Islam is the Religion of God and not Christianity

Christianity is from God and not Islam for the following reasons: (1) Authenticity: What proof did Muhammad give to show that he was really chosen by God? Jesus, the founder of the Christian faith had many miracles to prove he was of God. (Matt 1:19-25; Mark 2:6-8; Matt 3:14-17) So did Paul and the other disciples who wrote the New Testament. (Acts 20:8-12; Matt 10:1-8) Muhammad, however, came with no supernatural proofs of his divine commission. This fact is admitted as his listeners accuse him of imposture and forgery. (Sura 17:89-93; 21:5, 6). In view of the many signs the previous prophets like Moses and Jesus performed, did his listeners not have a right to ask: "Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord"? (Sura 6:37; 13:7, Ali) What is faith without proof? Anyone could claim to be sent of God. Moses and Christ proved it by the performance of many miracles, but where were Muhammad's miracles? He confessed in the Quran to having none. (Suras 2:118; 10:38; 11:13; 6:109) Plainly it quotes God as saying, "We refrain from sending Signs, only because men of former years treated them as false." (Sura 17:59, Ali) The Bible writers proved they were of God, so did Jesus, Muhammad didn't. (2) The historical truth about Jesus: The New Testament claims Jesus was God's Son who died on the cross, the Qur'an denies both these things. Both books claim to be inspired of God, so we can't settle the issue that way. And anyone can make that claim and be lying. Gospel writers were eyewitnesses. (1 John 1:1-4; 2 Pet 1:12-18) Matthew, John, James, and Peter were all eyewitnesses to Jesus' life. Luke, Mark, and Paul were contemporaries of Jesus and got their information from eyewitnesses. (i.e. Luke 1:1-4) Early church fathers like Clement the bishop of Rome from 88-99 AD, Ignatius (35-107 AD) and many others quote from the New Testament, placing them all firmly in the first century C.E. So the Gospels were written by contemporaries and eyewitness of Jesus within a generation of the events, and their claim is supported by secular 1st century historians Tacitus and Josephus who confirm that Jesus did die on the cross. (The Annals, by Tacitus, Book XV. 44; Loeb edition, 1981, Vol. V, p. 283; Jewish Antiquities, by Flavius Josephus, Book 18, Chapter 3, paragraphs 1-5, The New Complete Works of Josephus) So the NT version is true because it is backed up by secular historians of that period and supported by eyewitness and contemporaneous testimony; the Qur'an isn't. Muhammad didn't start dictating the Qur'an till 610 C.E., and in the absence of proof of his divine calling, we can't take his word over those who were around in Jesus time or close enough to it to know the facts of what really happened. The word of God cannot contain misinformation about Jesus. The Qur'an does. (3) The Qur'an has a morally inadequate view of God: Being all-loving, God is the highest standard of love. Yet, the Qur'an minimizes God's love for mankind. It says: "Allah loveth not transgressors" [la uhibb al-mua'tadeen] (Sura 2:190) "Allah loves [hubb] not those who do mischief." [al-mufasideen] (Sura 28:77) "Allah loveth [hubb] not those who reject Faith. [al kafireen] (Sura 3:32) "Allah loveth [hubb] not those who do wrong." [ad-dalemeen] (Sura 3:57) "Allah loveth [hubb] not any arrogant boaster. [kul mkhtal fkhur] (Sura 31:18) Most humans on earth are guilty of these things and other negative qualities, so the Qur'an is saying that God doesn't even love most of mankind. Here the Qur'an says that God does not love the very people that the Bible says he loved so much that he gave up his only Son to die for them. (John 3:16) Islam thus argues that God only loves those who do good, that we have to earn God's love, but what kind of morality is this? This contradicts the previous prophets, for Jesus said you should "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Matt 5:44) To follow the Qur'an's advice we'd be hating our neighbours, and that cannot thus be a religion of love when we hate everyone who happens to be different from us. Christianity says we must respect their differences and love them anyway. Now to address Pro's points: The word "Allah": Millions of false religions have used the word "God" and turned out to be wrong in their worship, so I don't see the use of the word "Allah" as proving anything. "Christianity believes God is 1/3 of himself." This is Pro's interpretation of what Christians believe, but its not true of us. We believe God is fully God. "The Trinity Theory came about 325 years after Jesus died." Incorrect. The trinity was taught by long before 325 AD by the church fathers, for example Ignatus (30-107 AD), Justin Martyr (165 AD), Irenaeus (200 AD), Clement (215 AD), and many more. Clement says: "...the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God....I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father. There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 202, 468, 574) It was taught long before that in the Bible itself. (1) Isaiah 44:24tells us that Yahweh has made all things, stretched out the heavens alone, and spread out the earth by Himself, yet scripture reveals the Father as creator (Isaiah 64:8), the Son as creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16), and the Holy Spirit as creator (Job 26:13, 33:4). Combine this with God's use of the plural pronouns "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26 and the Trinitarian has an airtight case. But the debate isn't about the trinity so I'll stop there. Just like Islam, we too teach there is only one God. He claims that which books were to be accepted was decided in 325, but this isn't true. In 325 they put together the same books that were always accepted long before that. Pro also claims the Bible has been corrupted but has given no proof of this, until he does it's just an empty claim. The Qur'an itself refutes him. "After those prophets We sent forth Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torah already revealed, and gave him the Gospel, in which there is guidance and light, corroborating that which was revealed before it in the Torah, a guide and an admonition to the righteous. Therefore let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not base their judgements on Allah's revelations." (Sura 5, Al-Ma'ida [The Table], verses 46, 47) If, at the time these words were written, the Bible had already been corrupted, how could believers in the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah had revealed therein'? Thus believers in the Qur'an accept that the Bible was uncorrupted at the time the Qur'an was written (7th century C.E.). On the other hand, there exist manuscripts of the Bible written four hundred or five hundred years before that time that are on public display in museums today. When comparing our modern Bibles with these ancient manuscripts, it is easily seen that there is no significant difference. The Bible is substantially the same. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57) With such a wealth of manuscripts we can delineate what the originals said. I'll rebut the rest of his arguments in the next round.