Which is why I stuck agnostic into the equation, that is: I don't know for sure.

Your argument was already out of the window as soon as you presented it, largely because it is blind Christian zealotry. Can you show where Islam proclaims Jesus Christ as it's greatest Prophet. A quote from the Koran would help.

It's amazing how many people love the words 'prove' and 'proof'.

Yes, I'm sure you've proved it to yourself. One can do that without a shred of evidence. Especially with faith.

But self-evidence is not evidence for anything. As Drgoodtrips correctly states, the premise for your "proof" is that Judaism is true. And that's a self-evident premise. All it'll ever accomplish is a personal reassurance of your own prepossessed truth.

And your christian views have no bearing on about 67% of the world population. A lot less if we make a distinction between christian sects (catholics, protestants, orthodox, jeovah's witnesses....). A lot of things are popular, including Britney Spears, that doesn't make them right.

Saying that atheists/agnostics think all religions are false (or at least that we cannot know if they're true) was only a way to show that your argument isn't worth much if christianism is a "false religion" to begin with.

__________________
Before you hit the button, check if every single word that you wrote is a step towards truth. Then delete those words that are unnecessary.
In return, I'll be trying to do it, too. And then we might have some meaningful discussion.

The only thing that excavations of versions of the one god books brought was to show the differences between them.

The use of the word Christ is significant here.

http://www.muhammad.net/mnstc/mnstc12.htm

__________________
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men... are endowed by [B]their Creator [/B]with certain unalienable rights..."
"... In Order to... secure [B]the Blessings [/B]of Liberty... do [B]ordain[/B] and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So are you denying that Judaism is a religion? My proof is simply based on the same premise made by Mohamed with respect to Judaism.

__________________
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men... are endowed by [B]their Creator [/B]with certain unalienable rights..."
"... In Order to... secure [B]the Blessings [/B]of Liberty... do [B]ordain[/B] and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Again, my proof assumes that Christianty is a religion, just as Mohamed asserts that is is. The fact that there are some who don't believe in Christianity is irrelevant.

__________________
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men... are endowed by [B]their Creator [/B]with certain unalienable rights..."
"... In Order to... secure [B]the Blessings [/B]of Liberty... do [B]ordain[/B] and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Huh? I don't care if the premise is a religion, a presidential speech or a hairdryer. For your "proof" to be true, it needs your premise to be true (in this particular case the contents of the Torah). Not merely to exist but to be true.

I'm sure it is. It doesn't make it more correct. It just means Mohammed based it on the same premise.

Faith in itself is based on self-evident premises. If a faith diverges from another faith, it renders the other faith untrue on the instances where it diverts. There's nothing you can do logically to prove a faith more true than the other. Per definition, you will always base such an attempt on a self-evident premise. I.e. the truth of which is based on the truth of itself.

I skimmed the first two pages. Your rendition of the source does not appear to be honest. The source clearly states that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are all Prophets of God. They are all messengers sent by God. To put it differently, God is the ultimately authority and the messengers are all his vassals. You seem to focus on one passage (I imagine) where in the Bible, Jesus says that he will "send" someone to replace him.

Firstly, it doesn't matter as you are arguing from a Muslim point of view (or at least pretending to do so) and Muslim's view Moses, Jesus and Muhammad as messengers of God, period, end, no more to add. They don't view Jesus as the captain, Moses and Muhammad as lieutenants and God as the general, as you seem to be implying. All Muslim texts do not say that.

Secondly, the fact that Jesus says that he will "send" someone to replace him means little. If there is a brigadier general in Afghanistan and he says he's going home to the US but that he will "send" someone to replace him and another brigadier general comes to replace him, does that mean that one is greater than the other? No. Equals can send each other to replace oneanother.

In any case, given that the Koran is promulgated by Muhammad and not Jesus shows that Muhammad was God's last messenger and thus he delivered the final truth, Jesus delivered a lesser, imperfect truth. This is from the Muslim viewpoint which you claim to be arguing for.



WEB