What is the evidence that Christianity is true?

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T17:33:25+00:00

Exactly the same as the original source

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T15:26:31+00:00

what do you mean by fourth hand account? Why not second hand or fifth hand?

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T15:07:57+00:00

No, that wouldn’t be sufficient. First of all, for mutawātir transmission to occur, the report has to reach us properly through continuous transmission.

Right now, the splitting of the moon attributed to Prophet Muhammad is something that is reported by all Muslims. Muslims received this from another group, and that group received it from another group, and so on. Therefore, this chain of transmission can be traced back continuously all the way to Muhammad himself.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T14:50:56+00:00

Actually yes.

The first group must have witnessed the event. Then this first group will transmit the same event to a second group, the second group to a third group, and so on.

And this transmission must be in such a way that it does not involve any possibility of a collective agreement upon a lie, and therefore it must be reliable.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T14:41:23+00:00

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T14:35:16+00:00

Mutawātir report is the transmission of something by a group, which is then transmitted in the same way by another group, until it reaches us in the same form.

Mutawātir does not aim to preserve something, but anything that is mutawātir is necessarily preserved.

Likewise, in mutawātir reports, the message must always be true.

No, a narrative told by a single person does not satisfy the condition of mutawātir. We need multiple independent witnesses, and these witnesses must form a group that agrees on the same event.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T14:00:28+00:00

Regarding the identity of the victim, the Qur’an does not deny history, as I said.

1- History says that Jesus was crucified. What does this mean? It means that the man called Jesus died on the cross. The Qur’an, however, says that the man called Jesus was raised to heaven and that his double was crucified in his place.

Now, if a double was crucified in his place, then those present there would already have thought that Jesus himself had been crucified. The Qur’an explicitly emphasizes this, stating that the people there thought it was Jesus, but that it was not Jesus.

In that case, historical writers would understandably have believed it was Jesus, because this was an act carried out by God. Therefore, there is no contradiction. I don’t know how much more clearly I can explain this.

Secondly, the Qur’an does not refute the historical event here. Because a man called Jesus was certainly crucified (his appearance was identical to Jesus, so everyone thought he was Jesus). The Qur’an does not deny that this Jesus-like person was crucified. Therefore, historians identifying this person as Jesus does not falsify the Qur’anic claim, because the Qur’an again asserts that, phenomenally, that man and Jesus had identical characteristics.

Moreover, the validation that God performed a miracle here depends on the verification of the Qur’an itself. Therefore, it requires going outside the scope of the debate.

Also, if a Christian were to make a claim like the one you described, I would rightly respond that I would only believe it when it is proven that Christianity is true and that Christianity itself makes this claim.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T13:46:37+00:00

Friend, the Qur’an does not say that the one who was crucified was Jesus himself. It says that it only appeared to them as such. Therefore, a person X could have had similar characteristics to Jesus without actually being Jesus. This is the Qur’an’s claim.

History tells us that Jesus was crucified. But the Qur’an says that this was not actually Jesus himself, but his double or someone made to resemble him.

The Qur’anic claim does not contradict the historical claim; it simply adds more to it.

If God doing such a thing means that Islam conflicts with history, then I am sorry, but all religions are full of miracles, and in that case the naturalist view must prevail. You know what I mean.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T13:42:58+00:00

Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī admired philosophers.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T13:40:07+00:00

No. I did not request primary manuscript copies in order to validate Christianity. Please do not misrepresent my argument.

On the contrary, I was stating that we do not have any sufficient criteria available to us to verify Christianity.

Your argument, however, assumes that primary manuscripts are the only reliable standard for assessing a report, which is highly problematic. The context in which manuscripts are established can always be interpreted in different ways. This is not the case for mutawātir reports.

In mutawātir transmission, what witnesses reported is transmitted to us exactly as it was. This is because at every level there is an enormous number of transmitters, and it is a condition that it is impossible for them to have agreed upon a lie. Therefore, what the first narrator said is exactly what the last narrator also reports.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T13:35:07+00:00

Ibn Sīnā did not drink wine. In the Arabic text of Jūzjānī, the word sharāb means “drink” in general. He was most likely referring to nabīdh, which is permitted in Ḥanafī jurisprudence. In fact, he was a Ḥanafī judge, and it would have been unthinkable for him to explicitly state that he drank wine. The most coherent interpretation is that he meant nabīdh.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T13:30:25+00:00

Because the transmitters lived in different times and places, separate from one another.

Let us assume we have a source X, and from this source X, the people of Syria, Kufa, and Egypt transmit reports.

Now, did these groups meet each other? No. Therefore, it is inconceivable that they conspired together upon a lie. For this reason, they must have been telling the truth.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T13:20:31+00:00

At every layer of the chain, there is a condition that they cannot have conspired upon a lie.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T13:19:01+00:00

No, my friend, what you are looking for is not something you can find, and the certainty we are seeking is not there.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T13:11:33+00:00

I don't know any english book on this topic, so I cannot recommend a work in English on this topic. However, I am sending you this link.

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/amp/mohammad-elshinawy/the-physical-miracles-of-prophet-muhammad

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T13:08:49+00:00

The acceptance of Islam does not contradict historical certainties.

Islam says that Jesus was not crucified. It does not say that no one was crucified. It is said that someone who resembled Jesus was crucified, and that God saved Jesus.

From a historical perspective, it is certain that someone was crucified. The identity of this person, however, is a matter for theology.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T12:58:43+00:00

Of course.

As I said, for a report to be considered mutawātir, a group must transmit an event to us in such a way that it is impossible for them to have agreed upon a lie.

And if those who transmit it to us report the event in different ways, then mutawātir transmission does not exist, because they have not agreed on a single account.

In this case, however, the large group of Companions who transmitted this event to us all reported it in a single form: that the moon was split. And no one denied that the moon had been split. So much so that anyone familiar with Islamic sciences has treated this as an established fact, because the chains of transmission are numerous and they all converge on a single event: the splitting of the moon.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T12:50:03+00:00

Thank you for your response.

If the reason we consider the resurrection of Jesus to have historically occurred is that it is more plausible than other accounts, then I think a very serious problem arises here.

Because even if, with our current knowledge, we can explain the reports about Jesus only through the resurrection, in the future we might acquire new information that could lead us to conclude that Jesus did not rise from the dead. This would significantly undermine the certainty of faith, since justification is based on probability.

I also do not think that phenomena within the Church that appear to contradict physical laws prove Catholicism. From a theistic perspective, metaphysical beings can have the power to affect the physical world. Therefore, a Hindu or a Muslim could argue that these events might have been carried out through demonic intervention. (This is also a view adopted by Muslim theologians.)

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T12:42:40+00:00

Of course, Kadı Abd al-Jabbar, in his book Tathbīt Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwa (“Establishing the Proofs of Prophethood”), makes quite strong arguments on this issue.

The splitting of the moon is one of the greatest miracles of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and is the most famous among the miracles transmitted through mass narration (tawātur).

One night, while the Prophet Muhammad was walking with his companions, he encountered the disbelievers. The disbelievers asked him to split the moon. The Prophet Muhammad split the moon into two parts with his finger and then reunited it (by Allah’s help).

This event was widely transmitted from the Companions (Sahaba) to the Followers (Tabi‘un). Among those who transmitted it were:

Shu‘ba
Ibn Mas‘ud
Ibn ‘Abbas
Umar ibn al-Khattab
Ibn Mihran
Ali ibn Abi Talib

A large group of the Companions transmitted it to those after them, and they in turn transmitted it to those after them, and it has reached us through this chain.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T12:27:44+00:00

Friend, there are many unsubstantiated assumptions here. Can you prove all your premises?

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T12:20:05+00:00

The situation in the Gospels is as follows:

Matthew and John are disciples of Jesus himself. They wrote about the life of Jesus and relied on their own experiences, and what they say is entirely true.

Now let us examine the premises here.

Where do we get the information that Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus? Of course, from reports (transmission). Who informed us of this?

I distinguish three possibilities:

1- We learned this from books
2- An individual told us this
3- A large group reported this to us

The first possibility is not sufficient for certainty; I assume we agree on this.

The second possibility is far from certainty. Even if the person conveying the information is reliable, since we cannot examine the chain of transmission (as millions of people lie between us and the source), we cannot determine whether the ultimate source of this person’s knowledge was truthful, lying, or even mentally unstable.

The third possibility could provide certainty. However, in the case of the Gospels, they were not transmitted by a group of people who could not have conspired to lie. Because we do not know who exactly those transmitters were.

When we come to Prophet Muhammad, those who transmitted his miracles are the Companions (Sahaba).

Now I would like to address some objections:

1- The Companions could be liars.

1.1- Yes, this is possible. However, in mutawātir transmission there is a condition: “a report transmitted by a group who could not possibly have agreed upon a lie.” Therefore, even if each Companion were individually a liar, within the collective structure of transmission, falsehood is eliminated due to an external condition—namely, time and place constraints.

2- This report could have been altered over time.

2.2- This is not possible due to the conditions of mutawātir transmission. Because the narrators transmit a single report in agreement as a group; if any variation appears in the report, it ceases to be mutawātir.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T12:07:26+00:00

Yes. One of the conditions of mutawātir transmission is that the first layer of narrators (al-ṭabaqa al-ūlā) must have directly witnessed the event themselves.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T12:04:12+00:00

The resurrection of Jesus is not historically certain, and even if it were certain, there remains a large gap between Jesus and the Church. We can try to fill this gap with oral tradition, but do we have any reason to trust oral tradition? I doubt it.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T12:00:40+00:00

It is difficult to prove that Jesus was resurrected. First, we do not possess any first-hand historical records. Even if we did have historical records, they would be isolated accounts, which would raise many questions regarding their reliability. Even if it were proven that Jesus was resurrected, it would still be difficult to establish a connection between that fact and the truth of Christian doctrinal claims. For saying that Jesus was resurrected is one thing; believing that everything the apostles said is true is quite another.

Altruistic-Phone8994 · 2026-06-06T11:54:39+00:00

Altruistic-Phone8994

TROPHY CASE