First off, Dr Luke, who wrote the book of Acts cites Paul's (formerly Saul of Tarsus) conversion in Chapter 9. He had access to Paul and traveled with him, so it's clearly logical that Paul shared his conversion experience with Luke.
The Gospels tell that Paul met the resurrected Jesus on a road. Is this the same story as Paul's (Saul's) conversion - by that I mean, did Paul only convert after Jesus died? I was under the impression that Paul had long before converted. I could be totally wrong on this, though, so feel free to clear me up.
Secondly, the early Christian doctrine during the life of Christ and shortly after his cruxifiction and the resurrection were being taught throughout 1st century Palenstine, from Jeruselem to Egypt, Rome and the like. The basic tenents was that Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God, He was cruxified for the sins of mankind and that He rose from the dead and lives. This theme and doctrine was not tampered with in anyway by modern translation of the Holy Word. That's why I refer to the argument as weak.
The basic tenets of Christianity, as you put them, could just as easily have been propaganda as the actual word of god. There were many stories of virgin births, miracles, and bodily ascensions into heaven flying around during this period; what makes those themes different from the one in the Bible? The Qu'ran at least was written by the same prophet who spoke it. Islam is not founded on humans who chronicled the life of a supposed deity on Earth, but is instead founded on the notion of a human who received direct inspiration from God. IMO, that makes it a much more reliable source of information than second-hand accounts (which might, maybe, possibly have been a little exaggerated?) of the existence of Jesus.
The disciples were distraught after the cruxifiction of Christ and many went back to their labor and trades they were involved with prior to meeting Jesus. They were scattered. Within a very short period after the cruxifiction, they were preaching fervently about the love and salvation of Jesus and henceforth, the commencement of the church evolved. Why? Once again, what did these individuals have to gain? A date with death was all that awaited them. 10 of the 11 disciples were slaughtered to death!
None of this is especially logical. If I wanted to deify Saddam Hussein, I could 'preach fervently about his love and salvation,' too. I could collect another 11 men to do it with me. We might very well be killed. Now, I know that isn't a good comparison, but do you understand why this paragraph is illogical? You're trying to point to the fact that Jesus was the son of God simply because he convinced 12 men of that fact.
James, the brother of Jesus, doubted Jesus's claims to deity all throughout His ministry. Shortly after Jesus's cruxifiction, James became a staunch advocate for a resurrected Christ all the way to his eventual stoning. Within 20 years of the cruxifiction, more than 10,000 Jews broke religious, social and cultural tradition and converted from Judiasm to Christianity. Why? Because of the resurrected Christ, that's why!
No, that's not necessarily why. There are a fiar number of steps involved in that logic.
A) Christ was, in fact, resurrected.
B) His apostles and supporters spread the word, in the various forms that they knew it.
C) Many of these supporters happened to be persuasive enough to convince 10,000 jews that their messiah had come.
Saying that 10,000 Jews converted to Christianity proves that Christ resurrected is a huge stretch. The bandwagon approach never appealed to me, anyway.
The New Testament Gospels were written by people who walked with Christ and/or had access to people who witnessed the events referenced in the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) well within the lifetimes of the people who were witnesses to thsoe events. These events could have been easily disputed by the comtempararies of that day. It was not. The message is valid and authentic and would be able to pass any objective test that you put any other book of antinquity through. No one ever questions the validity of the Biography of Alexander The Great, although the first copy of that account was written 400 years after his death. But they will dispute the Bible and specifically, the New Testament Gospels and Paul's Epistles, even though these books were written within 10-50 years after Christ's death and resurrection.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have not been dated to anywhere near the life of Jesus. None of them walked with him. Now, to say that these events were not disputed is to simply ignore every other religion on the face of the planet at that time. Were all Jews convinced? If they weren't, wouldn't there be some dispute there? Why were Christians fed to the lions in Rome? If every Roman were convinced that Jesus were pulling off those miracles and had risen from the dead, would they be slaughtering those who spoke such?
Yes, the Bible can 'pass any objective test that you put any other book of antiquity through' - except that miracles aren't historical at all. There is no way to verify that any of these miracles happened outside of the Bible, making it an unreliable historical document in that regard. And if you simply look at it as a small history of a small group of people, then it 'passes the test,' but doesn't confirm that Jesus was the son of God. After all, if we are to believe everything in every old document, Emperor Augustus also bodily ascended into heaven.
So flysky still has a point: the Qu'ran has been preserved from the word of Mohammed for 1400 years; the Bible has numerous different copies, none of which are the original, and the original wasn't even written by Jesus. If I had to choose between the two, "theme and message intact" or "total preservation," I'd have to go with the argument made by flysky. This isn't a major reason for choice between the two religions, obviously, but you have to concede the point. The Qu'ran is a far more accurate transcription of the word of God than is the Bible.