Jesus is the Son of God who Died on the Cross

"My opponent claims that the teachings of Mohammad (Praise be upon Him), which were directly inspired by Allah, to not be factual information. He is in fact wrong. " Merely CLAIMING that I am wrong does not PROVE I am wrong. Give reasons why the Quar'an should be accepted as accurate historical information, until you do, you have no case. I have given Con reasons for accepting the Gospels as historically reliable: (1) they are written withing the same genration of the events, (2) by eyewitnesses and contemporaries who would be in a position to know the facts of Jesus' life, (3) the dissimilarity and embarrassment criteria, (4) the miracles of the main characters and authors show they were of God. Con has given us nothing close to this for the Quar'an except unproved assertions. "The Holy Koran holds that Jesus, although he is considered a prophet and great man, is not the son of God. " Until Con provides testable, reasonable evidence that the Quar'an is historically accurate, we cannot believe what it says about Jesus. "One may only look at the life of Our Prophet (Praise be upon Him) and know that such a man is clearly favored by God. " Con has not told us anything about the life of his prophet that indicates he was favored by God, so this too is not evidence. Its an empty claim. "To say that the Christian Bible holds the truth because it was written sooner than the Koran is a falsehood, for both books describe eyewitness accounts, and not the direct writings of the eyewitnesses. " I have given evidence which Con has not responded to showing that the Gospels existed as early as the 50s CE, and definitely before 70 CE; this places them within the life-span of the genration that lived in Jesus day. Also, note that there is unanimous agreement among the Church Fathers that these books were indeed written by thier traditional authors; had there been annonymous, multiple or competing authorship would have germinated as usually did with the annonymous works. So we can be sure that Matthew and John (who personally knew Jesus) wrote their Gospels. Mark and Luke were contemporaries. A number of Church Fathers personally knew the apostles and could testify that they wrote these books, and were eyewitnesses or contemporaries of the eyewitness, for example Polycarp (69-155 CE) who was "instructed by the apostles" and personally knew the Apostle John who wrote John's Gospel (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:4) and Papias (60-130 CE) who was Polycarp's contemporary and also knew the Gospel authors. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:33:34; Eusebius, History of the Church 3:39:4) Also, the Gospels show intimate knowledge of the customs, geography, language, and so forth of the time and places they mention. This weighs strongly that they are indeed eyewitness, and at the least, contemporary accounts. At this point Con has merely asserted they are not eyewitness accounts without providing any evidence to back up this UNPROVEN ASSERTION, so he has not overturned my evidence. Notice that Con admits the Quar'an is not an eyewitness account. Unlike the Gospels, the Quar'an isn't eyewitness or contemporary so why trust it as accurate history? "it is clearly evident that the Holy Koran is inspired directly by Allah, because it clearly states so. " Con claim that the Quar'an is inspired by God just because it claims to be, but surely this is not a logical argument for either the Quar'an or the Bible or any other book! Joseph Smith claimed the book of Mormon was deliverd from heaven on gold plates, that doesn't prove it inspired. Anyone can make a claim to inspiration and be lying! Did Mohammed have any witnesses to the effect that this revelation was delivered by an angel of God? Who were they? How do we know he was not lying? Con provides no evidence, merely assertions. I am not even arguing that the Gospels are inspired of God, even though I believe they are. My point is that we have good reason to consider them historically accurate, and Con gave us no good reason to think otherwise. If I write a book tomorrow which claims to be God's word Con will not accept it as such, thus, a mere claim to divne origin is no PROOF of divine origin. Con has to bring evidence that the Koran's claim to be God's word is true; he hasn't, so we can dismiss it as a false claim unti lhe does. My opponent asserts over and over that Jesus didn't die or rise from the dead. We have the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and James (7 contemporaries) who lived in Jesus time who agree that he did. Mohammed wasn't there, so why should we accept this one man's testimony over theirs? Cause the Koran is God's word? Prove it Con! PROVE IT! What evidence do you have to show us that the Koran is God's word? Is a mere claim to divine origin proof of divine origin? If so, then you should accept some Gospel writings to be inspired of God cause they make the same claim (Gal 1:11-12; 1 Cor 14:37; Rev 1:1) and yet, they agree that Jeus died and rose again. Also, the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 18:3:3), and the Roman historian Tacitus writing just after 100 CE (Annals 15:44) agree that Jesus did die as the Gospels said. So we have historical testimony even from unbelievers that Jesus did die. So the historical evidence agrees with the Gospels and not the Quar'an. "The bible does in fact make the apostles look bad at times. This is because the message of the Christian Bible is that humanity is subject to sin" Con provided no Biblical passages to show that its theme is humanity being subject to sin, but in any case, the nature of a forgery, the nature of a lie, is not to make the authors or heroes of the story look bad! This is unheard of in forgeries of the first few centuries CE. This in facts does separate the Bible as being a more honest work. If the authors were in the business of fabricating stories about Jesus, then Con needs to give a rational explantion for why they would fabricate his not knowing the day and hour of his own coming (Mark 13:32), and why would someone who blieves Jesus is God (John 1:1-3; 20:28; 5:18) would invent the saying that the Father was greater than he was? (John 14:28) This very statement has been used by heretics through the centuries against Jesus divinity. It's far more likely that the authors recorded the truth as it happended, even when it was inconvenient for their theology. Again, the testimony of women was thought to be so unreliable in 1st century Palestine, that a woman's testimony couldn't be accepted in court! Why then, would the authors have women as the first witnesses to the resurrected Lord if it wasn't true? People usually invent stories according to the customs of their time and place, not contrary to them. Con hasn't replied to the fact that as a member of the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus, Joseph of Aramethea doing what is right by Jesus is very unlikely to be a Christian invention. No Christian would invent a story where his enemy does what is right by the Saviour. These are telling tales that the authors were honest and reliable historians. Muhammed had no miracles to prove that he was God's servant, as did the apostles and disciples who wrote the Bible. Con made no rebuttal to this, hence it stands as proof for Pro. Further, the Quar'an commands us to follow the guidance of the Gospel: "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. "—Suraï¿½5, Al-Ma'ida [The Table], versesï¿½46,ï¿½47. So even the Koran agrees the Gospel is reliable.