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

[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. 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.

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 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
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

[Dee Dee Warren]

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
Belteshazzar:



This is probably a language issue that has become so politicized its impossible to really know the truth. 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.

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
Belteshazzar:



This is probably a language issue that has become so politicized its impossible to really know the truth. 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.

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.

Scripture Verse:

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 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

[Jezz]

Belteshazzar:
I wish we had some Muslims here to answer your question 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

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

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
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

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey I am back to this thread. I first note that my points here 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. 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.