Jesus, he rose from the dead.

They would all die, but Jesus would rise from the dead making him the winner. ;)

Jesus and the Buddha wouldn't fight; Muhammad is reported in the hadiths to have killed people personally and to have conquered by the sword and converted by force.

Well, considering that both Jesus and Buddha preached non-violence and were not known to kill people, I doubt if either of them would fight in any sort of "Death Match". So the official winner would most likely be Mohammad. Of course that says nothing about the crediblity of any of their respective philosophies, just that one of them happens to be slightly more violent than the other two.

definatley jesus, since he is the son of God and he already proved that death was no match for him and the grave couldnt hold him.

Mohammed he is the only one of the three that did not Preach and live non violence.

I would say Mohammad by default....he would probably strap a bomb around his waste and blow himeself up just to win.. i am being spiteful...to much sun here in Iraq ;)

jesus kicks ass lol

Honestly, I think that it is a sick question but for the Christians who need to give Jesus Props by this questions it really seems to me to be anti Christian in nature at least anti the image of Christ that has been propogated for centuries as turning the other Cheek and loving the enemy. Why was Abraham and Moses left out?, weren't they warriors? Then Why stop with them when you can go on and include everyone who was influencial in History? What is this a baseball game???? UFC?? Tribalism??? Come on man! Maybe I am way too serious about it so I apologize- no offense. So in that case don't mind me but I think this line of questioning promotes lack of tolerence and feeds the egos and ethnocentrism that had already made much of the peoples of the world an enemy to to each other. My response is that they (Jesus Buddha and Muhammad) would never fight each other even if it were possible for them to all exist at the same time! Just a note, Jesus rose from the dead, ok but that really does not make sense as an answer to the question because if he was able to be killed that implies a sort of weakness (logically) so even if he could rise up again after loosing the match he would still be the looser until he defeated who had already killed him meaning killing that guy. Then if he could not be killed because he was risen from the dead and barred from dying again then he should not need to fight at all he should have the power to make his enemies friends or defeat them by a miracle of sorts rather than the sword. So even if you think I am going overboard maybe you can appreciate that this kind of questioning is not exactly the way to get the world together in peace I mean maybe there is a better way.:-)