Do Christians, Jews, and Muslims Worship the Same God?

[JardinPrayer]

This thread was inspired by an ongoing conversation I've had offline with one of T-Web's admins. I'm intensely interested in the viewpoints of everyone, but especially the scholars among us.

Jews and Christians point to the same deity when they use the term God: The God that walked in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day with Adam. The God that promised Abraham he would be the father of many nations. The God that gave us the prophets of the Old Testament. In the New Testament, God seems to take on a very different "personality" - less wrathful (saving that up for the last day) and more merciful (offering a sacrifice for our salvation and a new covenant to replace the old).

Here's the dangerous step: When Muslims use the term God, they are also pointing to that same deity. They acknowledge the same prophets, they revere Abraham, they refer to Jews and Christians as "The People of the Book," meaning the Bible, a document they acknowledge but do not follow. All three faiths are referred to in theological and historical texts as "The Religions of the One God of Abraham."

Question: because the structure of our spiritual lives is different, and our understanding of who God is and what He wants from us, does this mean we are worshipping different Gods?

[yoki]

Today @ 05:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140306#post140306)
JardinPrayer:

This thread was inspired by an ongoing conversation I've had offline with one of T-Web's admins. I'm intensely interested in the viewpoints of everyone, but especially the scholars among us.

Jews and Christians point to the same deity when they use the term God: The God that walked in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day with Adam. The God that promised Abraham he would be the father of many nations. The God that gave us the prophets of the Old Testament. In the New Testament, God seems to take on a very different "personality" - less wrathful (saving that up for the last day) and more merciful (offering a sacrifice for our salvation and a new covenant to replace the old).

Here's the dangerous step: When Muslims use the term God, they are also pointing to that same deity. They acknowledge the same prophets, they revere Abraham, they refer to Jews and Christians as "The People of the Book," meaning the Bible, a document they acknowledge but do not follow. All three faiths are referred to in theological and historical texts as "The Religions of the One God of Abraham."

Question: because the structure of our spiritual lives is different, and our understanding of who God is and what He wants from us, does this mean we are worshipping different Gods?

What a wonderful question. Shakespeare had the answer in the form of a rhetorical question,* but this does not stop those fundamentally-minded to condemn anything that does not meet the standards of their strict theological framework -- whether Christian, Muslim or Jew.

*Would a rose smell sweeter by any other name?

[Thomas2003]

Dear Jardinprayer,

I don't believe there is any difference between the Old Testament and the New, the same Triune God is the Creator God of history. He creates and predestinates history to work out His creative purposes.

Thus, I would answer your question in the affirmative. Jesus said that the attempts of the Jews to make the law their mediator before God was after Satan, not God. (John 8:44) While they may try to obtain salvation in His name by their own works - it is unacceptable to God and the very foundation of sin. (Genesis 3:5)

Further, Allah is claimed to be the God of Abraham, which Islam believes is the lord of all religions and is a Jinn. They are knowingly not serving the Creator God of Scripture.

There is only one religion that delivers life and the Promise of God, it is the Truth:

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Cordially,

Thomas

[JardinPrayer]

Yesterday @ 11:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140501#post140501)
Thomas2003:

Thus, I would answer your question in the affirmative.

Are you, in fact, answering my question in the affirmative? The rest of your post seems to indicate otherwise. Would you please clarify?

Peace,
Jardin

[Gavin]

I say no, Christians, Jews, Muslims do not all worship the same God. Although I believe that both the Old and New Testament depict the same God, modern Jews who do not embrace Jesus as messiah and saviour are not really worshipping YHWH. Read the claims of Jesus in John. He made it clear to the pharisees that their knowledge of God was not efficacious. And Muslims certainly do not worship this God, as Islam is a totally different religion and Allah depicted very differently than the Christian God of the Bible.

I hope I do not offend any Jews here: I will give a fuller justification upon request for my statement that outside Jesus true knowledge of YHWH is impossible.

[JardinPrayer]

Gavin,
That's certainly a Christian perspective, and one I understand well. I'm trying to explore that very notion...that all three faiths beleive they have the right and only perception of God, yet they all point to the same entity. That's the crux of what I'm trying to bring out here.

As a Christian, I agree with your statements. As a religious tolerance advocate, I think it's more complex.

Peace,
Jardin

[simchat_torah]

"...modern Jews who do not embrace Jesus as messiah and saviour are not really worshipping YHWH."

Oh really? Then what G-d do they worship? How about the Jews during the lifetime of the messiah?

"I will give a fuller justification upon request for my statement that outside Jesus true knowledge of YHWH is impossible."

I request to hear this.

-Yafet.

[dizzle]

Jardin you are so kind to keep my name out of this unless I chose to participate, thank you. I am the admin in question and I would emphatically say, absolutely not. I had this discussion a time back and will try to hunt down anything I may have saved from that discussion and post it here. I would also say that tolerance is not acceptance as all things as equally true or valid. You do not "tolerate" something you believe is right, tolerance presupposes that a person thinks the other is wrong.

[Hitch]

Jews and Christians point to the same deity when they use the term God: The God that walked in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day with Adam. The God that promised Abraham he would be the father of many nations

Not even close;


I Jn 2:22-24
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the
(KJV)


Oh really? Then what G-d do they worship? How about the Jews during the lifetime of the messiah?

"I will give a fuller justification upon request for my statement that outside Jesus true knowledge of YHWH is impossible."

I request to hear this.


John 5:45-47
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
(KJV)



And on the positive side:


John 6:44-45
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(KJV)


You asked..

Take care

Hitch

[spl_cadet]

They worship the same God, but Jews and Muslims don't have the full understanding and realization of the nature of God that we do. We worship in fullness, they worship in part.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I think the best answer is that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God in part; it is undeniable that there is some overlap in their concepts and historical accounts of the relationship between God and humanity. Yet, Muslims have added material from other sources and reject the deity of Christ, and many Jews also fail to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. To Christians, Jesus is the pivotal and defining point of God's identity which, if unrecognized, leaves one's picture of who God is substantially incomplete.

[Hitch]

In part? No the Apostle says in the plainest of terms:

II Jn 1:9-11
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
(KJV)


There is no 'part' here anymore than thee is a 'part' in pregnacy. You is or you aint an dat's all.


Hitch

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 12:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140762#post140762)
Hitch:

In part? No the Apostle says in the plainest of terms:

II Jn 1:9-11
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
(KJV)


There is no 'part' here anymore than thee is a 'part' in pregnacy. You is or you aint an dat's all.


Hitch

Is "having God" the same as worshipping him? Do some worship God without "having" him? I suppose it depends on how one defines "worship;" if the object of worship between these religions is partially the same, then the practitioners might be said to worship the same God in part. Whether they all "have" God, and to what discernable extent, perhaps becomes another question---which might be answered differently depending upon one's theology.

Is "having" God the same as being "saved," as in those who "have" God are saved while those who don't, aren't? Or is "having" God in this passage a matter of having God in what one preaches and teaches? Is the passage about worship or soteriology really? Suppose a Christian convert were to sin and "partake of his evil deeds?" Would that mean the erring Christian's salvation would be forfeit? Would it invalidate his worship somehow? I'd say this passage warns against religious pluralism, but does it really say anything directly about worship or salvation? It might, but I'm not sure that it does.

To be a deceiver and an antichrist, to deny outright the doctrine of Christ, is what John is speaking against, but, does he mean to say that everyone who mistakingly holds to any religious perspective outside Christianity is "an antichrist" in the full sense of the word?

[Hitch]

To be a deceiver and an antichrist, to deny outright the doctrine of Christ, is what John is speaking against, but, does he mean to say that everyone who mistakingly holds to any religious perspective outside Christianity is "an antichrist" in the full sense of the word?

That is exactly what John means. John is defining antichrist.

Say; I know this guy who claims he's not really sure what 'is' means. ya all should get together for coffee.


But then can we really define 'coffee'?

Is it still coffee if you put cream in it? What if its percolated? Can coffee come from Brazil and Africa? What if its cold? If I define tea as coffee does that make me a coffee drinker? What about coaco? Is 'having' coffee the same a s drinking coffee?

Is a cow a dog? Some folks calls cows doggies...

H

[dizzle]

Okay I am going to begin to prove my case that Jews do not believe in the same God as Christians in any meaningful way.

The Apostle John hammers home this very hard teaching more than any other of the writers (Paul coming in a close second). So we will take an excursion through the writings of John.

John 3:18-21 – He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.

What does these verses tell us?? First of all anyone who does not believe in Christ is condemned. And why are they condemned?? Because they loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. But he who does the truth comes to light that his deeds may be seen to have been done in God.

Wow, these verses alone are enough. Someone who rejects Christ loves darkness. How can someone who loves darkness be said to believe in the same God (belief entails love)? In 2 Corinthians 6:14 Paul asks, ” And what communion has light with darkness?” What indeed.

This ties in to what John said in his epistles:

1 John 1:5-7 – This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

John clearly says that if anyone claims that they have fellowship with the Father (i.e. they claim that they believe in the Father) and walk in darkness (i.e. flee from the light of Christ) they lie. Could it be any plainer??

John 3 (quoted above) also says that those who are not condemned, who walk in light, does the truth. Who is truth? Christ is (John 14:6). You cannot deny Christ and have the spiritual truth at all!!!

Okay moving on in John, though what I have already said is enough to prove my point. (and I am not attempting to hit every place where John proves this point, just some major ones)

John 5:23 – He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Again a very clear indication that one cannot be said to “believe” in the same God in any meaningful way while denying the Son. Are you going to claim that they really believe, but it is a dishonoring belief?? Is that then a real belief at all?? Or is it the kind of “belief” that even the demons have (James 2:19) – which is a “dead” belief, and James’ whole point is that is no belief at all)??

They cannot even be said to believe in God in just the portion revealed in the Old Testament. Jesus rules even that out as a possibility:

John 5:38-47 – But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. I do not receive honor from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Christ here claims that the whole Old Testament is about Him!!! If you deny Him, you deny the Old Testament Scriptures, thus removing any basis for any claim that they believe in the same God…..for they don’t even believe in the Scriptures that would give them any such knowledge.

John 15:18-25 – “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’

Can it be any clearer?? The denial of Christ is hatred of the Father and His provision for sin.

And the nail in the coffin is:

1 John 2:23 – Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.



My intent is not to be insulting to anyone, but I cannot shirk (pun intended) or hide from my responsibility to declare the whole counsel of God, including the hard stuff.

[John Reece]

Very well said, Dee Dee.

Thanks.

[Gavin]

Yafet,

I request to hear this.

-Yafet.

See what Dee Dee just wrote. From the perspective of the New Testament, no who denies Jesus can accept God the Father.

John 15:23
He who hates me hates my Father as well.

John 18:37
Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.

1 John 2:23
No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Those who deny Jesus are not worshipping God "in part," contrary to what some in this thread have said. Those who deny Jesus do not know God at all (according to the New Testament).

Simply put: its Jesus or nothing.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

[JardinPrayer]

Some very interesting comments. Dee Dee, thanks for "coming out" on this one and helping to get this thread where I hoped it would go. If I tried to quote all the posts I wanted to respond to, it would be ridiculous. So, let me just post my comments in a general way.

Using Christian (New Testament) scripture to prove the point that embracing Jesus is essential to knowing God, worshiping God, having God (however you'd like to phrase it) is a wonderful thing...from a Christian perspective. As I said in an earlier post, I believe this is true, personally. That brings me to Dee Dee's definition of tolerance again. I believe Jews and Muslims are wrong...I have to believe that in order to be a Christian. However, my defnition of tolerance is one that acknowledges that Jews and Muslims believe they are as right as we do and that we are as wrong as we think they are - and they have every right to believe that.

Tolerance means we should not disrespect them for their beliefs any more than we would want to be disrespected for ours. Their houses of worship should be treated with respect, their customs and religious practices should be treated with respect, the differences in their beliefs from ours should be respected.

There are a few here who really seem to "get" what I'm saying when I ask if all three faiths worship the same God. I'm talking about the entity they point to. I've said this several times...and some do not seem to really hear it. They all say, "That guy - that's the one, officer. That's the God that created me." Christians have Jesus to tell them that they must broaden their experience of God to embrace Him and the Holy Spirit and that all others are doomed. That's our book. We really can't judge a Jew's or Muslim's experience with that same entity based on our tenets...regardless of our personal belief of their fate for not agreeing with it.

Jews believe a Messiah will come...but has not yet. Christians believe the Old Testament was largely a prohpecy of the coming of Jesus Christ and that He is that Messiah. Muslims believe Jesus was one in a long line of prophets, of whom Muhammed is the last and that the "chosen people" are the decendents of Ishmael rather than Isaac. BUT...all are starting from the same place. Buddhists do not recognize any of these figures we're talking about, nor do Hindus, Wiccans, or any other organized (or disorganized) religion. This is my point.

I find it extremely interesting that this thread was moved from Theology 201 to Christianity 201. I strongly disagree with the decision, since I am addressing three separate religions and am hoping to have Jews as well as Muslims find the thread and contribute to it. I believe one Jewish person may have already done so, though the profile for that person does not state it as such. I would hate to "bury" this among Christian threads where it may not ever be seen by members or visitors of other faiths.

the·ol·o·gy
n. pl. the·ol·o·gies
1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2.A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.

Peace,
Jardin

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 03:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141252#post141252)
Hitch:

To be a deceiver and an antichrist, to deny outright the doctrine of Christ, is what John is speaking against, but, does he mean to say that everyone who mistakingly holds to any religious perspective outside Christianity is "an antichrist" in the full sense of the word?

That is exactly what John means. John is defining antichrist.

Say; I know this guy who claims he's not really sure what 'is' means. ya all should get together for coffee.


But then can we really define 'coffee'?

Is it still coffee if you put cream in it? What if its percolated? Can coffee come from Brazil and Africa? What if its cold? If I define tea as coffee does that make me a coffee drinker? What about coaco? Is 'having' coffee the same a s drinking coffee?

Is a cow a dog? Some folks calls cows doggies...

H

You could have answered my sincere questions without ridicule, Hitch. Hope you enjoyed yourself....

[John Reece]

John 8

You Are of Your Father the Devil

39 They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing what your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father--even God." 42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but He sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

God is not the Father of Jews who reject Jesus. Either that is the case, or Jesus was wrong.

Jews who reject Jesus do not worship the Father who sent Him. They worship figments of their own imaginations. The Father of Jesus is not an imaginary God.

[dizzle]

Jardin: FYI and don't read too much into the forum names. Theology 201 is specifically a Christian theology forum as well with issues on God's nature such as whether or not He is in or out of time, thus this subject is not appropriate to that forum. If you wish, I can move it to Comparitive Religions which seems to be what you are looking for. Please let me know by PM.

[dizzle]

With all due respect Jardin, you pretty much dismissed all of the Scripture that I posted......

We really can't judge a Jew's or Muslim's experience with that same entity based on our tenets...regardless of our personal belief of their fate for not agreeing with it.

John did. Jesus did. Were they wrong? And of course we must judge, Jesus taught us so.

More later....

[dizzle]

Today @ 03:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141283#post141283)
Gavin:

Yafet,



See what Dee Dee just wrote. From the perspective of the New Testament, no who denies Jesus can accept God the Father.

John 15:23
He who hates me hates my Father as well.

John 18:37
Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.

1 John 2:23
No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Those who deny Jesus are not worshipping God "in part," contrary to what some in this thread have said. Those who deny Jesus do not know God at all (according to the New Testament).

Simply put: its Jesus or nothing.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

Yes Gavin, that is the unmitigated truth of the NT. We shoud not try and softpedal it. Paul claimed that only by not hesitating to declare the whole counsel of God could he say he was innocent of the blood of all men. I am sure glad that someone had the nerve to tell me I was wrong, disrespectful or not.

[dizzle]

One word of explanation, my post was directed only mentioning Jews as it was from my files on a debate I had on this before, and Muslims were not part of that debate topic. Everythikng I said there equally applies to Muslims and to any nonChristian faith. Christianity is exclusive despite how politically incorrect that may be today.

[JardinPrayer]

John Reece:
God is not the Father of Jews who reject Jesus. Either that is the case, or Jesus was wrong.

Jews who reject Jesus do not worship the Father who sent Him. They worship figments of their own imaginations. The Father of Jesus is not an imaginary God.

I agree with your first point completely, John. I believe it is intolerant and disrespectful to say the Jews worship a figment of their own imagination. It's also inaccurate. What makes them Jews is their limiting their faith to the teachings of the Old Testament...which features and was inspired by the same God Christians worship...their bible is part of ours. When we study and believe the Old Testament God, are we imagining things?

And again, please try not to let the point be lost that I'm talking about a very different topic than the differences in our beliefs.

Dee Dee Warren:

Jardin: FYI and don't read too much into the forum names. Theology 201 is specifically a Christian theology forum as well with issues on God's nature such as whether or not He is in or out of time, thus this subject is not appropriate to that forum. If you wish, I can move it to Comparitive Religions which seems to be what you are looking for. Please let me know.

I think it may well be more at home in Comparative Religions, but since you've suggested I not read too much into the forum names, I cannot decide whether I would want the thread moved! :smile: I made my point. I read a thread where yxboom (who notified me the thread had been moved) roundly reprimanded a poster for criticizing his administrative integrity by disagreeing with his decision to move a thread. I was pretty sure I'd get a similar wrist slap. Let's leave the issue alone. Again, I made my point and anyone who clicks on "get new" will certainly see the thread, regardless of where it's housed. Thanks for offering me the choice, sister.

If there are any Jews or Muslims out there, I would very much appreciate you identifying yourselves and offering your viewpoints.

[dizzle]

Jardin, I think it probably should be moved. Unless you object I will do so. Oh and FYI, I moved the thread, not Boom, the PM you got is an automatic PM from the system that puts Boom as the author though he isn't the one who moved it. I didn't put it there originally cause it seemed to me you wanted to know from other Christians what they thought.

Let me give this suggestion... how about we discuss it amongst Chrsitians for a while, and then start a Comparitive Religions thread after some clear ideas have been worked out by the Christians? It is your thread, let me know. Now hold out your wrist so I can slap it with a wet noodle.

[dizzle]

John. I believe it is intolerant and disrespectful to say the Jews worship a figment of their own imagination.

Jardin again, hearing each other's opinions is nice but what does the Word of God say? My opinion and yours are equal, equally worthless in comparison to God's opinion.

This is basically what Jesus said... was he intolerant disrespectful? I am sorry but you have an intolerant definition of tolerance. You are being intolerant of John's beliefs are you not? Do you see how your defintion of tolerance is self-refuting?

[Thomas2003]

Hi Jardin,

I think you asked the questions both ways - are we worshipping the same God, or are we worshipping different Gods.

My affirmative agreement was that we were worshipping different Gods. However, what do you mean in one post about "religious tolerance", one of the biggest problems in Christianity today is that it is not intolerant.

Cordially,

Thomas

[SaintMorpheus]

Here's one way to look at it:
I worship Jesus as God. Jews and Muslims don't.
Peace.

[Sher]

Hi Jardin,

No, they are not the same God

I'll post more later with Scriptural backing after these few points ... but for right now, "yeah, what DeeDee said".

I wanted to first address the whole "tolerance" issue ... to say that I am very strongly against it and why.

Do I believe we should go burn their places of worship? Do I believe we should discriminate against them from normal human rights? Do I believe that we should be cruel to them as people? No, of course not, to all of these questions.

But that is not tolerance ... that is basic human decency.

Tolerance, as it is being touted in society, is a chimera ... where people are attempting to force us (again) to bend and twist to suit another group ... and their erroneous ideas ... and plainly speaking, that ticks me off. I am tired of people trying to make me feel guilty because I have strong convictions ... not that I am accusing you of that, mind you ... but this is a soapbox I gladly step up on.

There is a vast difference between being kind to fellow human beings ... and compromising your beliefs. Compromise destroys the credibility of the Gospel ... it beats at the very foundation of Christianity ... because it denies the deity of Jesus Christ.

You say that you feel that you believe something as a Christian ... then you know that it is correct ... be brave and stand up for it.

We are the voice of Christ in this world ... the only Bible some people will ever read ... and as such, if we compromise and tell people that they worship the same God, knowing that they don't because they deny Christ as part of the Godhead ... then by extension we are telling them that Christ was wrong ... that the Gospel is useless ... that they will somehow go to heaven anyway ... and we are then taking a part in the responsiblity of sending these people to hell ... how tolerant is that?

This is similar to some points I made in the agape love thread. We are "loving" people into wrong mindsets ... wrong theology ... and that is no love at all. We are in the midst of compromising churches, compromising spiritual leaders, compromising fellow churchians ... all who are turing people away from the Christianity based in Christ ... against the very words of Christ who said ...

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6 NKJ)

There is NO ambivalence there ... it is straightforward and to the point ... nothing to misunderstand. Jesus is the only way to salvation. If we sit back and choke back this truth in the guise of "being nice" or "being tolerant" ... people are going to go to hell because of us ... I can't say this often ... or strong ... enough.


(... more later when I have more time :smile:)

[Spokoina]

Although I think those three faiths believe in a God who created, I see differences in the character of that God.

Jesus revealed to us the most full and profound statement about God: God is my Father!

That the Father and Son relationship is the axis of the entirety of God's creation expresses the deepest level of our inward longing for adoption as sons as we cry, Abba!

The God of the Old testament revealed was like a school master: the one to instruct and discpline you. Whereas this is certainly an aspect of God, it is not his deepest and most profound characteristic. A parent may instruct, but the heart of the Father was revealed thru Christ. The heart of the Father sacrifices for the children, and wants to give live, love and a beautiful future for those sons and daughters.

The islamic God is a Master, and relates to man as if he were a slave. Submission and obedience, while important for our walk with God become superior to the heart of the Father revealed by Christ. God requires the sacrifices of his servants for his own good pleasure. Ask a muslim if God is their father, and they have an incredibly hard time to answer. Ask a muslim why they had children, they may answer that they are to serve allah, and ask a muslim if the deepest part of them is a father or mother, and they answer, of course. But that ''of course'' is in contradiction to the Master God they worship.

Jesus revealed the deepest and most full character of the Father, and the one that our most deepest and fullest character wants to emulate.

This is how I see the difference.

[India]

Allah is not the same as God (meaning Jehovah). God loves sinners; Allah does not.

From the Qu'ran:

2:276 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.276)
3:57 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.057)

It also denies the divinity of Jesus (3:59, 3:84).

[Gavin]

Dee Dee,

I am sure glad that someone had the nerve to tell me I was wrong, disrespectful or not.

Were you referring to me? I was agreeing, not disagreeing, with your position . . .

confused,
Gavin

[dizzle]

Oh no Gavin!! Egad!! I meant when I was an unbeliever and had my own ideas about God, I am glad that Christians were willing to tell me I was wrong.

[JardinPrayer]

Okay, let me see if I can get up to speed here. For some reason, my bookmarks were not alerting me that there were new posts, so I'm playing catch-up.

Dee Dee, I'm not dismissing your scriptural references or anyone else's. I'm saying that there is a difference between having conviction as a Christian and acknowleding that Christianity is part of a continum of religions that have their roots in the same place. I thought I'd made that distinction several times in this thread. It's also why I want to hear from Jews and Muslims on the matter. I think what I'm trying to do is get us to step outstide our personal convictions enough to look at the development of all three faiths from a historian's or scholar's perspective. As for moving the thread, yeah, I think it belongs in comparative religion. As for a new thread presented to people of other faiths after the Christians have developed their ideas, I think this is a bit unfair to them. It was always meant to be a thread that gave equal time to all three perspectives.

Sher, I am certainly brave enough to stand up for my belief in the truth. I also believe we as Christians are to spread the Good News wherever we can and that some will have ears to hear, some will not. But, I cannot let go of a statement I made in an earlier post that Jews and Muslims believe as deeply about their experience of God as we do, and about us being wrong as we are convinced they are.

Back to Dee Dee. When you say, "What does God say," you are quoting the God of the New Testament. The God of the Old and the Qu'ran say different things. I'm not denying my God, my Jesus, or my truth, but I am respectful of each person's right to find God where they find Him. The distinction I'm trying to draw out here is not whether all 3 faiths worship the God of the New Testament, but do they all have their beginnings with Adam and God in the Garden of Eden? That's what I mean when I say "the same God."

Everyone's points about why the other faiths are wrong from a Christian perspective are valid and I'm not disagreeing with them. I want that clearly on record, and I believe I've said it in this thread before. But, having been exposed to other cultures and other faiths, having seen beautiful expressions of devotion and faith in both Jews and Muslims, I cannot help but believe we all share a certain knowledge of our Father.

On my web site, I have a mission statement about religious tolerance that essentially says people have a right to their beliefs. As Christians, we are to love one another and spread the Good News. If someone is either faithless or of another faith, and they don't have ears to hear, we are to continue to love them. My particular manifestation of that love is continual prayer that they will hear the truth, and respect for their devotion, even if it isn't the same as mine.

When I started the website, it was strictly a religious tolerance website built by a brand new baby Christian. As my faith in Jesus grew stronger, I felt the site needed to be a Christian education and bible study site, but wanted to retain a section about tolerance. I went to the only pastor I knew at the time (a methodist). Let me digress for one moment.

When I was on the brink of salvation, I gave my testimony to him at a lunch my then-future husband had arranged as a result of my sudden and wonderful knowledge of God's existence. I told that pastor I had been raised with absolutely no religious influence, and did not believe in God until the moment He spoke to me in the still small voice. In a hearbeat, I knew. He said, "I am honored to be in your presence. I have never met anyone like you before and I'm going to invent a religion for you right now: Pure Godism. God just spoke to you directly when he was ready and your experience with Him is unmarred by religious doctrine, misinformation, or anything else. I almost want to lock you in a tower and not let your pure God to get tainted by what you're going to experience as you go out and fellowship with other Christians and look for your church home."

When I showed up in his office to discuss how to handle the religious tolerance aspect of the website now that I wanted to make it primarily Christian, his response was simply, "Don't give up your pure God." That from one of the wisest, most dedicated Christians I have ever encountered. He refers to Muslims as, "Our brothers in Islam." That's tolerance. He also told me it was important for me to make my personal choice about the path I would walk (Jesus'), especially if I was going to be exposed to the details of these other faiths. He essentially said, know your way but recognize those of others.

But, the thread isn't about our views on tolerance. It's about the common root of all three religions. Is is possible to discuss that? Where are the T-Web scholars who know the greek and hebrew? I'd like to from them as well.

I believe "No one comes to the Father but through me," but I also believe, "I have other sheep about which you know nothing and I must bring them also. We will then be one flock." Perhaps....just perhaps, God has other plans for those other flocks. That's also not the subject at hand...just my personal opinion. I've said to Dee Dee privately and I will say publically here: I've yet to find more than one other person who agrees with me on that point.

So, can we talk roots, beginnings, and commonality for a while?

Peace,
Jardin

[Sher]

JardinPrayer:

Sher, I am certainly brave enough to stand up for my belief in the truth. I also believe we as Christians are to spread the Good News wherever we can and that some will have ears to hear, some will not. But, I cannot let go of a statement I made in an earlier post that Jews and Muslims believe as deeply about their experience of God as we do, and about us being wrong as we are convinced they are.But, the thread isn't about our views on tolerance. It's about the common root of all three religions. Is is possible to discuss that? Where are the T-Web scholars who know the greek and hebrew? I'd like to from them as well.

Jardin,

No offense to you as the OP ... but "tolerance" is a big part of this issue. I'm nearing the end of reading "The New Tolerance" by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler ... an excellent book on this subject that I'd highly recommend. (I've also had recommended to me another one that I'll have to dig up the title to ... if you are interested.)

The reason I say that this is so much an intrical part of this topic is that it isn't simply historical ... which I cautiously agree with ... it is a complete difference that compromises and denies the truth of Christ and Christianity ... and I feel that it should be addressed as such.

You said that this topic is to be about "common root of all three religions" and that "we all share a certain knowledge of our Father" ... but the point is ... we really don't. The Father and the Son are one God (Mal 2:10, cf. John 1:1-3) ... eternally ... to deny the reality of part of the Holy Trinity is to deny who God is ... to make a blasphemy of Him.

Again ... basic human decency is called for ... I don't dispute that ... but any support of false religions is not ... and that is the crux of the issue really ... and why I brought up "tolerance".

Sher

PS. I'll move this as you've requested.

Added: The title of the second book I mentioned is "Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air" by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl

[JardinPrayer]

Today @ 01:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142036#post142036)
Sher:

The reason I say that this is so much an intrical part of this topic is that it isn't simply historical ... which I cautiously agree with ... it is a complete difference that compromises and denies the truth of Christ and Christianity ... and I feel that it should be addressed as such.

You said that this topic is to be about "common root of all three religions" and that "we all share a certain knowledge of our Father" ... but the point is ... we really don't. The Father and the Son are one God (Mal 2:10, cf. John 1:1-3) ... eternally ... to deny the reality of part of the Holy Trinity is to deny who God is ... to make a blasphemy of Him.

Again ... basic human decency is called for ... I don't dispute that ... but any support of false religions is not ... and that is the crux of the issue really ... and why I brought up "tolerance".


Again, and again and again...that is the Christian's perception. If you ask a Jew or a Muslim, they certainly will not say their religion is "false," or that their God is not the God I described as the one who walked in the Garden of Eden with Adam and promised great nations from the seed of Abraham. That is the common root I keep trying to get acknowledged here. While your belief leads you to say, "it isn't simply historical," I have to ask you what your "it" is. I'm talking about the historically common root and nothing more. You're talking about more than that as a Christian.

Still the question that titles this thread invites you to do that. I just wish I could hear more from non-Christians on the topic. I daresay they would largely agree that we are not worshiping the same God...they'll just say Chrisitans are the ones who are wrong. That's what makes us Christians and others others. And, that's why I'm trying to get away from discussing this topic from a strictly Christian perspective.

I am not offended and cannot image being so with the comments of any moderator, administrator or owner of T-Web. I have found the lot of you to be of the utmost integrity. Also, thanks a whole bunch for the book recommendations. Are they both written by Christians?

Peace,
Jardin

[Belteshazzar]

JardinPrayer:

If you ask a Jew or a Muslim, they certainly will not say their religion is "false," or that their God is not the God I described as the one who walked in the Garden of Eden with Adam and promised great nations from the seed of Abraham.

I would go beyond the historical common root. The logic is that all three religions believe in one God, therefore all three must worship the same God, because he is the only God to worship. It seems we mainly argue about the how of worshipping God. To say that we don't worship the same God seems to imply there is actually more than one God.

But going beyond the logic of the argument, I think it would be fair to expand on your question to ask if Jews, Christians, Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Gnostics, Marcionites, Suni or Shiite Muslims, Bahai, Hindus (Brahman) and Jehovah's Witnesses worship the same God, to which I would agree.

Luke writes in Acts about some of the Greek pagan poets, saying we are all his offspring:

Acts 17
26 He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their regions,
27 so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find him, though indeed he is not far from any one of us.
28 For 'In him we live and move and have our being,' as even some of your poets have said, 'For we too are his offspring.'


Here's a quote from Mother Theresa:
There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I've always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.

I'm not sure if Mother Theresa's views fall directly in with Catholic teachings, but if there's one thing she teaches it is that if we err, we should err on the side of love. Anyway, here's an excerpt from the Lumen Gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) which really defined the Catholic doctrine on this question:

LUMEN GENTIUM (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html): But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.

Jerry
[edited for typo]

[Spokoina]

Everyone's points about why the other faiths are wrong from a Christian perspective are valid and I'm not disagreeing with them. I want that clearly on record, and I believe I've said it in this thread before. But, having been exposed to other cultures and other faiths, having seen beautiful expressions of devotion and faith in both Jews and Muslims, I cannot help but believe we all share a certain knowledge of our Father.

What extent do we share a certain knowledge of our Father because we are all created by the same God and what extent is that formed because of the faith?

I have seen legalistic muslims, legalistic jews, and legalistic christians, and wonderfully devoted and heartistically expressed for all three faiths. That, I believe is the function of the human experience.

Romans 1:20 says that we are all without excuse, for even his eternal nature, power and deity are perceived in the things He has made.

However, the charateristics fundamentally of the relationship with that God that each faith teaches can hinder or help our relationship with the true character of God.

Seriously, ask a muslim if God is their Father, and they will struggle to answer EVEN THOUGH their common human nature and experiences dictate to us all that parental love is more profound than that of a master or a school teacher. Ask a Jew, and it is more close to that of a father than Islam, but more he is the just judge and teacher of a way of life.

That is why, as I said, the deepest expression of God was found in Christ, who had the boldness to declare: God is my Father!

[Socrates]

Today @ 07:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142184#post142184)
JardinPrayer, replying to:

Sher:

The reason I say that this is so much an intrical part of this topic is that it isn't simply historical ... which I cautiously agree with ... it is a complete difference that compromises and denies the truth of Christ and Christianity ... and I feel that it should be addressed as such.

You said that this topic is to be about "common root of all three religions" and that "we all share a certain knowledge of our Father" ... but the point is ... we really don't. The Father and the Son are one God (Mal 2:10, cf. John 1:1-3) ... eternally ... to deny the reality of part of the Holy Trinity is to deny who God is ... to make a blasphemy of Him.

Again ... basic human decency is called for ... I don't dispute that ... but any support of false religions is not ... and that is the crux of the issue really ... and why I brought up "tolerance".

Again, and again and again...that is the Christian's perception.

Again, and again and again...that is God's perception because that is what He has revealed in Christ. A Christian's perception, a Jew's perception, a Muslim's perception, your perception, my perception -- all these are of no account. The exclusivity of the Christian was the idea of Jesus Himself in John 14:6, and Peter affirmed this by saying that Jesus was the only name by which we may be saved (Acts 4:12).

If you ask a Jew or a Muslim, they certainly will not say their religion is "false," or that their God is not the God I described as the one who walked in the Garden of Eden with Adam and promised great nations from the seed of Abraham.

What they say is of no account. They are simply wrong. I don't even care what a professing Christian says. I care what God has revealed in Jesus. He asked Peter and the Apostle, "Whom do you say I am?" This is a a question He asks us all. And unless someone gives the same confession as Thomas, "My lord and my God", he is not worshipping the true God.

Peace
There can be no true peace without the true Peacemaker Jesus Christ.

[JardinPrayer]

Belteshazzar: Thank you for finally showing me someone understands what I'm trying to say here.

Socrates: That's fine. I prefer Mother Theresa's view, even though I personally hold your opinion that Jesus is the only way.

Peace on earth and GOOD WILL toward men,
Jardin

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

To answer the original question, yes and no.

I said recently on TOL (or it might've been here, it all gets so confusing after awhile :hrm: ) that our creed-specific versions of God are one part the actual essence of God and nine parts human attribution. So, in essence, yes they are the same deity, just as it is the same deity as the god/dess of pagans, Sky Father/Great Spirit, etc. of Native Americans, Ahura Mazda of Zoroastrians, and so on. If there is only one Creator of the universe, then regardless of what we mere humans may attribute to that Creator, it is still the same Creator. However, if you define God as inclusive of all the human attributions, then no they aren't the same deity.

[Jezz]

To offer my own opinion on the original question: also yes and no.

Yes, I believe that Christians, Muslims and Jews all believe in the same God. But so do the demons. The appropriate question to ask is not if they believe in the same God, but if their belief is a saving faith. I think the Bible is fairly clear that only the Christian's is a saving faith. I'm sure that there are Jews and Muslims who think the same as us about their own faiths. They are simply wrong :smile: (though I'm open to being shown otherwise).

Which, of course, does not mean that we are not to love those of other religions. But there is a difference between tolerating people and tolerating their beliefs. We can do the former without doing the latter.

[Undomiel]

The answer seems to be completely historical in context. It changes, depending on what the religions currently believe.

For example:

The Hebrews believed in YHVH, so do we. However, with the advent of the Messiah, they don't believe in YHVH anymore because they don't believe that Jesus is an aspect of the Godhead. If they don't believe that Jesus is an aspect of the Godhead, they don't believe in YHVH, even though historically, they did.

The Muslims claim they believe in the God of Abraham - et.al, YHVH, but Allah was named after a pagan god who was a Djinn (a geni) and was simply attributed the qualities and back history of YHVH. So although they claim to believe in the God of Abraham, Allah is not YHVH, he bears no resemblance to YHVH other than in historical context. They also don't believe that Jesus is an aspect of the Godhead, so therefore, they literally do not believe in YHVH.

[JardinPrayer]

I think this thread has finally found a home in it's third forum move. I really appreciate the comments that are coming in, and I feel as though there are more people contributing who understand the question I'm asking (even if one of you thinks I should be asking a different question!).

More...more...more! Let's keep hearing from new people on this one. If you know fellow T-Webbers in other threads who would like to sink their teeth into this one, invite them to check the thread out! I'm really interested in how may viewpoints we can represent here. It's something that means an awful lot to me.

Peace,
Jardin

[Belteshazzar]

Undomiel:

The Muslims claim they believe in the God of Abraham - et.al, YHVH, but Allah was named after a pagan god who was a Djinn (a geni) and was simply attributed the qualities and back history of YHVH.

This is probably a language issue that has become so politicized its impossible to really know the truth. :smile: However, we only know a few of Christ's actual words in Aramaic, and he cries out "Eloi" and "Eli" which Muslims will tell you is the Aramaic version of Allah. They sure look like similar derivations, as does Yah-weh when we insert the vowels and pronounciation.
Also, the book of Ezra uses 'elahh' which sure looks a lot like Allah.

The Muslims will also bring a similar root word argument against Elohim, which is plural. So the hint there is that the ancient Hebrews were actually polytheists.

Here's a little piece by a Muslim here (http://free.freespeech.org/bismikaallahuma/Polemics/moongod.htm) which concludes with:

Indeed, much of Christianity finds its roots in the Semitic world, yet the believers of this religion are notorious for their interpretations of the faith in a European world view. This is the reason they would actually try to find fault with a religion that acknowledges the existence of the exact same God they do; this is the reason they would erroneously claim that Eloh, Alah, and Allah are different Gods.

Jerry

[JardinPrayer]

EXCELLENT post, Belteshazzar! This is the kind of discussion I always wanted the thread to invoke.


The Muslims will also bring a similar root word argument against Elohim, which is plural. So the hint there is that the ancient Hebrews were actually polytheists.

Hence the necessity for the first commandment! Remember the golden cow?

Indeed, much of Christianity finds its roots in the Semitic world, yet the believers of this religion are notorious for their interpretations of the faith in a European world view. This is the reason they would actually try to find fault with a religion that acknowledges the existence of the exact same God they do; this is the reason they would erroneously claim that Eloh, Alah, and Allah are different Gods.

Extremely interesting to read a Muslim perspective (even if it's only one Muslim...is this a widely-held view in Islam?

Peace,
Jardin

[Belteshazzar]

JardinPrayer:

Extremely interesting to read a Muslim perspective (even if it's only one Muslim...is this a widely-held view in Islam?

I wish we had some Muslims here to answer your question :smile: but from what I know about Islam, yes, this is a widely-held view in Islam. They recognize Muslims, Christians and Jews worship the same God. They call Jews and Christians 'People of the Book' to whom God has granted some special favors, but they also believe we have corrupted 'the book.'

This is where Islam loses me. They believe Jesus himself (Isa) wrote a book called the Injil, which is THE Gospel. But this book was somehow lost to the 'People of the Book.' The evidence seems to point out pretty clearly that there really wasn't any corruption of either the canonical New or Old Testaments at the time of Mohammed and perhaps Mohammed was the one who had a corrupted version of the Gospel. When we read about Jesus in the Quran, it seems Mohammed learned about Jesus from the 'Infancy Gospel of Thomas' and the teachings of some heretical Christian groups in Arabia. There's a pretty good site here if you're interested, Answering Islam http://answering-islam.org/

Anyway, it just seems to me that Islam is a branch of a branch of Christianity and I acknowledge they worship the same God as I do.

Jerry

[JardinPrayer]

Today @ 04:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143525#post143525)
Belteshazzar:
Anyway, it just seems to me that Islam is a branch of a branch of Christianity and I acknowledge they worship the same God as I do.

While the rest of your post was interesting and informative, I think you may draw some heat for this comment from other Christian T-Webbers. Christianity has at it's very core, the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour, the Messiah who gave His life that we might be saved. If you don't believe that, you're not a Christian.

Muslims hold Jesus in great regard as one of a long line of prophets of God beginning with Adam (whom I've never heard referred to as a prophet anywhere else) and ending with Muhammed - the "last prophet." There's no way that equals a branch of Christianity.

Still, I applaud your grasp of the concept that the God is The One God of Abraham. I may be the only one here who does, but it's nice to find someone else who understands my point. Have I made the point that I appreciate others who get my point strongly enough in this thread? Will that last sentence get me a pick of the day from the moderator? Tune in next week, folks....

Peace,
Jardin

[dizzle]

CAUTION: Nothing I say here is meant to be personally offensive, but this is a subject about which I have a strong and primary stand. The exclusivity of Christianity is an uncomprimising and umcomprisable precept in the NT.


Time gets away from me, but I do promise that I am coming back here. I would like still to see (and if i missed it I apologize) more than Christian's "opinions" here but some Biblical backing. I have not seen (and correct me if I missed it) anyone deal with my argument. It was as I said nothing and we all rushed headlong into political correctness.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143379#post143379)
Belteshazzar:



This is probably a language issue that has become so politicized its impossible to really know the truth. :smile: However, we only know a few of Christ's actual words in Aramaic, and he cries out "Eloi" and "Eli" which Muslims will tell you is the Aramaic version of Allah. They sure look like similar derivations, as does Yah-weh when we insert the vowels and pronounciation.
Also, the book of Ezra uses 'elahh' which sure looks a lot like Allah.

The Muslims will also bring a similar root word argument against Elohim, which is plural. So the hint there is that the ancient Hebrews were actually polytheists.

Here's a little piece by a Muslim here (http://free.freespeech.org/bismikaallahuma/Polemics/moongod.htm) which concludes with:

Indeed, much of Christianity finds its roots in the Semitic world, yet the believers of this religion are notorious for their interpretations of the faith in a European world view. This is the reason they would actually try to find fault with a religion that acknowledges the existence of the exact same God they do; this is the reason they would erroneously claim that Eloh, Alah, and Allah are different Gods.

Jerry
I've always been interested in the whole "Eloi, Eloi" thing that Christ said on the cross. It is generally translated as "My God," but it is actually a plural word, if memory serves, and I recall reading somewhere that among its various meanings is "students." So was Jesus questioning God's abandonment, or was he crying out against the betrayal of some of his desciples (most notably Peter and Judas)? So is it more accurately read as "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" or as "My students, my students, why have you forsaken me?"

[Undomiel]

Yesterday @ 06:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143379#post143379)
Belteshazzar:



This is probably a language issue that has become so politicized its impossible to really know the truth. :smile: However, we only know a few of Christ's actual words in Aramaic, and he cries out "Eloi" and "Eli" which Muslims will tell you is the Aramaic version of Allah. They sure look like similar derivations, as does Yah-weh when we insert the vowels and pronounciation.
Also, the book of Ezra uses 'elahh' which sure looks a lot like Allah.

The Muslims will also bring a similar root word argument against Elohim, which is plural. So the hint there is that the ancient Hebrews were actually polytheists.

Here's a little piece by a Muslim here (http://free.freespeech.org/bismikaallahuma/Polemics/moongod.htm) which concludes with:

Indeed, much of Christianity finds its roots in the Semitic world, yet the believers of this religion are notorious for their interpretations of the faith in a European world view. This is the reason they would actually try to find fault with a religion that acknowledges the existence of the exact same God they do; this is the reason they would erroneously claim that Eloh, Alah, and Allah are different Gods.

Jerry

I posted this in another thread and thought it would be helpful in explaining the subject concerning Islam and Allah:

Tracking Allah

Allah leaves a tidy little trail in ancient archaeology and writings right back to ENLIL of ancient Sumeria. ENLIL [LIL, IL, ILAH), as I already outlined in the UFO thread, was one of the fallen angels who descended to the earth in the days of Jared (the 6th Sumerian King from the King's list). ENLIL was considered the Prince of the Air by the ancient Sumerians, a title given to only one other entity in the bible (Satan). He was later worshipped as Ba'al. If you've read the stories from the Old Testament, you might remember this one: Elijah, the Hebrew prophet, has a showdown with the prophets of Ba'al. Ba'al worship was a big no-no because it was based on the worship of a fallen angel [Zecharia Sitchin refers to the fallen angels as alien lifeforms].

He eventually came to be known as Allah and had a feminine counterpart named Allat. Allat, as in the case of Sumerian KI (An, Ki, Enlil) worship, was phased out in favor of the strictly male version (Enki, Enlil). Thusly worship of the pagan Allah became strictly patriarchal which continues to this day.

Islam is a combination of evolved Enlil, Ba'al and Allah worship mixed with a little historical judaism to give it form and shape. An old enemy stuffed into a new wrapper.

[Sher]

JardinPrayer:

Still, I applaud your grasp of the concept that the God is The One God of Abraham.

The mistake here is not recognizing that God ... the One God of Abraham ... is also Christ ... and to ignore that and push it off on a politically correct viewpoint ... the relativism error that it is "only Christians" who feel this way ... is erroneous. Feelings do not matter ... thoughts do not matter ... not even doctrine matters ... it is the Truth ... it is the One ... that matters.

This isn't a NT "concept" ... The Christophany is present in the OT ... God isn't the Father in the OT and then suddenly the Son is created in the NT ... The Son is eternal also.

The One who would be Jesus walked in the Garden, spoke with Noah, touched Moses' life. He was in the beginning with the Father ... breathing into Adam so that he would have life. To deny this ... as the nonMessianic Jews, and Muslims, do ... denies the deity of Christ ... reducing God to a caricature of the True living God ... a parody of Him. Yes, there is only One God historically ... but the One God isn't worshiped by those other "religions" as that God ... but rather as a blasphemy of God.
Mal 3:6a "For I am the LORD, I do not change [...]"
Jardin, previously I am not offended and cannot image being so with the comments of any moderator, administrator or owner of T-Web. I have found the lot of you to be of the utmost integrity. Also, thanks a whole bunch for the book recommendations. Are they both written by Christians?

I appreciate that ... I'm rather blunt, especially on topics, such as this, that are very important ... but it comes from a loving place.

to the books: Yes, they are both by Christians ... but that isn't the point. The one I've read, Josh McD/Bob H's, speaks out from the hearts of Christians ... but is plainly spoken from the way that society is run today ... and some reasons why. I cannot recommend it enough. The other was recommended to me ... and I've yet to pick it up ... but the website -- Stands to Reason (http://www.str.org/) is very well done, from what I've seen so far.

I have a stack of books, which I am reading simultaneously ... and that second one sound like another that I will be grabbing up as soon as possible, and throwing on the pile :teeth:

[Jezz]

Belteshazzar:
I wish we had some Muslims here to answer your question :smile: but from what I know about Islam, yes, this is a widely-held view in Islam. They recognize Muslims, Christians and Jews worship the same God. They call Jews and Christians 'People of the Book' to whom God has granted some special favors, but they also believe we have corrupted 'the book.'

This is where Islam loses me. They believe Jesus himself (Isa) wrote a book called the Injil, which is THE Gospel. But this book was somehow lost to the 'People of the Book.' The evidence seems to point out pretty clearly that there really wasn't any corruption of either the canonical New or Old Testaments at the time of Mohammed and perhaps Mohammed was the one who had a corrupted version of the Gospel. When we read about Jesus in the Quran, it seems Mohammed learned about Jesus from the 'Infancy Gospel of Thomas' and the teachings of some heretical Christian groups in Arabia. There's a pretty good site here if you're interested, Answering Islam http://answering-islam.org/

Anyway, it just seems to me that Islam is a branch of a branch of Christianity and I acknowledge they worship the same God as I do.
Jerry, I agree with the above conclusion.

However, what of the faith of the Muslim? That they acknowledge the same God, I agree with, but as I pointed out in my post, even the demons acknowledge the same God. So clearly, to merely acknowledge the same God is not sufficient. So (again as I said above) the next question that needs to be asked is, is the Muslim's belief in God a saving faith? Is the Muslim's emphasis on works equivalent to a saving faith in Jesus or not?

I do not think that DDW et al have done anything in this thread to refute the argument that they are the same God. However, I do think that they have done a good job of arguing that their belief does not constitute a saving faith. I am inclined to agree with their argument, but as I said I am open to a decent counter-argument (preferably one based on the Bible).

[Belteshazzar]

Eireann:


I've always been interested in the whole "Eloi, Eloi" thing that Christ said on the cross. It is generally translated as "My God," but it is actually a plural word, if memory serves, and I recall reading somewhere that among its various meanings is "students." So was Jesus questioning God's abandonment, or was he crying out against the betrayal of some of his desciples (most notably Peter and Judas)? So is it more accurately read as "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" or as "My students, my students, why have you forsaken me?"

This would probably be a great new thread. It would be interesting to see what people have to say.

Mark 15:34
And at three o'clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Matthew 27:46
And about three o'clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Christ delirious with pain and suffering cried out the words of Psalms 22 in his last breaths.

Psalms 22:2
My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? Why so far from my call for help, from my cries of anguish?

In Psalms 22:2 the Hebrew word is Elohim. However, the Greek in both Matthew and Mark use "Mou Theos" for "My God," and the Septuagint translation for Psalms 22:2 has something different :huh:

Jerry

[Belteshazzar]

Jezz:

I do not think that DDW et al have done anything in this thread to refute the argument that they are the same God. However, I do think that they have done a good job of arguing that their belief does not constitute a saving faith. I am inclined to agree with their argument, but as I said I am open to a decent counter-argument (preferably one based on the Bible).

Faith in Christ as the only way to salvation doesn't apply to people who lived before Christ. How could it?

1st Timothy 2
5 For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony at the proper time.

So the key point here is "the proper time." We need to create a point in time in which you say that beyond this point in time, anyone who does not have faith in Christ can not be saved. So where do you set the point in time? Is this at Pentacost? If so, do you condemn all of the infants who died in China the day after Pentacost to hell, even though the Gospel did not reach China for hundreds of years?

I would say no, the proper time varies from person to person, and once you've heard the testimony the threshold is crossed.

Mark 1
14 After John had been arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God:
15 "This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."

Christ preached about the 'time of fulfillment' which is either a universally set point in time when Christ preached the Gospel, or it can be a "time of fulfillment" for each individual to repent and believe in the gospel.

I believe it is an individual time of fulfillment, which I don't see clearly contradicted by any scripture. And once we are reading scripture, then we've heard the Gospel, so the arguments by DDW, et.al., apply to all of us discussing them.

I guess the tricky point becomes if a person hears a heretical version of the Gospel, does that count towards the time of fulfillment? For example, Mohammed and his followers probably never heard the true Gospel of Christ, so are they held accountable? I dunno, but I'm glad its not my job to decide these things :smile:

But Paul does show how people that have not heard the Gospel can still understand God through his eternal power and divinity.

Romans 1
19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.

As for the logic of salvation, then if we suppose DDW's, et. al., apparant hardline approach to salvation, then you really have to believe that infants who die in China are going to be doomed to hell through no fault of their own. This is not really a reductio ad absurdem, but it shows where this belief must logically lead you.

Jerry

[John Powell]

POWELL:
When I was a believer in Mormonism it was my opinion that God, the Father, hears everyone's prayers on Earth, whether they were praying to Our Heavenly Father, to G-d, to Jesus, to Mary, to a Saint, to Allah, to some human leader, even to Satan. Even though they might be using a mistaken name for God and not following the pattern of prayer He established, He often still answered their prayers. Isn't this what you would expect from a loving parent?

Would a mother refuse to tend to her baby just because the baby called out the wrong name and didn't use a complete sentence? I didn't think so.

On the other hand, I believed that those who followed the correct pattern were more likely to have their prayers answered, just like a child who properly addresses his parents is more likely to get a positive response.

Also, I believed that in some cases God was the inspiration for "good" religious movements (maybe Islam and post-Christian Judaism) so that they could have part of the truth since they were unwilling or unworthy to have the complete Gospel. In other cases of "bad" religious movements, Satan might have been the original inspiration or he quickly gained control of it.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 02:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146323#post146323)
John Powell:

POWELL:
When I was a believer in Mormonism it was my opinion that God, the Father, hears everyone's prayers on Earth, whether they were praying to Our Heavenly Father, to G-d, to Jesus, to Mary, to a Saint, to Allah, to some human leader, even to Satan. Even though they might be using a mistaken name for God
Since every name that every culture has for God is a name created by humans, how would one determine whether or not any given name (from YHWH to Ahura Mazda to Bob) was a "mistaken" name.

[John Powell]

Eireann
Since every name that every culture has for God is a name created by humans, how would one determine whether or not any given name (from YHWH to Ahura Mazda to Bob) was a "mistaken" name.


JOHN MORMON:
Ask God Himself or ask people who converse personally with Him, like His prophet.

John Powell

[dizzle]

Hey I am back to this thread. I first note that my points here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.phpaction=showthread&postid=141256#post141256) were never interacted with by the opposing view. That is very disappointing.

Before I answer some points made (I will answer Jardin last and separate at the end), first I need to add some meat and fullness to my prior post. There is a difference between ignorance and actual denial, and knowing in part (but knowing that part accurately) and knowing in more completeness. God has certainly said that we will be judged by the light we have (Romans 1 and 2), and the problem is not that there is not enough light, but that men love darkness rather than light for their deeds are evil (John 3).

This discussion necessarily gets into issues of ontology- what makes a thing what it is. And the FACT is that the "God" that Jews and Muslims worship is ontologically different than the God of Christians. Something cannot be ontologically the same and different at the same time and in the same way. Jesus is God. Jews and Muslims deny that Jesus is God, thus they ARE DENYING GOD. One cannot affirm and deny in the same way and at the same time. That is a logical contradiction. In a discussion I had on this in the past one of the participants asked “" The man in the blue coat is John." Then you say, "The man in the blue coat who has blond hair and a mustache, is John." Have I identified a different man because I have not specified the blond hair and mustache?”… and this was my response:

I am sorry but this is way off base on several counts.

The first statement is silent about any other identifying characteristics of John other than the fact that his name is John and he is wearing a blue coat. The statement does not exclude the possibility that he may ALSO have blonde hair and a mustache. This is very similar to the Gospel accounts in which one may say that one angel was at the tomb, and another says that two angels were at the tomb. Well there is no problem because the first statement did not say that there was ONLY one angel at the tomb. Now if one person said that the man in the blue coat is John and he definitely does not have blonde hair or a mustache, we would have good cause to question if this was the same man that another person identified as a John in a blue coat who did have blonde hair and a mustache. After all, John is a common name and millions of blue coats exist.
But here is the more important reason that example is way off base, and that is that my question was dealing with ONTOGONY, not external characteristics that can be changed without the changing the ontogeny of a being. I could take off a blue coat, and I am still who I am in being. I could die my hair another color, and I would still be who I am in being. The Trinity is eternal. It is who God is ontologically. It is indivisible and inseparable. You cannot remove that concept without having an entirely different God ontologically.



I think also we are getting into some theological hair-splitting here and asking the wrong question. Fundamentally the Bible teaches that there is a knowledge and awareness of the true God in ALL of us, but that knowledge does not save anyone by itself. The more pertinent question here is are true and devout and sincere Jews, Christians, and Muslims all saved, and the answer is emphatically no. Most of the Christians here who would argue that it is the same God would agree with this, but then they are in the unfortunate position of arguing that all three groups believe in the same God but two of the groups are not saved. I ask then, if this is true, what good does this do them? It would be no better than the demons who believe and tremble. On that level we have the same God as the demons, but so what? It is not a salvational belief and that is what matters. But again I say, and I would word it this way rather than dealing with individuals who can vary in situations…..

Does the modern religion of Judaism (in all its variations except Messianic Judaism which is Christianity for purposes of this discussion)and the modern religion of Islam (in all its variations) teach the same God as orthodox Christianity in any meaningful way?

And the answer is no. Both Islam and Judaism hold as a core tenet the denial of the deity of Christ and the idea that God is a singular monad. That is not the same God at the very core. These competing God concepts also have foundational principles that are mutually exclusive, and thus again, by definition NOT the same in any meaningful way at all. Now onto to some comments:


[Post 10]
Author : spl_cadet

They worship the same God, but Jews and Muslims don't have the full
understanding and realization of the nature of God that we do. We worship in
fullness, they worship in part.


Judaism and Islam do not have a doctrine of worship in part, according to the NT, they have no real worship at all of the true God. Worship is devotion and personal relationship. Jesus said,

John 5:23 – He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
Worship – worth-ship – is honoring God. If you do not honor the Son, you do not honor the Father.

And

John 15:23 - He who hates Me hates My Father also.

And remember earlier I differentiated between not accepting (due to some mitigating factor) and knowing denial. These verses presuppose a knowledge of, and rejection of Christ. John drives this home:

1 John 2:23 – Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
and….
John 3:36 – Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will
not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

God’s wrath does not abide upon His own. And Jesus after telling the Jews of that day who rejected Him that their father was the devil said:

John 8:47 – Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.




[Post 38]
Author : Belteshazzar
Date : 07-07-2003 06:55 PM

The logic is that all three religions believe in one God, therefore all three must worship the same God, because he is the only God to worship. It seems we mainly argue about the how of worshipping God. To say that we don't worship the same God seems to imply there is actually more than one God.

Ditto to everything I said before, and to say that they do not worship the same God is no more implying that there is actually more than one God than the OT telling the Israelites not to go after other gods implying that there are actually other gods. It means as we mean it now, person’s ideas or beliefs about God. Our beliefs do not create a reality. The God of the modern religions of Judaism and Islam does not exist anywhere.


Luke writes in Acts about some of the Greek pagan poets, saying we are all his
offspring:…..

And that passage obviously does not teach that we all worship the same God for Paul was proselytizing pagans who did not worship the same god (the NT says that many false gods were actually demons) and Paul would not contradict Jesus who said that some people had the devil as their father. Paul was simply appealing to the fact that even pagan religions acknowledged creation. Nothing more. And in saying that God has predetermined where we would live etc., does not teach that all religions are valid.


Here's a quote from Mother Theresa:
There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that
everyone is seen as equal before God. I've always said we should help a Hindu
become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a
better Catholic.

I'm not sure if Mother Theresa's views fall directly in with Catholic teachings,
but if there's one thing she teaches it is that if we err, we should err on the
side of love.

Is it loving to make someone a better person on their way to condemnation? No. Mother Teresa was wrong and in contradiction to the NT.

[Post 44]
Author : Undomiel
Date : 07-08-2003 02:31 AM

The answer seems to be completely historical in context. It changes, depending
on what the religions currently believe.

For example:

The Hebrews believed in YHVH, so do we. However, with the advent of the Messiah,
they don't believe in YHVH anymore because they don't believe that Jesus is an
aspect of the Godhead. If they don't believe that Jesus is an aspect of the
Godhead, they don't believe in YHVH, even though historically, they did.

The Muslims claim they believe in the God of Abraham - et.al, YHVH, but Allah
was named after a pagan god who was a Djinn (a geni) and was simply attributed
the qualities and back history of YHVH. So although they claim to believe in the
God of Abraham, Allah is not YHVH, he bears no resemblance to YHVH other than in
historical context. They also don't believe that Jesus is an aspect of the
Godhead, so therefore, they literally do not believe in YHVH.

Very well said. I like to hear others forumulate what I have been saying as well.


Belteshazzar:

This is probably a language issue that has become so politicized its impossible
to really know the truth. :smile: However, we only know a few of Christ's actual
words in Aramaic, and he cries out "Eloi" and "Eli" which Muslims will tell you
is the Aramaic version of Allah. They sure look like similar derivations, as
does Yah-weh when we insert the vowels and pronounciation.
Also, the book of Ezra uses 'elahh' which sure looks a lot like Allah.

The Muslims will also bring a similar root word argument against Elohim, which
is plural. So the hint there is that the ancient Hebrews were actually
polytheists.

Here's a little piece by a Muslim here which concludes with:

Indeed, much of Christianity finds its roots in the Semitic world, yet the
believers of this religion are notorious for their interpretations of the faith
in a European world view. This is the reason they would actually try to find
fault with a religion that acknowledges the existence of the exact same God they
do; this is the reason they would erroneously claim that Eloh, Alah, and Allah
are different Gods.

It is not a language issue AT ALL, for words are meaningless by themselves. Without being blasphemous I don’t care if the candidate Gods are called Joe, Dick, and Harry, it is the meaningthat is poured into the labels that is determinative. WORDS have meaning, and the meaning of “God” by Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is completely different.


Now onto Jardin’s posts….


Tolerance means we should not disrespect them for their beliefs any more than we
would want to be disrespected for ours. Their houses of worship should be
treated with respect, their customs and religious practices should be treated
with respect, the differences in their beliefs from ours should be respected.

I guess a lot depends upon what you mean by disrespect. If you mean saying that they do not worship the correct God is disrespectful, then I would never agree with that. Of course, you will have to say I am wrong for me to say they are wrong, and thus disrespect me by that very definition, it is an entirely unavoidable catch-22. Here is what Koukl and Beckwith had to say on this:

Many people are confused about what tolerance is. According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, tolerance means to allow or to permit, to recognize and respect others’ beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked.

Tolerance then, involves permitting or allowing a conduct or point of view you think is wrong while respecting the person in the process.

Notice that we can’t tolerate others unless we disagree with them. We don’t tolerate people who share our views. Instead tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.

This essential element of tolerance, disagreement, has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant.

This presents us with a curious problem. Judging someone as wrong makes one intolerant, yet one must first think another is wrong in order to be tolerant. It’s a catch-22. According to this approach, true tolerance is impossible.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that tolerance could apply to persons, behaviors, or ideas.


Tolerating people should also be distinguished from tolerating ideas. Civic tolerance says that all views should get a courteous hearing, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth. This view that no person’s idea are any better or truer than those of another is irrational and absurd. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plan silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance.



There are a few here who really seem to "get" what I'm saying when I ask if all three faiths worship the same God. I'm talking about the entity they point to. I've said this several times...and some do not seem to really hear it. They all say, "That guy - that's the one, officer. That's the God that created me."

Jesus created all things. They deny Jesus, thus they are pointing to the wrong guy, thus not the same God.

Christians have Jesus to tell them that they must broaden their experience of God to embrace Him and the Holy Spirit and that all others are doomed. That's our book. We really can't judge a Jew's or Muslim's experience with that same entity based on our tenets...regardless of our personal belief of their fate for not agreeing with it.

It is God’s book, not ours, and we judge based upon what it says which is mutually exclusive to what those other religions teach. This is basic logic that A cannot be nonA at the same time and in the same way. If we cannot judge based upon God’s word, we have nothing left then our opinion, which sadly enough has been the majority of this thread, and very little Scripture.

Jews believe a Messiah will come...but has not yet.

Jesus said that unless one believes that He is (at a minimum – though I would claim this is a claim to deity) the Messiah, that they are condemned and die in their sins. (John 8:24)


Christians believe the Old Testament was largely a prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ and that He is that Messiah. Muslims believe Jesus was one in a long line of prophets, of whom
Muhammed is the last and that the "chosen people" are the decendents of Ishmael
rather than Isaac. BUT...all are starting from the same place.

Since the OT is a book about redemption using Israel, switching it to another nation makes it an entirely different story, thus an entirely different Book. Jews and Muslims DO NOT start in the same place.

Jesus is supreme. Anything that denies Him that place is a false religion with a false God.

Buddhists do not
recognize any of these figures we're talking about, nor do Hindus, Wiccans, or
any other organized (or disorganized) religion. This is my point.

Some other faiths acknowledge a creator, why are they not valid in this way? Because they do not have the Old Testament? Well Jewish told the unbelieving Jews of that day:


John 5:38-47 – But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. I do not receive honor from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Thus Jesus says that those who deny Him, deny the Old Testament.



Back to Dee Dee. When you say, "What does God say," you are quoting the God of
the New Testament. The God of the Old and the Qu'ran say different things. I'm
not denying my God, my Jesus, or my truth, but I am respectful of each person's
right to find God where they find Him. The distinction I'm trying to draw out
here is not whether all 3 faiths worship the God of the New Testament, but do
they all have their beginnings with Adam and God in the Garden of Eden? That's
what I mean when I say "the same God."

There is not a “different” God of the New Testament. Jesus emphatically taught otherwise, and said that to deny Him is to deny the Old Testament. If you do claim though that the God of the New Testament is different, then you have just conceded the point of this whole thread, that Jews and Christians and Muslims do 0ot worship the same God, unless you are saying Christians worship two God, the one of the OT, and the one of NT. These are the illogical corners that this idea will paint you into.

Everyone's points about why the other faiths are wrong from a Christian
perspective are valid and I'm not disagreeing with them. I want that clearly on
record, and I believe I've said it in this thread before. But, having been
exposed to other cultures and other faiths, having seen beautiful expressions of
devotion and faith in both Jews and Muslims, I cannot help but believe we all
share a certain knowledge of our Father.

Jesus disagreed and no one has dealt with the Scriptures I posted.


I believe "No one comes to the Father but through me," but I also believe, "I have other sheep about which you know nothing and I must bring them also. We will then be one flock."

You left out the most important part…. “and one shepherd” which in context is Jesus!!! That completely dismantles what you are using that passage to prove. In context it is speaking of the Gentiles.

[Sher]

Very Good points Dee Dee :thumb:

I would also agree that there are many corollaries between the Old and New Testaments of God the Father and God the Son ... One of the most powerful, outside of John 1:1-3, is Heb 1:8-11 (ff.
Ps 45:6-7):

But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions." And: "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment

To requote what you said {with emphasis}:Jesus is supreme. Anything that denies Him that place is a false religion with a false God.

:shersig:

[Socrates]

:thumb: Amen to both Sher and DD. The question again is how the question by the man Jesus of Nazareth, i.e. "Whom do you say I am?" Either the answer is Thomas', "My Lord and My God", as Christians also answer, or He is not God, as false religions answer. They can't both be right. Since Jesus is "true God of true God", any religion that denies that is not worshipping God at all. :brood:

Note, the account of Elijah and the Prophets of Baal refutes the "religious tolerance" crowd. This is despite the obvious sincerity of the Baalists. : :flaming:

The article The "Very Pernicious and Detestable" Doctrine of Inclusivism (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/reviews/journal.asp?ID=202a.html) shows that so-called exclusivism is the historic view of the Christian church, and differentiates between true and false tolerance.

[Belteshazzar]

Dee Dee Warren:

And that passage obviously does not teach that we all worship the same God for Paul was proselytizing pagans who did not worship the same god (the NT says that many false gods were actually demons) and Paul would not contradict Jesus who said that some people had the devil as their father. Paul was simply appealing to the fact that even pagan religions acknowledged creation. Nothing more. And in saying that God has predetermined where we would live etc., does not teach that all religions are valid.

It DOES say the Athenians worshipped the same God.

Acts 17
22 Then Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said: "You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious.
23 For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, 'To an Unknown God.' What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you.

Paul says VERY CLEARLY that the pagan Athenians unknowingly worship God.

The question raised in this thread, wasn't whether the Jews or Muslims, or pagans, are CORRECT in their beliefs. The question was whether Jews, Muslims, and pagans, WORSHIP the same God.

The way Paul evangelizes to the Athenians was to tell them that, YES, they do unknowingly worship God. And through our Lord Jesus Christ that they may worship God AND obtain salvation.

I think this is Mother Theresa's method too. To preach Christ's gospel of love and forgiveness, its better to open the door to their hearts first, and show them love, rather than tell them they are doomed to hell and all of their ancestors are already rotting there. Especially considering that the decision to banish their kind old Hindu grandmother to the eternal fire, isn't up to you, is it?

Jerry

[Sher]

Today @ 12:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147926#post147926)
Belteshazzar:

The question raised in this thread, wasn't whether the Jews or Muslims, or pagans, are CORRECT in their beliefs. The question was whether Jews, Muslims, and pagans, WORSHIP the same God.

And they don't worship the same God ... that is the point.

It's not that God is unknown to them ... they know who Jesus is. The difference there is that they DENY Jesus as Lord ... and that makes all the difference in the world. Therefore, they make a blasphemy of the true God ... and worship a false one.

The way Paul evangelizes to the Athenians was to tell them that, YES, they do unknowingly worship God. And through our Lord Jesus Christ that they may worship God AND obtain salvation.

Yet in this day and age ... the information age ... there is vast knowledge available of who our Lord Jesus Christ is ... that He is God. The Jews, Muslims, and pagans DENY His deity. That, again, makes all the difference.

There are not multiple roads to salvation ... there is ONE name by which we are saved:Acts 4:12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."And to deny Christ as God, denies God altogether

Matt 10:33 "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven."As I said before, and appears to be ignored ... we are tolerating people into hell ... and that is not what we are called to do ... that is NOT loving acceptance ... it is playing party to denying the very heart of God the Father ... who gave approval to the words of Jesus Christ:
Luke 9:34-35 While he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were fearful as they entered the cloud. And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!" Jesus Christ ... who said ...
John 14:21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."And ...
John 10:25-30 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one."
:shersig:

[Belteshazzar]

Sher:

And they don't worship the same God ... that is the point.

I'm just telling you what Paul said because he disagrees with you when he tells the Athenians: "What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you."

He's saying they DO worship God, although its a false worship as you agreed.

Jerry

[Sher]

Jerry,

I'd respectfully suggest some commentaries on Acts for clearer understanding of that passage. You are confusing Paul's tact in these verses for affirmation that the god they worshipped was indeed the True God.

Robertson's Word Pictures:

To an Unknown God (AGNOSTO THEO). Dative case, dedicated to. Pausanias (I. 1, 4) says that in Athens there are “altars to gods unknown” (bōmoi theōn agnōstōn). Epimenides in a pestilence advised the sacrifice of a sheep to the befitting god whoever he might be. If an altar was dedicated to the wrong deity, the Athenians feared the anger of the other gods. The only use in the N.T. of agnōstos, old and common adjective (from a privative and gnōstos verbal of ginōskō, to know). Our word agnostic comes from it. Here it has an ambiguous meaning, but Paul uses it though to a stern Christian philosopher it may be the “confession at once of a bastard philosophy and of a bastard religion” (Hort, Hulsean Lectures, p. 64). Paul was quick to use this confession on the part of the Athenians of a higher power than yet known to them. So he gets his theme from this evidence of a deeper religious sense in them and makes a most clever use of it with consummate skill.

This set I forth unto you (touto ego kataggellō humin). He is a kataggeleus (Act_17:18) as they suspected of a God, both old and new, old in that they already worship him, new in that Paul knows who he is. By this master stroke he has brushed to one side any notion of violation of Roman law or suspicion of heresy and claims their endorsement of his new gospel, a shrewd and consummate turn. He has their attention now and proceeds to describe this God left out of their list as the one true and Supreme God. The later MSS. here read hon'touton (whom--this one) rather than hon'touto (what--this), but the late text is plainly an effort to introduce too soon the personal nature of God which comes out clearly in Act_17:24.

The point is that, if you will notice, that they were "agnostic" in their worship ... not of the Creator God ... the True God ... but of false gods ... attributing the works of God to those false gods ... and Paul straightened them out with precision and tact.

This by no means is a contradiction to what Jesus Christ told us ... or Paul told us in other places ... as I and others have outlined here.

:shersig:

[dizzle]

Dear Jerry:

Even if we gave you your point (which I do not and will elaborate) that has nothing to do with whether or not Judiasm and Ilsam teaches the same God since Paul was not speaking to Jews or Muslims, but a specific group of pagans. Judiasm and Islam says very definite things about Christ, and we can compare that to what the NT says, and the NT condemns such as false religions.

Paul explicitly said that they "did not know" this God, but rather they gave an escape hatch. Those pagans basically acknowledged that they didn't know all the "gods" that existed, and Paul was making a point of common contact, telling them that there was a God they didn't know, the true God. This does NOT overturn the passages I presented which no one has dealt with yet. What has happened is "yeah but." When contrary passages were presented, I dealt with them, I didn't simply post others without a harmonization. Paul did not say that all those other gods about which the pagans said very specific things were the true God, and that is the only analogy we can draw here. The God of modern Judaism and Islam is well defined, and it isn't the same God as Christianity. I made this point in several different way, both by philosophy and numerous Scriptures, unrebutted as of yet in this thread.

[Belteshazzar]

Well, I don't think I've gotten my point across, so at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll try it one more time.

Sher:

(from quoted material)
This set I forth unto you (touto ego kataggellō humin). He is a kataggeleus (Act_17:18) as they suspected of a God, both old and new, old in that they already worship him, new in that Paul knows who he is.

Notice it says they already worship him. Thats the whole point. They worship him. Thats the question in this thread, do other religions worship the same God? The Athenians unknowingly worship the God proclaimed by Paul. So, Paul says YES they do worship the same God, and its a rather ingenious way of opening the minds of the pagans to a consideration of Christ and salvation.


Dee Dee Warren:

Even if we gave you your point (which I do not and will elaborate) that has nothing to do with whether or not Judiasm and Ilsam teaches the same God since Paul was not speaking to Jews or Muslims, but a specific group of pagans.

But whether they teach the same God wasn't the question. The question is do they worship the same God?. And as Paul tells the Athenians, yes they do. The same argument holds for Jews (especially) and Muslims, because they already unknowingly worship the same God, and this is a great way to open their minds to accepting Christ.

Jerry

[Sher]

Today @ 05:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148019#post148019)
Belteshazzar:

But whether they teach the same God wasn't the question. The question is do they worship the same God?. And as Paul tells the Athenians, yes they do. The same argument holds for Jews (especially) and Muslims, because they already unknowingly worship the same God, and this is a great way to open their minds to accepting Christ.

Jerry

Yet Jerry ... that is precisely the point! Because they teach, and learn, that Christ is not divine ... they do NOT worship the same God ... because they worship a god that doesn't include Christ and the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity IS God ... and as such, they DENY ... not worship ... God.

Again, that is the big difference ... even if the Athenians did not KNOW the God they worshipped was the true God, it only shows they did not know God.

It has no bearing on the fact that the non-Messianic Jews and Muslims DENY God is God ... and therefore, create a false god to worship.

Your comparison is ... therefore ... invalid.

:shersig:

[dizzle]

Today @ 05:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148019#post148019)
Belteshazzar:

Well, I don't think I've gotten my point across, so at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll try it one more time.

You have gotten your point across, though you have wholly failed to deal with any of my points in toto (and it would be nice if someone would harmonize the view they are advocating with those Scriptures instead of ignoring them), and as Sher has said your point is invalid and lead to ridiculous ends. Please do not mistake my bluntness for disrespect for I mean none.

Also you fail to notice that the word translated "worship" there in that verse is NOT the normal word used for worship of the True God, in fact in its only other reference it means respect. The point of the passage is that the Athenians were covering their rears. They had their gods, and felt other cultures had their gods, in a "tolerant" show of pluralism (which is mimiced by some of the Church today) they ereced an altar to whatever god they may have missed. There is nothing in the context to show that they worshipped YHWH who only desires and accepts worship in spirit and in truth (and counting Him as one of many is neither). This piecemealing of the NT to escape a hard teaching will not do. Please deal with my Scriptures and the ontological argument. (additonally Paul's comment was specific to a group of pagans not modern day or first century Judaism or Islam). Jesus howerver had a LOT to say about the first century Judaism that rejected Him.


But whether they teach the same God wasn't the question. The question is do they worship the same God?.


You cannot worship one God if you are taught and believe in another. That is patently absurd. Additionally there is a good analogy to be made here, and that is the imprecision of the question is allowing some to sink into politically correct comfortableness.

I have a counterfeit twenty dollar bill. Notice I called it a twenty dollar bill, but is it really? No, it is false, it is a lie, but it is purporting to be genuine, but it is meaningless. It is the same with this whole obfuscation of false worship. False worship is not worship at all, we only use the phrase worship in order to identify what it is purporting to be, but it is not what it is purporting to be in the same way that a counterfeit twenty dollar bill is not real money.

[Sher]

Today @ 07:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148035#post148035)
Dee Dee Warren:

I have a counterfeit twenty dollar bill. Notice I called it a twenty dollar bill, but is it really? No, it is false, it is a lie, but it is purporting to be genuine, but it is meaningless. It is the same with this whole obfuscation of false worship. False worship is not worship at all, we only use the phrase worship in order to identify what it is purporting to be, but it is not what it is purporting to be in the same way that a counterfeit twenty dollar bill is not real money.

W00t! :thumb: Great analogy

:shersig:

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147926#post147926)
Belteshazzar:

I think this is Mother Theresa's method too. To preach Christ's gospel of love and forgiveness, its better to open the door to their hearts first, and show them love, rather than tell them they are doomed to hell and all of their ancestors are already rotting there. Especially considering that the decision to banish their kind old Hindu grandmother to the eternal fire, isn't up to you, is it?

No, it's up to God -- and He has made it clear in His written Word that people cannot be saved without conscious faith in Christ. So for Mother Theresa to teach a dying Hindu to be a good Hindu is loving them into Hell.

[Belteshazzar]

Dee Dee Warren:

You have gotten your point across, though you have wholly failed to deal with any of my points in toto (and it would be nice if someone would harmonize the view they are advocating with those Scriptures instead of ignoring them), and as Sher has said your point is invalid and lead to ridiculous ends. Please do not mistake my bluntness for disrespect for I mean none.

I didn't deal with any of your points, or scripture references, or ontological arguments because I wholeheartedly agree with all of your points (and Sher's), except whether they worship the same God. So, the only remaining item is a disagreement about whether Paul told the Athenians they were worshipping God. The language looks pretty clear to me in English, he says yes, they unknowingly worshipped God (NAB), or they ignorantly worshipped God (NAS).

The point of the passage is that the Athenians were covering their rears.

I think the point of the passage was to show us a way we can open up people's hearts to hearing about the True God. The encounter between Paul and the Athenians ends with Paul departing, but he made some converts "Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them."

Also you fail to notice that the word translated "worship" there in that verse is NOT the normal word used for worship of the True God, in fact in its only other reference it means respect.

I rearranged your comments so I could end up on some semblence of agreement :smile: In Greek, yes there is a difference. Paul said the Athenians had 'eusebeo' worship, whereas worship of the True God is usually 'proskuneo.'

So if we were to start a new thread asking if the Athenians, 'eusebeo' the same God, would you agree?

Jerry

[mickiel]

The scripture is clear that there are false gods. It calls satan the god of this world. The bible painly says that God himself ask that we have no other gods before him. There can be no other god, unless God created him. Why would God create other gods that can be worshipped, then expect humans not to worship them. Why? Why this pathology from the most brilliant mind in existance? This causes me to futher form an opinon i have been thinking on. This opinon being this; God has shown definte ability to tell someone not to do something, but know they will do it anyway. Actually command against it, but plan on the results. For example, telling Abram to sacrafice his son, in effect to kill him, but knowing he did not want him to do as such. *I think the senerio in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve confronting the serpent and the tree of good and evil ( God created this tree, it didnot grow itself, definte proof God created evil), is along these same lines-- God dong things we cannot now understand, we just try an figure.


I think it is highly dual, God both wants us to worship other gods, and he does not want us to. God will rub mankinds face in sin so long, that when he removes the man from sin, the man will never want sin again. Oh the man will defintely know sin by then, he will hate it, as God does, we will be like him, knowing good and evil. There are some things God will have us do , but only for a season, and he is molding something in mankind that will last forever. Whatever it is, it will cause us to worship God forever, this is a serious lesson in living.

[Sher]

2Co 6:14-18
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what fellowship does light have with darkness? And what agreement does Christ have with Belial [Baal]? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever? And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are a temple of the living God, even as God said, "I will" dwell in them and "walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." 1,2 Because of this, "come out from among them" "and be separated," says the Lord, "and do not touch the unclean thing," and I will receive you.3 "And I will be a Father to you, and you will be sons" and daughters to Me, says the Lord Almighty. 4,5

**Cross-ref's from above:[list=1] Lev. 26:12 Ezek. 37:27 Isa. 52:11 2 Sam. 7:8, 14 Isa. 43:6[/list=1]

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 11:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148107#post148107)
Belteshazzar:



I didn't deal with any of your points, or scripture references, or ontological arguments because I wholeheartedly agree with all of your points (and Sher's), except whether they worship the same God.

Actually Jerry you did not really for in my Scriptures I dealt with the worship issue and you did not deal with those arguments.

ext
So, the only remaining item is a disagreement about whether Paul told the Athenians they were worshipping God. The language looks pretty clear to me in English, he says yes, they unknowingly worshipped God (NAB), or they ignorantly worshipped God (NAS).

I dealt with that, and looking just in English can be a problem. Paul deliberately used a different word, and I showed contextually what Paul meant by that. You cannot worship a personal God without knowing Him. That is the warp and woof of worship. False worship is not worship, you are hyperliteralizing words, any more than a counterfeit bill is really a bill, yet we call it one.

I think the point of the passage was to show us a way we can open up people's hearts to hearing about the True God. The encounter between Paul and the Athenians ends with Paul departing, but he made some converts "Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them."

Perhaps but that then makes it irrelevant to this discussion. All Paul did was captialize on thier pluralism to use that door to tell them about the true God (which their pluralsim demaned they "respect") and then he brought them to exclusivism.

I rearranged your comments so I could end up on some semblence of agreement :smile: In Greek, yes there is a difference. Paul said the Athenians had 'eusebeo' worship, whereas worship of the True God is usually 'proskuneo.'

Words derive their meaning from context, both small and great, and it is obvious that those pagans realized that there may be a God that they missed, so to cover their bases they included that one as well. Paul was using tact and strategy.

So if we were to start a new thread asking if the Athenians, 'eusebeo' the same God, would you agree?




No since those points are dealt with here in principle already. I am interested in helping Jardin see the point that it is misplaced tolerance and unbiblical to say that the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are the same in any meaningful way. You have not shown how (even if I for the sake of argument said that the Athanians did - though you never fully interacted with my points there) that has any applicability to this subject, Judaism and Islam. At best it was limited to a specific group of pluralistic pagans.

Additionally, worship is honor. Jesus said if you do not honor Him you do not honor the Father. Jesus is God, Jews and Muslims deny that, thus my ontological argument you never dealt with. Jesus said if you reject Him you reject the Father, now how in the world can you worship something you reject.

And back to this whole this of "false worship," well what is false about it? Are they wearing the wrong clothes? Are they not using hymnals? Are the women wearing pants? It is false worship becuase it is directed towards a false concept of God, thus not God. By your Athenian argument Hindus have the same God too, as do practioners of Santa Ria.

[Belteshazzar]

Dee Dee Warren:

This discussion necessarily gets into issues of ontology- what makes a thing what it is. And the FACT is that the "God" that Jews and Muslims worship is ontologically different than the God of Christians. Something cannot be ontologically the same and different at the same time and in the same way. Jesus is God. Jews and Muslims deny that Jesus is God, thus they ARE DENYING GOD. One cannot affirm and deny in the same way and at the same time. That is a logical contradiction.

I'm going back to your ontological argument since you feel I've ignored it.

Jews, Muslims and Christians perceive God in different ways. However, this does not change the nature of God himself. God IS. Ontology can not affect God, it only helps us to understand what makes God what he IS. Ontology necessarily implies there IS an IS, whereas you seem to be moving towards a solipsist view of God.

Do you agree Jews worshiped God before Christ? Before, during and after Christ's life their ontological perception of God remained constant. So at what precise time did Jews cease to worship God?

Jerry

[Sher]

The n.m. Jews who don't know the fullness of God ... the full Trinity ...
1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory.

When God was made man ... Christ revealed in the person of Jesus, that mystery was revealed to the Jews as well.

So when did they stop worshipping God? When they deny that Trinity ... when they deny Jesus is the Messiah.

[Belteshazzar]

Sher:

So when did they stop worshipping God? When they deny that Trinity ... when they deny Jesus is the Messiah.

Does this moment vary from individual to individual, or is there a single point in time when all Jews ceased to worship God?

Jerry

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

A few things to consider:

John 4:22 has it thus:

You worship (proskuneite) that which you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews.

Can there be misinformed worship, or worship steered by ignorance mixed with partial knowledge? Did the Samaritans in fact---worship God?

We could also ask speculatively---What was the soteriological status of the Samaritans at the time Jesus made this statement? Even if we think we could answer such a question dogmatically, wouldn't we have to distinguish it from the first question about worship?


Interestingly, Matthew 15:7-9 reads:

Hypocrites, Isaiah prophesied well about you, saying:

This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me.

In vanity and emptiness they worship (sebontai) me, teaching the rules of men.

Can there be vain worship---still called "worship?"

One could still be the staunchest of exclusivists and yet concede such small points, but what is the exact significance of such things?

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Belteshazzar posted:

Jews, Muslims and Christians perceive God in different ways.

Well said, good point.

Our very great medieval sage, Maimonedes (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/Maimonides.html) says that Muslims, without any doubt, worship the same One God that we Jews do, even though (as per Belteshazzar) they perceive Him a bit differently. Maimonedes remarks on Christians are less than clear due to the doctrine of the trinity, which, to us, smacks of tritheism.

Pereynol asks:

Did the Samaritans in fact---worship God?

The Samaritans (see http://www.the-samaritans.com/ ) do worship the same One God even though (as per Belteshazzar again) they perceive Him a bit differently.

Sher posted:

The n.m. Jews who don't know the fullness of God ... the full Trinity...So when did they stop worshipping God? When they deny that Trinity ... when they deny Jesus is the Messiah.

Ah well, I suppose that we shall have to file this one under "Agree to disagree." I claim that my beliefs as an orthodox Jew have just as much meaning for me as your beliefs as a Christian do for you.

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[dizzle]

I love debates such as this for I think it gives everyone a chance to (hopefully) coherently and methodically systemize ideas held. My DSL went down and I have not been on as much due to that (and the weekdays) are rough. I am planning on going point by point with the recent posts made, but I wanted to once again pause and bring some additional clarification to my points as I saw some further misunderstandings in the past, and the "targets" of the persons in the conversation seem to be a bit but importantly different so I is needful to point this out once in a while so that there is no misunderstanding or confusion.

Although the question was do Jews and Muslims worship the same God as Christians, I had objected to that question as one that is virtually unanswerable for it cuts to the chase of judging individual persons’ hearts who are not even parties to this conversation. I had framed the question as whether or not the modern religions of Judaism and Muslim teach/point to etc. the same God, and my answer remains no. Any religion pointing away from Jesus Christ is a false religion. This does not mean that there are not individuals within such systems that are worshipping God, no more then it means that all who claim the title of Christians are worshipping the true God, for sadly, many aren’t. I ask the reader to keep this in mind in my answers.

Also the assumption was made by several participants that I am a “strong” exclusivist. I am not. Now before anyone misunderstands what I mean, I am not referring to the exclusivity of Christianity, for I absolutely uphold that, but this is what I mean. A strong exclusivist believes that one has to have a specific knowledge of Jesus to be saved. I am not sure I believe that, I believe that God saves people by the blood the Christ without that specific knowledge for we are judged by the light that we have. If some tribal isolated person responds to the light of creation and know there is a Creator, responds to the light of conscience and knows he is undone, does not give in to idolatry etc. and is depending upon “God” then I at this point see no theological reason why such would not be saved. Ignorance is not the same as denial. The two religions we are speaking of are NOT ignorant of Christ, they deny Him, and have to be judged by that light. This fact that I am NOT a strong exclusivist answers some of the emotional objections (out of place in this discussion BTW) such as death in infancy and the allegedly “good” old “Hindu” grandma.

My narrowing of the question I believe gets to the true issue under dispute and stays away from emotionalism. I also think that we have been getting into some semantical distinctions with “worship,” and I can see how in “some” sense it can be said that the answer to the question is “yes.” I have answered the question yes and no in the past simultaneously, but it is not “yes” in any meaningful way, which is salvation. The nicer details to me pale in relevancy… did Paul somehow say the Athenians were worshipping God (which I will speak of more in my next post) – even if he did (and I do not believe he did in the sense in which we are discussing), so what? They were not saved! They needed Jesus. And there are some more interesting things there to say…. And I found Pereynol’s point interesting and not one I have heard raised in this type of discussion before which I have been thinking on and have some thoughts to add.

I have a question though for Jerry and Jezz and Pey perhaps, do Hindus worship the same God? What about worshippers of Baal? I am not being facetious, I am trying to find the logic here, maybe they just have a different “perception” of God. If not, why not?

[darcutm]

07-05-2003 @ 04:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140306#post140306)
JardinPrayer:

Jews and Christians point to the same deity when they use the term God: The God that walked in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day with Adam. The God that promised Abraham he would be the father of many nations. The God that gave us the prophets of the Old Testament. In the New Testament, God seems to take on a very different "personality" - less wrathful (saving that up for the last day) and more merciful (offering a sacrifice for our salvation and a new covenant to replace the old).

Here's the dangerous step: When Muslims use the term God, they are also pointing to that same deity. They acknowledge the same prophets, they revere Abraham, they refer to Jews and Christians as "The People of the Book," meaning the Bible, a document they acknowledge but do not follow. All three faiths are referred to in theological and historical texts as "The Religions of the One God of Abraham."

Question: because the structure of our spiritual lives is different, and our understanding of who God is and what He wants from us, does this mean we are worshipping different Gods?

Really this depends on who you are asking....
The Christians say they worship the same God as the Jews the Muslims say they worship the same God as the Jews and the Christians, The Jews and the Christians say they Muslims don't worship the same God (in fact the Christians see them as following the devil...worshipping the god of this world etc...)
So you'll obviously never even come within a million miles of an answer if you put 1 Jew 1 Christian and 1 Muslim in a room together.......In fact I think there's a joke that starts like that...
A jew, a christian, and a muslim walk into a bar.......

IN HIM

[dizzle]

I wanted to come back to this before I went on vacation, but alas it is not to be....

[Hitch]

Jews Muslims and Christians have never worshipped the same God.

Jews and Muslims deny the divinty of Jesus is one way or another. By NT definition that equalls denying the Father.

Take care

Hitch

[The Thadman]

07-08-2003 @ 01:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143379#post143379)
Belteshazzar:

This is probably a language issue that has become so politicized its impossible to really know the truth. :smile: However, we only know a few of Christ's actual words in Aramaic, and he cries out "Eloi" and "Eli" which Muslims will tell you is the Aramaic version of Allah. They sure look like similar derivations, as does Yah-weh when we insert the vowels and pronounciation.
Also, the book of Ezra uses 'elahh' which sure looks a lot like Allah.

The Muslims will also bring a similar root word argument against Elohim, which is plural. So the hint there is that the ancient Hebrews were actually polytheists.


Eloi and Eli are two seperate Aramaic words in two seperate Aramaic dialects.

The first, "Eloi", is actually "Alohi" (as Greek cannot have an "h" sound except at the beginning of a word), spelled 'Olaf-Lomadh-He'-Yoodh. It is the form the Aramaic word for "God": "Aloho" ('Olaf-Lomadh-He'-'Olaf). The final Yoodh is the 1st-person-singular personal pronoun ("me" or "my"), making this word's meaning "My God".

The second, "Eli", is the Aramaic version of the Hebrew cognate "El". In Hebrew "El" means "mighty", but in Aramaic it is the Jewish-dialect for "God". With the final Yoodh, as above, it means "My God"

The Arabic "Allah", although it is considered a cognate of both "El" and "Aloho" came along hundreds of years later.

The thing to keep in mind though, that many Muslim apologists try and convince people of, is that the Aramaic word for "God" Aloho, and the Arabic word for "God" Allah DO NOT sound the same when pronounced. Jesus would have never referred to God as "Allah."



Shlomo,
(Peace!)

-Steve-o

[dizzle]

07-27-2003 @ 01:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160499#post160499)
Hitch:

Jews Muslims and Christians have never worshipped the same God.

Jews and Muslims deny the divinty of Jesus is one way or another. By NT definition that equalls denying the Father.

Take care
Hitch

Well said Hitch. You said succintly what I have said at great length. If you reject Christ you reject the Father. Rejection is not worship. Can anything be more obvious?

[$cirisme]

Ok, here is an honest question, so please do not eat me! :eek:

What about the Jews before Jesus' time? Did they worship the same true God we do?

My personal view as of now, is this, the Jews do worship the same God but their worship is rejected and meaningless since they reject the Son. The Muslims, well they've been seriously deceived and are most definately hell-bound.

Neither group will enter heaven for their rejection of the Son.

[dizzle]

Today @ 03:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166218#post166218)
cirisme:

Ok, here is an honest question, so please do not eat me! :eek:

What about the Jews before Jesus' time? Did they worship the same true God we do?


Some did, and some did not. You being a Molinist would agree that God knows whether or not they would have rejected the fuller revelation of Christ had it been given to them. But if they trusted in God through the symbols and types revealed by the law and were in obedience and openness to what God was going to bring about then they were worshipping God to completelness of the revelation that they had. I distinguished in this thread earlier that ignorance is not the same as rejection. We are speaking here of Modern Jews who reject Christ, who is God. You cannot worship what you reject. That is an oxymoron. Jesus compares rejection of Him with hating the Father. You cannot hate and worship.


My personal view as of now, is this, the Jews do worship the same God but their worship is rejected and meaningless since they reject the Son.

If they reject the Son, the NT clearly teaches that they have rejected the Father. You cannot worship what you reject.

[Hitch]

Today @ 08:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166218#post166218)
cirisme:

Ok, here is an honest question, so please do not eat me! :eek:

What about the Jews before Jesus' time? Did they worship the same true God we do?

My personal view as of now, is this, the Jews do worship the same God but their worship is rejected and meaningless since they reject the Son. The Muslims, well they've been seriously deceived and are most definately hell-bound.

Neither group will enter heaven for their rejection of the Son. I reckon Jesus had something of this nature in mind;



John 6:45
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(KJV)


AND
John 5:44-47
44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
(KJV)




Frightening aint it.


Take care

Hitch

[dizzle]

Hitch that was the BOMB :thumb:

[$cirisme]

Hitch:

I reckon Jesus had something of this nature in mind;

John 6:45
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(KJV)


AND
John 5:44-47
44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
(KJV)


Frightening aint it.


Take care

Hitch

How does it answer my question? :huh:

[dizzle]

Today @ 05:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166300#post166300)
cirisme:



How does it answer my question? :huh:

Jesus stated that the whole OT was about Him, and that believing in the OT was believing in Whom it pointed to, and rejection of Him was evidene of rejection of the OT. I stated this in a bit more detail in my post.

[$cirisme]

Ah, okay. Thanks. :thumb:

[Hitch]

A central theme of John's book is that from the bregining through the Patriachial period the Exodus and the Conquest the Restoration and up to the first century, the 'God' who had been dealing with the Jews was Jesus pre-incarnate.

Its obvious to us but we've had thousands of years of Christian history behind us. It was a new idea to them. Its also easy to forget the great success Jesus had. 'Many believed' is used quite often by John, seems there were quite a few whohad heard and learned from the Father.


Take care

Hitch

[Solly]

You being a Molinist would agree that God knows whether or not they would have rejected the fuller revelation of Christ had it been given to them.

But if they trusted in God through the symbols and types revealed by the law and were in obedience and openness to what God was going to bring about then they were worshipping God to completelness of the revelation that they had.

re the first point, it doesn't need such an iffy, well-if-presented-with-the-fuller-facts inclusivist type argument.

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham would have rejoiced to see my day had it been presented to him in its fullness beyond the symbols and types revealed to him then: and on the basis that he might have seen it and received it - because possibly he might not - he was glad.
New Molinist Translation


No, its...

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.

Also
Psa 32:1 Blessed [is he whose] transgression [is] forgiven, [whose] sin [is] covered.
Psa 32:2 Blessed [is] the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit [there is] no guile.


Paul is quite clear in Romans 4 that Abraham and David knew what they were doing, and it needs no further presentation of the facts. Just as we know what we are doing, though there are facts yet to be revealed...

Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.


None of us believe, on the basis that at some later point we will be presented with fuller facts upon which a final decision is made.

/ot hope that's not too off topic

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 08:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166675#post166675)
Solly:



re the first point, it doesn't need such an iffy, well-if-presented-with-the-fuller-facts inclusivist type argument.

Say how you really feel? Actually though I am a Molinist sympathesizer, I was doing more of meeting AJ where he was at and showing how the point I wished to prove was coherent, necessary within his framework.




Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham would have rejoiced to see my day had it been presented to him in its fullness beyond the symbols and types revealed to him then: and on the basis that he might have seen it and received it - because possibly he might not - he was glad.
New Molinist Translation


No, its...

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.

Sorry I am on a straw free diet today (oh man :flaming:) but since Abraham DID see it (good argument by the way), there was no need to posit un-instantiated counter-factuals.


None of us believe, on the basis that at some later point we will be presented with fuller facts upon which a final decision is made.

/ot hope that's not too off topic

Nah not too off topic, the topic was dying..... and that statement made no sense to me...

[steve_80]

My view of this question, is that one can look at the text of each of these religions in order to understand differences between the Diety represented by each religion. Within my view of the continued and unfolding revelation of God's purpose and will from OT to NT, I would hold that the OT and NT were given by the same God, whether those who hold faith in either text believe exactly the same.

Is the Koran from God? Thats the only question here for me. Looking at the book, the Koran, and comparing it with the revelation of God through Jewish/Christian scripture we see a different view of God entirely.

Several large differences jump out for example from the Koran which stand in contrast to the OT/NT. Here is a quick summary of some of those differences. The Koran for example teaches [and therefore the Muslim God teaches] that women are of less value than men [1/4 the value], that failure to turn from idolatry to Islam is punishable by death, that slavery is fully permitted, that sex with slaves and concubines is permitted, that enslavement of peaceful peoples for the purpose of sex and sale of their bodies for commerce is permitted, and that murder is permitted. Mohammed for example went on no less than 29 raids of various caravans and towns, and probably more. He personally beheaded hundreds of Jewish men, execution style. You don't find OT/NT prophets going on caravan raids. In one event, a Jewish leader who opposed Mohammed was murdered and the same night his wife was taken by Mohammed for sex. Non-Muslims diests can remain in Islamic geopolitical territory but must be taxed for the profit of the Muslims, milked much like aphids in an ant nest. The Koran's prophet was ordered by God to marry a six year old girl [though the hadith's teach that he waited to consumate it until she was 9], so child sexual abuse is permitted. Muslims do not have a view that says that we have self-worth because we are made in the image of God, but self-worth comes only from how well one shows mindless advocacy and devotion to Islamic teaching. Christian and Jewish scripture support the spread of faith in God/Jesus as voluntary acts, while Islamic teaching says that force of arms is necessary. No less than 109 war verses support this theam in the Koran. The God of Islam and the God of the OT/NT are very different. They cannot both be right.

I know some will immediatly ask why nations were destroyed by God's command in the OT - but the reasons for that were all too clear, and much time was given for repentence, as well as opportuntiy to stop the attacks on the nation of Israel. In addition, the attacks made on innocent caravans, towns and cities my Islamists occured in a much less brutal period of history in a territory which was not antagonistic or at war with anyone.

Again the same God wrote the OT & NT. The Koran was written by a different entity, in my view.

[bonehead]

Romans 9:2

I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.


Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

Paul wasn`t very PC with the subject, nor should we be! We need to be getting the message out to these folks instead of setting back trying to justify their lostness. To do less would REALLY be letting them down!

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Do exclusivists and inclusivists eat the same :spam: ?

[dizzle]

Yes I think so.

[Bill the Cat]

:offtopic:

[PostHoc]

07-05-2003 @ 02:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140306#post140306)
JardinPrayer:

. In the New Testament, God seems to take on a very different "personality" - less wrathful (saving that up for the last day) and more merciful (offering a sacrifice for our salvation and a new covenant to replace the old).


Just a side point... I think God was most wrathful and looks the most unfair in the new testament. In the NT God sent His sinless Son to be killed in the most horrendous way possible. God's wrath and love are shown in a magnificent way on the cross

[New_Testament]

No we do not I will explain later I have to go