Convert me if you can

[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