I have noticed Christians (apologists mostly) often deliberately and unnecessarily mention that the bible was "revealed" 600 years before the Koran and it has struck me as odd that they think this is somehow a sign of that the bible must be better or more accurate - the truth instead of the Koran. Meanwhile Christians also believe there were "true" revelations before Jesus. Is older better?
No, they aren't. They are circular arguments with other arguments stemming from them. They are essentially unfalsifiable theories.
God chose the Jews to reveal his plan. God finished his message with the Book of Revelation. Anyone can become part of God's Kingdom by faith in Jesus Christ. That's it. Nothing else. There are no new revelations.
Nope. The Old Testament has many prophecies pointing to a Messiah. Many Jews believe Jesus is the Messiah, and many Jews don't. You also must realize that the Apostles were all Jews as were the people of the beginning of the Christian church.
That doesn't make sense. That still makes the Gospel new even if it was prophesied. And then there were the revelations to Abraham and David.
I think the prevailing notion is: whichever was first was original and the rest are copy-catting. Which only stands to reason if the text was written as the events ocurred, which was never the case.
Really? You were there in so-called biblical times? You saw that the Bronze Age culture portrayed in the Old Testament was a figment of some Babylonian scribe's mind? You saw there was no King David? You know there is no such thing as a Jew or an ancient kingdom of Israel? You know the bible said nothing about the Return of the Jews to their homeland when the Gentile's time is finished?
The basic evidence lies in the history of the Jew which parallels the bible's message of redemption. That is, a people who wandered in tents and who looked to God's promises of a nation of God's people. We read of the captivity of the Jews and their pilgrimage to the Promise Land. We read of the Jews rebellion and sent into exile and captivity. We read that the Jews would reject the Messiah and lose their nation once again. And we read in the latter days, when the Gentile's time is fulfilled, that the Jews would again come back to Jerusalem - the eternal city. It's a kind of symbolic historical narrative of God's eternal city, God's people, God calling His people out of captivity etc.. And it appears to be historical, as far as I can tell.
To answer the question : It depend of what we're speaking about. It's for me not a good argument for Islam and Christianity, but some things to be old prove that they're reliable models, even if not perfect.
What made the "Old Testament" canonical was in part their age. Anything after Babylonian Captivity was not considered canon. With Christianity it's different - what was written by the eye witnesses to Jesus, or perhaps those in His first generation ministry (ie Paul, author of Hebrews) were deemed authoritative.
Anything "Older" that ignores the New (advancement) is not better. In this they are all equally ignorant....some are just more violent and blind.
I suspect the Gospel of John was written as it happened. I notice that Matthew and Mark seem to have more detail towards the end of Jesus' ministry - as if the authors had better recollection of later events. Matthew employed a kind of legal shorthand. This was used in his profession and I wonder if he used this to write down quickly.
You can suspect whatever you wish but, most were written around AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses. Like the rest of the New Testament, they were written in Greek. https://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom
Yes, Mohammed is a false prophet. Jesus is the fulfillment of God's plan for salvation. The next event is the judgement. The Book of Revelation tells us what is going to happen. There is nothing new, no "new revelation", nothing. Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's witnesses, and all other religious cults are false.