Are Allah and Yaweh the same God?

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Maybe not blowing themselves up. Many people have claimed to kill for Jesus however.

Like Charles Manson... Very credible. But you don't know the difference, so what?

 

[tulc]

I believe that scripture is divinely inspired. But I also know that scripture has been tampered with by Gnostic Pagans.

Let me guess, all the parts you don't agree with are the tampered parts?
tulc(always wondered why the scriptures we agree with don't seem to be the tampered parts)

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

People have commited all sorts of horrible atricities in the name of the the Christian God.

Past tense. You know, some of you talked about mysticism and the Eastern Church. Not one occasion of such atrocities. From the Latin Church came the Crusades and Inquisition. While I agree with the reasons of Crusades, I do not defend Inquisition. But again all past tense.

The tired old atrocity competition between Islam and Christianity wont yield us any new insights.
.

It is a crime to yield to and justify Islamic oppression and terror due to the past of Christianity.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I see no point in speaking to you.

Why? Because you can't explain the verses you cited? Then why did you cite them? It is clear as day anyone can cite any verse to serve any purpose.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Constantine the Great was the Pagan high priest until the day he died.

If the President of the US said to be "Leader of the Free World", does this make him literally leader of the Free World or, is it just a title, honorary or similar? By his position the Roman Emperor retained his title, Pontifex Maximus, this had nothing to do with him gradually growing in Christian faith.

 

[humblemuslim]

What seems to be problematic to you in that one verse?

Nothing. Like I said:

Even though the verse presented in the link does not have disagreement over words, there are places where the different Greek sources disagree. Sometimes minor disagreements, sometimes not.

This is the beginning of the New Testament and the default page that loads up when I bring the link I saved up. There is nothing special about the verse.

I am asking which Greek is the original out of the line up. This question is independent of the verse shown in the link.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I am asking which Greek is the original out of the line up. This question is independent of the verse shown in the link.

Westcott & Hort text is... Others shows minor differences from theirs, they compiled theirs from the oldest manuscripts. Most differences are in notations. Greek Orthodox Church's text is Byzantine / Majority Text.

 

[humblemuslim]

Westcott & Hort text is... Others shows minor differences from theirs, they compiled theirs from the oldest manuscripts. Most differences are in notations. Greek Orthodox Church's text is Byzantine / Majority Text.

Cool.

Thanks.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Well you are welcome.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Cool.

Thanks.

If you want to see different bible scripture go here: BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

 

[durangodawood]

It is a crime to yield to and justify Islamic oppression and terror due to the past of Christianity.

In the context I wrote it, did you really think I was implying any justification for atrocities in the name of Islam?
.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

In the context I wrote it, did you really think I was implying any justification for atrocities in the name of Islam?
.

No. I just pointed out for some others not to jump on that same bandwagon.

 

[tulc]

St. Constantine freed the Church. Just like Luther freed you from the Church.

uhmmm two things: hating Anabaptist's was almost the only thing the Roman Catholics and Protestants agreed on. And two: we Anabaptist's weren't "freed" we were kicked out. We asked questions and tried to live as Christians and were killed/exiled for it. And THAT was part of the "Holy Roman Empire" legacy Charlemagne left the Church.
tulc(IMHO)

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

uhmmm two things: hating Anabaptist's was almost the only thing the Roman Catholics and Protestants agreed on. And two: we Anabaptist's weren't "freed" we were kicked out. We asked questions and tried to live as Christians and were killed/exiled for it. And THAT was part of the "Holy Roman Empire" legacy Charlemagne left the Church.
tulc(IMHO)

I don't know what to tell you, do you hold a grudge against the RCC or Luther? If you realize, most all sects say "We asked questions and tried to live as Christians" surely Arius said the same. While in the East, there were no anabaptists, baptists, lutherans, methodists, wesleyans, presbyterians, pentecostals, you name it. Still none. I can almost agree with your "sigh" but, what about the RCC's point of view on anabaptist practices?

 

[tulc]

I don't know what to tell you, do you hold a grudge against the RCC or Luther? If you realize, most all sects say "We asked questions and tried to live as Christians" surely Arius said the same. While in the East, there were no anabaptists, baptists, lutherans, methodists, wesleyans, presbyterians, pentecostals, you name it. Still none. I can almost agree with your "sigh" but, what about the RCC's point of view on anabaptist practices?

hmmm this is getting a little to derailing, we may need to take it to it's own thread. But no, I don't hold a grudge against either of them. And yeah I understand about sects saying the same things. As for no Anabaptist's, in the east do you consider Russia part of the east? Because they've lived there since the 18th century. As for the RCC views on us? They have a right to believe what they like.
tulc(really thinks this discussion may have to move to another thread after this)

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Russia joined 988 AD and never left, never separated, divided, etc.

(really thinks this discussion may have to move to another thread after this)

Nah...

 

[Wicked Willow]

...and those were WELL DOCUMENTED and the Church didn't touch them with a ten-foot pole. Scriptures being tampered with IS a contemporaneous claim that doesn't consider the history of Church and Her Sacred Tradition.

^^ This.
It is true that the movement that eventually was to become mainstream Christianity or "the Church" was influenced by Gnosticism, though not in the fashion such conspiracy theorists think:
To every action, there was a reaction, and these competing factions reacted to each other by tackling the position of the other side. As such, the gospel of John was influenced by Gnosticism, but it is emphatically not a Gnostic gospel, but aimed at refuting some of the traditional Gnostic positions.

For example, the divinity and/or humanity of Jesus had become a major point of contention by the end of the 1st century CE. Gnostic sects tended to deny that Jesus was a human being, holding that matter itself was fundamentally tainted and as such unfit as a vessel for the divine. To them, Jesus was more like a hologram, a being of spirit taking a human form without actually descending into the material universe of the Demiurge. Judaic sects, on the other hand, denied Jesus's divinity, considering him a messiah in the classical sense of the word: an anointed, inspired leader rather than an avatar.
The sect that was to become the Church we're familiar with today chose a third option: Jesus was BOTH fully God AND fully human. Enter the gospel of John...

Joh19: 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

Few contemporary readers understand what this is actually about. What's so important about this business that it must be emphasized? Clearly, the original audience would have known what this was about, or else it would not have made too much sense to point it out. And here it is:
See, in the ancient world, people believed that there was no blood in the veins of deities, but merely water/ichor. In Jesus's veins, however, there was supposedly BOTH, for he was both fully man and fully God. So, the whole "testimony" is a refutation of both the Judaizers and the Gnostics. Plus, it emphasizes that Jesus was really dead, as the wound is described in a fashion that ascertains its fatality, thus tackling another point of contention between the competing Christian sects.

In the milliennia that passed inbetween, the Church has pretty much forgotten about this original context, too, and many commentaries regard this passage as somewhat of a mystery - yet it's not. Not in the light of what we know about late antiquity and the heretical sects.

 

[BruceDLimber]

"Arab Christians pay hommage to the Christian god, who in their language is referred to as "Allah" (= "God"). That does not automatically turn "him" into the same deity as the one muslims worship.

It still means the God of Abraham, which was my point!

That doesn't imply Muslims agree with all the additional characteristics Christians have tacked on in addition, but that's fine: some Christians don't agree with those, either, nor do we.

So again, my point about the commonality of the God of Abraham among all the (surprise!) Abrahamic religions stands, as I said.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings.

[The Nicene Creed is complied STRICTLY from the CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES to define Christians.

Which totally overlooks the fact, of course, that not only do major Christian groups REJECT it as any such sort of "definition," but that its creation was directly responsible for a huge split in the Christian Church that has now continued for nearly 1,800 years!

Just the facts.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

but which DOES explain why many (if not most!) Christian groups now reject the end of Mark as a spurious later addition, either relegating it to a footnote or deleting it entirely!

Peace,

Bruce