Convert me if you can

[Regens Küchl]

Mohammed had his wisdom from Allah, who of course knew the prophet Jesus better than humans.

(Accepting this as role-playing)

This is the "power of God card" which the believer can opt to play as a last resort when all other options are gone. The act of playing it is a tacit admission that their story is so odd, so against all evidence, that it defies any worldly explanation.

Beyond the problems of Occam's Razor and Hitchen's Razor ("that which can be proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"), it opens a can of worms for the theist. If you suppose that a deity whispers to one mortal regarding the truth about Jesus, why not a more influential one? Would a Roman Emperor or a Pope would be a better choice than some guy in a totally different country?

(Yes, this is role playing. And fun.)

Before starting to try to convert someone I would first see to it that I know what exactly the person already believes. And on that I would choose my strategy.
Your starting post suggested that you had already accepted an Abrahamitic god as a fact, and just need help to know which Abrahamitic religion is right.

Let's pretend that I've decided I need religion in my life. I've decided to choose between Christianity and Islam. The Christians have made their sales pitch to me. Now those Muslim posters on this board can make yours. What evidence or arguments does Islam have to support it?

On a person like that it is no bad strategy to use the "Power of god card" as a first. One who accepts already the Abrahamitic god as a fact will surely accept that he has power.

And your specific question provoked my answer.

What would be your sales pitch to convince me that Muhammad knew Jesus better than the Christians?

Furthermore the Christians got their religion from the false apostle Paul and other false apostles, Mohammed got his from the head man Allah himself.
Humans like Paul, who not even saw himself as another prophet, can so likely be wrong. A real prophet cannot be wrong.
They misunderstood the great prophet Jesus and perverted his message.
So Allah had to send another Prophet to clear up things and it is Mohammed(blessed be his name)

---

As to your question :

why not a more influential one? Would a Roman Emperor or a Pope would be a better choice than some guy in a totally different country?

At the end Mohammed proved and still proves to be pretty influential! Wouldnt you say so too?
The roman emperors and popes themselves were the very problem. They were false apostles and their royal helpers, already being pawns of Satan.
They would not have heard to the rightful voice of Allah and neither would they have been worthy to.

Different country? It is subjective from the point of view what one calls a different country.
Arabia is geographically nearer to the holy land of the bible than rome. Arabia was already touched by christianity when Allah decided to save it from the message of the false apostles by speaking his true message to a worthy man, who became the last and final prophet.

At first I would like you to consider this : Not once in the NT does Jesus say that he is God

Actually yes he does.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

John 10:38 The Father is in me, and I in him.

John 14:9 He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed

Revelation 1:17 Fear not; I am the first and the last.

Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega

Muslims, put down the Bible. It shouldn't be surprising that someone else's scripture is written to support someone else's religion.

Actually you will see that it is not that easy for it is a harbored apologetic problem for christians.
Catholic and evangelical theologians alike admit that he never exactly said he was god and of course try to weasel an apologetic way out of this:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q..._deity.htm

They say that that and this and there in the NT Jesus murmured something that can be interpreted as a way of saying so, but Islam has all the answers to defy that lie:
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Jesus/Jesus..._claim.htm

So, my friend, what more do you want to know? I will answer everything in honesty to you.

Join Islam and you cannot be wrong

[annatar]

John 10:38 The Father is in me, and I in him.

Guys that's sick..
cant imagine the conversation between him and his disciples after he said that line..

- Wha? Come again?
+Well, that came out wrong..
-Very..

[DeistPaladin]

our starting post suggested that you had already accepted an Abrahamitic god as a fact, and just need help to know which Abrahamitic religion is right.

Yes.

Under such a circumstance, I'd actually be inclined toward Judaism, on the grounds that God would get it right the first time.

On a person like that it is no bad strategy to use the "Power of god card" as a first. One who accepts already the Abrahamitic god as a fact will surely accept that he has power.

Still a problem, since you'd still need to prove that God spoke to Muhammad but not to Paul, the members of the Council of Nicaea, various other authors of NT epistles, John of Patmos, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, etc...

Also, to believe that Allah did speak to Muhammad and tell him the truth about Jesus is to believe that (1) Jesus was actually a total failure as a prophet and (2) that Allah watched the Jews and Christians get it all wrong and did nothing. It seems to me the dumbest strategy would be to speak to some guy in another country, several hundred years later and assume that would take care of the problem.

Humans like Paul, who not even saw himself as another prophet, can so likely be wrong.

???

Just flipped open the epistles and picked out one example:

Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Sounds like a self-described prophet to me.

At the end Mohammed proved and still proves to be pretty influential! Wouldnt you say so too?

Well, if we're going by greatest success story = authentic religion, I'd say go with Paul rather than Muhammad.

The roman emperors and popes themselves were the very problem. They were false apostles and their royal helpers, already being pawns of Satan.
They would not have heard to the rightful voice of Allah and neither would they have been worthy to.

So there couldn't have been a reformation like the kind we saw with Martin Luther? The popes and emperors were so hard of heart than a burning bush couldn't have persuaded them of the error of their ways?

Different country? It is subjective from the point of view what one calls a different country.
Arabia is geographically nearer to the holy land of the bible than rome. Arabia was already touched by christianity when Allah decided to save it from the message of the false apostles by speaking his true message to a worthy man, who became the last and final prophet.

But Muhammad had no influence in Rome or Constantinople. He couldn't persuade Christians except by the sword.

( Will sift through apologetic sites later... )

Guys that's sick..

There were even more ridiculous things Jesus said. Once Islamo-Christians can rip off the rose-colored glasses and actually read what he said with a critical eye, we see a different picture:

Some great resources (and easy reading) to get started:

http://thebricktestament.com/the_teachin...index.html

http://thebricktestament.com/the_parable...index.html

[Regens Küchl]

There were even more ridiculous things Jesus said. Once Islamo-Christians can rip off the rose-colored glasses and actually read what he said with a critical eye, we see a different picture:

Some great resources (and easy reading) to get started:

http://thebricktestament.com/the_teachin...index.html

http://thebricktestament.com/the_parable...index.html

Another really great ressource I found recently(about Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[Regens Küchl]

our starting post suggested that you had already accepted an Abrahamitic god as a fact, and just need help to know which Abrahamitic religion is right.

Yes.

Under such a circumstance, I'd actually be inclined toward Judaism, on the grounds that God would get it right the first time.

I beg you not to move the goalpost. I thought of Judaism too, but ruled that problem out because you stated to only want to choose between two choices.:

Let's pretend that I've decided I need religion in my life. I've decided to choose between Christianity and Islam.

I like that roleplayng, for it is intellectually challenging and challenges our wisdom about religions.
A forum section dedicated to religious roleplayng would not be a bad idea.

On a person like that it is no bad strategy to use the "Power of god card" as a first. One who accepts already the Abrahamitic god as a fact will surely accept that he has power.

Still a problem, since you'd still need to prove that God spoke to Muhammad but not to Paul, the members of the Council of Nicaea, various other authors of NT epistles, John of Patmos, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, etc...

Allah choose Mohammed(blessed be his name) because of his pure heart and worthyness without equal.
The christians needed several centuries to win the whole roman empire for their false religion, but the muslims managed to take a gigantic part of it from them within one generation after Mohammed(blessed be his name) and hold all of it until today (except granada and armenia).
No prophet before or after mohammed ever was that succesfull.
Wouldnt you say that this speaks very much for him?

Also, to believe that Allah did speak to Muhammad and tell him the truth about Jesus is to believe that (1) Jesus was actually a total failure as a prophet and (2) that Allah watched the Jews and Christians get it all wrong and did nothing. It seems to me the dumbest strategy would be to speak to some guy in another country, several hundred years later and assume that would take care of the problem.

(1) I read with great interest this thread
http://atheistforums.org/thread-5532.html
and agree with the argument that there is no such thing as a failed prophed because all prophets are great.
Or else you would have to call the two prophets that were murdered by the jews in the OT also failed prophets.
(2) Allah did not watch and do nothing, but sent several prophets over the centuries. But the lowly humans continued to get it all wrong until Allah choose his last and greatest prophet.
That "another country argument" of you is still ridiculous. Do you think that Allah saw rome as the heart of the world? Rome was just the home of the false apostle called Pope.
Arabia would have become being swallowed by christianity, so Allah choose his last and greatest prophet there. Arabia stood at the doors of the christian empyre, so it was possible for the prophet to build an arabian army and free the world from the rule of the unbelievers.
Another reason for Allahs choosing a prophet not within the christian empyre is the fact that Islam is meant to be spreaded to all humans, all continents, al the world.
From rome Islam could not so easily have reached into the deepest africa, tunesia etcetera as it did from arabia.
And still another reason is the unequaled beautiness of the arabian language. Allah wanted to tell his last prophet the Koran in the most beautiful language there is. Arabic, which is spoken in Arabia

Humans like Paul, who not even saw himself as another prophet, can so likely be wrong.

???

Just flipped open the epistles and picked out one example:

Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Sounds like a self-described prophet to me.
?

Sorry to prove you wrong but

The book of Acts presents Paul as a prophet, but Paul claims that he is an apostle. History has upheld Paul's claim rather than that of Acts.
http://www.jcu.edu/bible/paul/Life/Proph...postle.htm

As for the difference try this
http://www.faithwriters.com/article-deta...p?id=35862

At the end Mohammed proved and still proves to be pretty influential! Wouldnt you say so too?

Well, if we're going by greatest success story = authentic religion, I'd say go with Paul rather than Muhammad.

I did not say greatest success story = authentic religion, but what would have become of pauls teachings without constantine later making christianity state religion?

The roman emperors and popes themselves were the very problem. They were false apostles and their royal helpers, already being pawns of Satan.
They would not have heard to the rightful voice of Allah and neither would they have been worthy to.

So there couldn't have been a reformation like the kind we saw with Martin Luther? The popes and emperors were so hard of heart than a burning bush couldn't have persuaded them of the error of their ways?

Actually yes, because you know that the hard heartened pope did not like to listen to Luther but wanted him killed.
So Allah was not one to send a reformator to debate the pope, but rather a prophet who comes with an army of rightful believers to fight for Allahs glory. That befits Allah.

Different country? It is subjective from the point of view what one calls a different country.
Arabia is geographically nearer to the holy land of the bible than rome. Arabia was already touched by christianity when Allah decided to save it from the message of the false apostles by speaking his true message to a worthy man, who became the last and final prophet.

But Muhammad had no influence in Rome or Constantinople. He couldn't persuade Christians except by the sword.

( Will sift through apologetic sites later... )

As islam is for all humans, Mohammed (blessed be his name) was not sent to persuade christians alone but all the world.
In Rome or Constantinople he would have been either killed or unneccessarily hindered.
And than there is the historical fact that the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople were deathly rivals when Mohammed (blessed be his name) came to power. Because of that hateful rivalry the christian empire did not stand united and could be subdued by the prophets forces.

I think Allahs plan is very clear to see here. Divine logic that led to success.

[DeistPaladin]

I beg you not to move the goalpost. I thought of Judaism too, but ruled that problem out because you stated to only want to choose between two choices.:

Fair enough. I only mentioned it because you brought up a belief in an Abrahamic god, reminding me that such a belief would include Judaism. Christianity does a more effective job and posing as the successor to and fulfillment of Judaism but such a claim collapses under close examination. Islam seems far more crude for reasons I've already discussed.

Allah choose Mohammed(blessed be his name) because of his pure heart and worthyness without equal.

Blah blah blah. Every religion claims such things about their prophets. This one's a wash, if it can be called an "argument" at all.

The christians needed several centuries to win the whole roman empire for their false religion, but the muslims managed to take a gigantic part of it from them within one generation after Mohammed(blessed be his name) and hold all of it until today (except granada and armenia).
No prophet before or after mohammed ever was that succesfull.
Wouldnt you say that this speaks very much for him?

Again, if we're going by success = a sign of which religion is most legitimate, I think Christianity is the one with a leg up on their competition, both in terms of numbers and in terms of which culture has been more successful for the last several hundred years.

there is no such thing as a failed prophed because all prophets are great.

The word "great" can only have meaning if its used as opposed to "not great".

Or else you would have to call the two prophets that were murdered by the jews in the OT also failed prophets.

Not if they convinced people of the true way.

That "another country argument" of you is still ridiculous. Do you think that Allah saw rome as the heart of the world? Rome was just the home of the false apostle called Pope.

So Allah wrote off Christianity as a lost cause. Fine. Still speaks volumes about how Jesus was an ultimate failure as a prophet.

And still another reason is the unequaled beautiness of the arabian language. Allah wanted to tell his last prophet the Koran in the most beautiful language there is. Arabic, which is spoken in Arabia

So the arguments for Islam so far include:

1. Success (same could be said for Christianity)
2. Oooooh, pretty poetry.

I did not say greatest success story = authentic religion, but what would have become of pauls teachings without constantine later making christianity state religion?

Both religions were spread by conquest and persecution. That argument's a wash.

I think Allahs plan is very clear to see here. Divine logic that led to success.

And we come back to success = the right one.

This argument might be less ridiculous if most of the Islamic world wasn't currently festering in its own Dark Ages.

[Anomalocaris]

What would be your sales pitch to convince me that Muhammad knew Jesus better than the Christians?

I'll slit your throat if you are not convinced.

[DeistPaladin]

What would be your sales pitch to convince me that Muhammad knew Jesus better than the Christians?

I'll slit your throat if you are not convinced.

That would probably be the most common argument. You notice I'm posing this challenge from a relatively safe distance.

[Regens Küchl]

What would be your sales pitch to convince me that Muhammad knew Jesus better than the Christians?

I'll slit your throat if you are not convinced.

But he would than not be convinced, but only convinced that it be healthier to pretend to be convinced for Islam. Thats foul play.

Just wait up. I will convince him with words, and before you know it he will ask for Allahs forgiveness.

[Regens Küchl]

Allah choose Mohammed(blessed be his name) because of his pure heart and worthyness without equal.

Blah blah blah. Every religion claims such things about their prophets. This one's a wash, if it can be called an "argument" at all.

I have found an argument for Islam that in this case I will copy to let you read it. Mohammed (blessed be his name) succeeded to let preserve the true words of god unfalsified until today.

Islam is the only unadulterated version of Allah’s word. The Qur’an is also known as the Criterion (al-Furqan), in that it distinguishes between revealed Truth and man-made accretions in all earlier scriptures. Even the bitterest foes of Islam are willing to admit that the Qur’an is in the exact same form as it was since the time of Muhammad (peace be upon him), while few objective sources would hold the same to be true of the Old and New testaments. The message of tawheed (oneness of God) is the same since the beginning of time.
We can still see glimmers of it in the messages of Christianity and Judaism. However, the Judeo-Christian tradition has added to the concept of tawheed, be it in the form of the Trinitarian doctrine or the “chosen people” mentality. Additionally, the Sacred Law changes with each subsequent Prophet of Allah.
Thus, the law of Jesus and the law of Moses (peace be upon them) was abrogated with the advent of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). It is obligatory upon us to follow the most current Sacred Law in order to reach Allah. The obsolete nature of Jewish and Christian law is why you will find very few Christians concerned with the laws that Jesus taught and followed, and you will find very few Jews that follow the 613 mitzvah fully while simultaneously integrating themselves effectively into gentile society.
Islam is the Truth and the answer to all questions, both metaphysical and profane. Allah has given us everything, and He wants from us our belief, love, and sacrifice for His sake. This is obvious in a Qur’anic verse that means:
*{Surely my prayer and my sacrifice and my life and my death are (all) for Allah, the Lord of the worlds.}
http://www.43things.com/things/view/2075...t-to-islam

The christians needed several centuries to win the whole roman empire for their false religion, but the muslims managed to take a gigantic part of it from them within one generation after Mohammed(blessed be his name) and hold all of it until today (except granada and armenia).
No prophet before or after mohammed ever was that succesfull.
Wouldnt you say that this speaks very much for him?

Again, if we're going by success = a sign of which religion is most legitimate, I think Christianity is the one with a leg up on their competition, both in terms of numbers and in terms of which culture has been more successful for the last several hundred years.

I do not agree with your words.(An example against them would be countries like the christian mexiko, filled with slums and ruled by drug lords). But for the moment I wont debate them, but give you this truth:
Satan can always pretend to be succesfull, for he is the Lord of lies. But there is worldly succes, and there is spiritual success. The only success that brings you the grace of Allah is your spritual success that you get only by embracing Islam.

there is no such thing as a failed prophed because all prophets are great.

The word "great" can only have meaning if its used as opposed to "not great".

Yes. But just like all elephants are elephants, all prophets are great prophets because of theyr holyness, their appointedness. This appointedness comes with birth - they are born with it and that means they are born with greatness. As all elephants are born as elephants.
And, if you will so, all the great prophets are opposed to normal people who are not neccessarily great.

Or else you would have to call the two prophets that were murdered by the jews in the OT also failed prophets.

Not if they convinced people of the true way.

Jesus convinced the people rightfully that Allah wants not only Jews but all people to serve him.
That was a enormous success.
It is another story that later humans perverted parts of his message to things like the christian Trinity dogma.

That "another country argument" of you is still ridiculous. Do you think that Allah saw rome as the heart of the world? Rome was just the home of the false apostle called Pope.

So Allah wrote off Christianity as a lost cause. Fine. Still speaks volumes about how Jesus was an ultimate failure as a prophet.

No . See above. Jesus invited all humans to serve Allah and was a worthy precessor of Mohammed (blessed be his name).

And still another reason is the unequaled beautiness of the arabian language. Allah wanted to tell his last prophet the Koran in the most beautiful language there is. Arabic, which is spoken in Arabia

So the arguments for Islam so far include:

1. Success (same could be said for Christianity)
2. Oooooh, pretty poetry.

Have you even tried to read the Quran. Did you try to understand it? You have to read a commented Quran, because many sentences therein are not understandable without comments about the historical contexts and such.
About success I wrote above, and this particular pretty poertry is also the truest word of god. But you wont see that without reading it with an open heart.

I did not say greatest success story = authentic religion, but what would have become of pauls teachings without constantine later making christianity state religion?

Both religions were spread by conquest and persecution. That argument's a wash.

Islam had no holy Inquisition and was historically more tolerant to unbelievers than christianity.

I think Allahs plan is very clear to see here. Divine logic that led to success.

And we come back to success = the right one.

This argument might be less ridiculous if most of the Islamic world wasn't currently festering in its own Dark Ages.

i would not put it that way.
And are not christian countries festering instead in Drugs, Slums, Kid Porn, all kinds of immorality, corrupt rulers who often like to go to war with other countries, etcetera.

And are not many christian countries suffering a rapid decline of religious people ?
That is not the case in islamic countries, so the spiritual success belongs to Islam