Self-SelectedApologeticsArgumentAnalysisandCritiqueResearchStage.docx

Self-Selected Apologetics Argument: Analysis and Critique – Research Stage

Type your name here: Edward Miguel Faulk

Make sure you review and understand the assignment instructions and the grading rubric before you attempt to complete any part of this template. Do not change any aspect of this template; do not delete anything from it. Instead, type your content in the spaces provided. Before typing your content, you should review the entire template to be sure you understand what is required.

The purpose of this template is to provide you with a few major building blocks that can be incorporated into your final paper. In the sections provided below, you will insert your approved thesis statement, you will begin building the foundation for what will become the first two major sections in the body of your final paper, and you will footnote after each bullet point and reference in the bibliography sources used in your bullet point formulations (at least two from the opposing worldview).

1. Approved Thesis Statement

The religion of Islam believes that Allah is the only God, whereas Christianity believes that there is one true and living God that exists in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and yet with many similarities and differences between the Bible and the Quran and Islam and Christianity, the truth remains that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

The remainder of this form will help you begin working on the first two major sections of your final paper – the analysis and the critique of the worldview you are writing about.

The basic outline for your final paper should follow this structure:

I.

.

Oni, Idris Ajani. “A Comparative Analysis of Selected Fundamentals of Christianity and Islam,” 2021. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202109.0304.v1.

Parry, Jonathan. “Stratford Canning and the Politics of Christianity and Islam.” Promised Lands, (2022), 278–97. https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691181899.003.0010.

1