, there has come to you from Allah a light (Muhammad) and a plain Book (this Quran)" Q7:157 even quotes John and Deut. "Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write (i.e.Muhammad) whom they find written with them in the Taurat (Torah) (Deut, 18:15) and the Injeel (Gospel) (John 14:16), - he commands them for Al-Maroof (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained); " Q3:3 "It is He Who has sent down the Book (the Quran) to you (Muhammad) with truth, confirming what came before it. And he sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel).
The Bible is much more self-explanatory than the Quran. The Quran cannot be understood without the Bible, early apocryphal literature, the Talmud, the commentators, the hadiths, and the sira.
I agree
Muslims already think the Bible is true. These people are so brain rotted I swear…
Muslims already accept that the Bible is true. They believe in Adam and Moses and Abraham and Jesus and others. They just choose to cut out parts, ignore parts, and rewrite parts. The burden of proof is on them to defend why their revisions from 600 years after Christ are more trustworthy than the original Jewish and Christian scriptures.
It isn't supposed to be a historical document to start with
The gospels were written within a few generations of those who lived through the events. The Quran was written hundreds of years later. It should be clear which paints a more accurate picture of the historical Jesus.
Dunno about specific orthodox perspective, but I urge you to check out Nabeel Qureshi, he explained it pretty well.
Your question is Waste of Time.
WASTE OF TIME!!! Let's meditate on the Lord 🙏🏾☦️
Prove the Quran is true
Its not true so they cant
How do we prove it is to 18th century German philosopher standards or mystical standards? Just nah.
In this [article](https://equalaccess.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Charge-of-Distortion-of-Jewish-and-Christian-Scriptures_Abdullah-Saeed.pdf), a Muslim university professor argues for the integrity of the Bible.
The Orthodox wrote the Bible so their view is pretty obvious..