Abrahamic faiths

[Secundulus]

The word for God that someone uses is irrelevant. Words are simply verbal expressions of thought. If the thought that lies behind the word differs between two people then the word itself, while sounding the same, takes on a different meaning.

The thought behind the word God or Allah for Christians is vastly different than the thought behind the word for Muslims.

For Christians, this word contains such precepts as Jesus, Trinity, and Covenant. All of these ideas are absent from the Muslim concept.

The word does not mean the same thing.

The best argument that one could make is that nobody really knows God and that any prayer offered to the supernatural is sufficient.

A Christian must soundly reject this idea as we believe that God himself has visited earth on several occasions and given direct teaching both to the Jews and Christians that tell us exactly who he is and what he expects of us.

When an apparition appears in a cave and contradicts what has been revealed before then this apparition is not from God. Whatever he taught was not from God either.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by BruceDLimber

Wrong again, PS.

The various great religions tend, for obvious reasons, to concentrate on the Divine Messenger for that Day and the new teachings for that time that He brings, even while frequently praising other ones!

It may sound good in theory, but it fails in reality. Many of those presumed divine messengers that we know of have different messages. This difference is one reason why the concepts of divinity are different. God would not send messengers with different messages that contradict each other.

And to repeat myself, your statement about God is simply wrong as the naming differences are simple linguistic ones.

The fact that Arabic-speaking Christians worship Allah clearly proves this point.

Peace,

Bruce

If they different only in linguistics, then the concepts should all be the same. We would be able to open both the Bible and the Qu'ran and find the exact concepts for God. That would be the most logical conclusion. As we investigate each personality from a Muslim and Christian perspective, we find that this is definitely not true. The fact is that Arab speaking Christians use the word Allah differently than Arab Muslims. The two terms denote polar opposite gods.

I don't know why you are so insistent in defending something that can easily be disproved at the surface. We don't even need to dig deep on this one to see your view could not be true. Some religions don't teach that there is a god at all or at least not a god that you would conceptualize as God. For some god is everything, but a Christian would reject that. What would some religions teach that god is everything and in you? Simply because they are speaking of a totally different god. It is that simple, Bruce. Let's not complicate the simple.

As already stated, Arab Christians and non Christian Arabs have two different concepts of God. They can't be reconciled to mean the same one in terms of worship. As I have stated before, even in the OT, God didn't always accept the worship of Israel although he called them His People. Why was that? Because they started to worship things other than him by substituting another god in His place. People that follow contradictory religions or make up religions are doing the same thing whether sincerely not knowing it or purposely doing it. God doesn't just simply say "I know that you mean to worship me, and although you are not doing it the way that I ask, I will accept it anyway." That is not how it works, Bruce.

All religions are not simply building upon the newer religion. There is not such progression, at least according to the Bible.

 

[elwill]

"
I couldn't have stated it better. الله as a title for "the God," meaning the one who is above all, is not the same as الله as the name of the god of a particular religion — even if they believe that he is the one and only. It is true that Jews and Christians in Arabic countries refer to God as الله, but it is also true that they do not have the same conception as a Muslim who uses the same word. When a Jew uses the word, he thinks of the God of Israel, along with the Torah and all of its commands, the covenant with Moses and all of Israel. When a Christian uses it, he often thinks of Jesus and Trinity, the God who died on a cross or at least caused humanity's savior to go through that death (if they are not trinitarian). They are very different conceptions of الله, and are therefore also different gods.

Do you understand, elwill?

thank you for your time George
i understand what you mean
but different conceptions of allah dosn't change the fact that we all worshipps the same God

anyway from muslims point of view , we believe in the same God of mosas and Jesus and abraham and all the prophets (pbut)
if the follower of jesus or follower of mosas , believe in another God , so it's okey
i just speak about my view about God as a muslim

salam

 

[elwill]

If what you say is true, then we should be able to see in all religious text the same confession of Christ as we see in the Bible. That is a very fair and rational approach. They should both point to Jesus being their Lord and Saviour.

firstly , we didn't equate the lord to God
i can accept Jesus and all prophets as my lords , it dosn't mean God

secondly we have another understanding about the christ to be the savior of his follower
we believe that evry prophet is a saviour for his people
jesus (pbuh)was a saviour also for his people
mosas(pbuh) was a saviour for his people
mohammed(pbuh) is a saviour for us
they are saviour because they guided them to the truth after thier astraying or misleading

it dosn't mean for us that died for us

Furthermore, they should all acknowledge that Christ died and resurrected so that we may live eternally. If these are missing, there is no way for your premise to have any chance of being valid. And if we took a different book as the basis of verification, we should be able to validate the same scripture in the other books.

where in the bible jesus told to his follower that they must acknowledge his death or his resurrected to live eternally ?

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by elwill

firstly , we didn't equate the lord to God
i can accept Jesus and all prophets as my lords , it dosn't mean God

The Qu'ran does use rabb (lord) as another way of saying Allah, which is the Islamic god. Isn't that correct?

secondly we have another understanding about the christ to be the savior of his follower

That means that you don't understand the Biblical context of what Messiah means in terms of Jesus. The Bible tells us that Jesus saved us from our sins. No other prophet did this. It is not the same as salvation you are thinking of.

we believe that evry prophet is a saviour for his people
jesus (pbuh)was a saviour also for his people
mosas(pbuh) was a saviour for his people
mohammed(pbuh) is a saviour for us
they are saviour because they guided them to the truth after thier astraying or misleading

But, this is applying a different meaning to the Biblical text. Jesus' salvation has to do with redemption of our souls. Prophets don't bring that type of salvation to us. God does.

it dosn't mean for us that died for us

According to the Bible, it does. Of course you have another understanding. That is part of the issue. Your understanding is not simply a matter of linguistics. It is because you have a different god that you serve. Mohammad concept of God is different because he did not understand the God of the Jews and Christians; yet, he claimed that he did know the god of the Jews and Christians by associating himself with Abraham, Jesus, Moses, etc. That may convince ignorant 6th century Arabs, but it doesn't convince any learned Christian or Jew.

where in the bible jesus told to his follower that they must acknowledge his death or his resurrected to live eternally ?

It is common sense if you read. The whole basis of salvation and eternity is through Jesus' death and resurrection. This is basic Christianity. Are you looking for a single statement outlining this?

 

[elwill]

originally posted by elwill

The Qu'ran does use rabb (lord) as another way of saying Allah, which is the Islamic god. Isn't that correct?

i mean that you can call humans by lord as you can call God by lord
but you can't call any human by God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord
"Lord" is a title with various meanings. It can denote a prince or a feudal superior (especially a feudal tenant who holds directly from the king, i.e., a baron). The title today is mostly used in connection with the peerage of the United Kingdom or its constituent countries, although some users of the title do not themselves hold peerages, and use it 'by courtesy'. The title may also be used in conjunction with others to denote a superior holder of an otherwise generic title, in such combinations as "Lord Mayor" or "Lord Chief Justice". The title is primarily taken by men, while women will usually take the title 'lady'. However, this is not universal, as the Lord of Mann and female Lord Mayors are examples of women who are styled 'lord'.

That means that you don't understand the Biblical context of what Messiah means in terms of Jesus. The Bible tells us that Jesus saved us from our sins. No other prophet did this. It is not the same as salvation you are thinking of.

well give me the entire text from the bible please

[

According to the Bible, it does. Of course you have another understanding. That is part of the issue. Your understanding is not simply a matter of linguistics. It is because you have a different god that you serve. Mohammad concept of God is different because he did not understand the God of the Jews and Christians; yet, he claimed that he did know the god of the Jews and Christians by associating himself with Abraham, Jesus, Moses, etc. That may convince ignorant 6th century Arabs, but it doesn't convince any learned Christian or Jew.

may be , but my depates with will be from the bible itself , just give me the entire context

It is common sense if you read. The whole basis of salvation and eternity is through Jesus' death and resurrection. This is basic Christianity. Are you looking for a single statement outlining this?

you didnt get my question
i know that this events is mentioned about death of jesus , it isn't my question
my question is , where in the bible jesus said the believers must acknowledge his death ?

 

[BruceDLimber]

The thought behind the word God or Allah for Christians is vastly different than the thought behind the word for Muslims.

For Christians, this word contains such precepts as Jesus, Trinity, and Covenant. All of these ideas are absent from the Muslim concept.

The word does not mean the same thing.

No, I am speaking of God as Creator and Father of the universe.

You are speaking of the theological additions that Christians have tacked onto this basic concept.

So my point holds. And the fact that the comcept of God among Jews, Muslims, Baha'is, and unitarian Christians essentially matches further demonstrates this!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

The various great religions tend, for obvious reasons, to concentrate on the Divine Messenger for that Day and the new teachings for that time that He brings, even while frequently praising other ones!

It may sound good in theory, but it fails in reality. Many of those presumed divine messengers that we know of have different messages. This difference is one reason why the concepts of divinity are different. God would not send messengers with different messages that contradict each other.

Not a problem.

IOV the spiritual teachings don't differ, while the social teachings are INTENTIONALLY different because each was for a new time and circumstance!

As it says in the Baha'i scriptures,

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

(The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 114;
also Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)

Again, the general spiritual concepts of God the Creator are consistent, especially when man-made theological additions are omitted.

All religions are not simply building upon the newer religion. There is not such progression, at least according to the Bible.

Simply untrue!

Not only does Christianity build directly on Judaism, but both the Jewish and Christian scriptures speak of further religious Revelation to come--indeed, Christ Himself promised this! There are many prophecies in both, and IOV these have indeed been fulfilled. You can see the details at:

www.bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled

Best,

Bruce

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by elwill

i mean that you can call humans by lord as you can call God by lord
but you can't call any human by God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord
"Lord" is a title with various meanings. It can denote a prince or a feudal superior (especially a feudal tenant who holds directly from the king, i.e., a baron). The title today is mostly used in connection with the peerage of the United Kingdom or its constituent countries, although some users of the title do not themselves hold peerages, and use it 'by courtesy'. The title may also be used in conjunction with others to denote a superior holder of an otherwise generic title, in such combinations as "Lord Mayor" or "Lord Chief Justice". The title is primarily taken by men, while women will usually take the title 'lady'. However, this is not universal, as the Lord of Mann and female Lord Mayors are examples of women who are styled 'lord'.

I don't understand what you are trying to show. Jesus is God; therefore, He is Lord. The way the term is used in the Bible is the only one that counts with Christianity.

well give me the entire text from the bible please

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

may be , but my depates with will be from the bible itself , just give me the entire context

What context are you asking for? I think that you already understand that there is a difference between God portrayed in the Bible and Qu'ran.

you didnt get my question
i know that this events is mentioned about death of jesus , it isn't my question
my question is , where in the bible jesus said the believers must acknowledge his death ?

Elwill, the whole purpose of Jesus' death and resurrection is fairly common Biblical knowledge. A requirement for forgiveness was Jesus' death, which symbolizes the death of the OT Covenants and resurrection, which symbolizes the NT Covenant. You are not likely to find a single verse that will tell you this.

I decided to look and I found one passage that shows that Jesus died for our sins so that we can have eternal life.

Gal 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

He gave himself for our sins implies that he died and resurrected; consequently any mention of salvation will automatically imply that Jesus died and resurrected. In order to believe that He saves us, it is a given condition that we acknowledge his death and resurrection. That should be very simple to understand.

 

[Secundulus]

So my point holds. And the fact that the comcept of God among Jews, Muslims, Baha'is, and unitarian Christians essentially matches further demonstrates this!

I suspect that the Orthodox Jews would disagree. Perhaps one would like to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[elwill]

originally posted by elwill

I don't understand what you are trying to show. Jesus is God; therefore, He is Lord. The way the term is used in the Bible is the only one that counts with Christianity.

i wnna to tell you that i can accept jesus (pbuh) as a lord

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

he will save his people (jews) , not the world
anyway which sins the verse refer to ? is it Adam sin or his people sins ?


Matthew 15:1-9
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'
6he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for breaking the Commands of GOD Almighty
is it the sins of his people which he came to saving him from it ?


other sins for his people here

Let us look at Romans 1:20-32 (from the New Testament)
"20. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23. and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30. slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31. they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."​

Elwill, the whole purpose of Jesus' death and resurrection is fairly common Biblical knowledge. A requirement for forgiveness was Jesus' death, which symbolizes the death of the OT Covenants and resurrection, which symbolizes the NT Covenant. You are not likely to find a single verse that will tell you this.

I decided to look and I found one passage that shows that Jesus died for our sins so that we can have eternal life.

i will supposed that you are right , he dead for our sins
well , where in the bible it said that i must acknowledge that , to become a believer and enter paradise

Gal 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

He gave himself for our sins implies that he died and resurrected; consequently any mention of salvation will automatically imply that Jesus died and resurrected. In order to believe that He saves us, it is a given condition that we acknowledge his death and resurrection. That should be very simple to understand.

the verse you found out proof my point
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ

in this verse he pray for two , 1'st the God and specified him as the father
2'nd his lord jesus christ , not God jesus christ

Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

jesus be suffered , insulted , condemned , stoned and oppressed from his people , all of that is enough to say that he gave his life for our sins , it dosn't necessery to be dead

beside i didn't find the condition of acknowledge his death and resurrection

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by BruceDLimber

Not a problem.

IOV the spiritual teachings don't differ, while the social teachings are INTENTIONALLY different because each was for a new time and circumstance!

Can you tell me exactly what those spiritual teachings are?

If you make things very generalized, of course you can appear to be correct; but when you actually look at each text and what it teaches, your theory still falls apart. If I say things like all major religions seek God and teach individuals to do good and reverence divinity, then I can falsely conclude that all major religions teach basically the same thing. But, as I asked you, can you show me where other scriptures teach that Jesus is our salvation, that He died for our sins, etc. This would be a good start for us to see if your theory holds up under less generalized conditions.

Likewise, if I say that each religion brings a set of new social teachings, that is also a false foundation to base you theory on. It is a natural progression of the world to change and progress through science,philosophy, and other things such changing morality. It does not have to be a result of new revelations or updated ones. You improperly credit what you see to the wrong cause most likely.

As it says in the Baha'i scriptures,

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

(The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 114;
also Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)

This statement is rather weak. It is highly opinionated and does not state things as definite. It is more of an hypothesis. It hinges on words such as "most likely" and "should".

To further test your theory, show me this postulate is stated in the Bible. Show (in context of the Bible) that Jesus stated this about all other religions and that, for example, the Canaanite religions were inspired from the same source. This would mean that those religions that were called abominations by God in the Bible were concurrently inspired by Him. That is an interesting take.

Again, the general spiritual concepts of God the Creator are consistent, especially when man-made theological additions are omitted.

Concepts are very broad and can make even contradictory systems of beliefs look consistent with each other. The examples that I gave above should suffice. Most religions teach people to be good, acknowledge divinity, pray, seek peace, worship divinity, etc. How these things are carried out is the vital in access your claim. If we study any number of religions, we will find out that they send contradictory messages on these matters. These contradictions cannot simply be explained away by saying that some of their adherents perverted their scriptures. Unless every single one if its adherents did this throughout time, there is no reason to put any faith in that happening whole scale.

Simply untrue!

Not only does Christianity build directly on Judaism,

Really? The OT & NT work in conjunction with each other. It would be correct to say that they build off of each other. That is why your statement is incorrect. The OT reveals the NT and vice versa because God intended them to be that way. God's purpose for both testaments is given within its texts. The establishment of God's covenant with Israel was given to show His faithfulness and trustworthiness to mankind as well as to bring about salvation to not only Jews, but to Gentiles. The overall purpose was to deal with our condition of sin by bringing about salvation from sins which culminated via Jesus' death and resurrection that brought in the new Covenant. The NT brought about a new covenant told of in the OT that would incorporate both Jews and Gentiles under one covenant. That is the extent of any presumed progression. What you are trying to do is to take a specific act and making it to fit any new religion that comes along.

but both the Jewish and Christian scriptures speak of further religious Revelation to come--indeed,

Well, that is definitely unfounded. It is your wishful thinking to fit other religions as progressions of others. There is no Biblical context or historical basis for this. It is simply conjecture on your part. There is no early teachings of people either directly taught by Jesus or associates of those taught by Jesus' Disciples who would support your claim.

Christ Himself promised this! There are many prophecies in both, and IOV these have indeed been fulfilled. You can see the details at:

www.bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled

I have seen some of this before. It has no true basis unless you redefine Christian terminology to fit Baha'i scripture. You have to change literal passages to spiritual ones so that you can harmonize both. I already am familiar with the methods of improper exegesis and eisogesis employed. It doesn't work, Bruce.

Here is one example of redefinitions an attempts from that site to create harmony with two contradicting religions:

Question: Are Baha'is Christian? Are Christians Baha'i? Is there any difference?

Answer: "When Christians act according to the teachings of Christ, they are called Baha'is. For the foundations of Christianity and the religion of Baha'u'llah are one. The foundations of all the divine Prophets and Holy Books are one. The difference among them is one of terminology only.
What a fallacy this one is! In order for this to even be considered a possibility, you will have to falsify Jesus' teachings per Bible by making some claim that they are somehow not the true teachings or that they have been altered from their original meanings. So this allows for Bahai's or members of any other religion to come along and pervert them to their own teachings, which is exactly what each religion that affiliates itself with Jesus does. I know the ploys. Genuine Christians are not fooled at all!

Take heed!

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

[Arthra]

Those who have what i would call maybe a special vested interest in saying they have a corner on truth will attempt to argue that they have the monopoly.. but we Baha'is believe that all the major religions have a common Divine Source..and that spiritually they agree.. this is born out particularly I think when people from varied religious backgrounds are sharing their faith at Inter-faith gatherings. I witnessed one where a Zoroastrian Parsee was sharing his faith and learned how similar some of the ceremonies were to the Hindu practices! Both were somewhat astonished that they seem to have a common thread and almost the same nomenclature. So if you look for similarities you will I believe undoubtedly find them.. Please see the article at

http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-4.html

- Art

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by Arthra

Those who have what i would call maybe a special vested interest in saying they have a corner on truth will attempt to argue that they have the monopoly..

Aren't you doing the same thing as you say we are?

but we Baha'is believe that all the major religions have a common Divine Source..and that spiritually they agree.. this is born out particularly I think when people from varied religious backgrounds are sharing their faith at Inter-faith gatherings. I witnessed one where a Zoroastrian Parsee was sharing his faith and learned how similar some of the ceremonies were to the Hindu practices! Both were somewhat astonished that they seem to have a common thread and almost the same nomenclature. So if you look for similarities you will I believe undoubtedly find them.. Please see the article at

http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-4.html

- Art

Well, Art, that really isn't saying much since once we delve into the intricate details of those beliefs, we will see the differences that make them contradictory with each other at some level. Some of the religions show contradictions on the most fundamental levels while others show them at more intricate levels. Nevertheless, they will show up and you can't sugar coat everything as coming from the same source.

Finding similarities is not a proof of your premise. We can always find some common parts, but that should not be the factor in determining if they follow or worship God. Additionally, if we generalize enough, almost any religion can seem like it is leading to God.

 

[Arthra]

I think the differences though are less important than what we have in common...

- Art

 

[peaceful soul]

I think the differences though are less important than what we have in common...

- Art

The differences are just as important as the similarities. Not accounting for both shows a lack objectivity. Arthra, why would you want to dismiss the differences? That is what shows us that various religions are not the same and don't teach the same. Do you realize that when you do this you are distorting what each religion believes? When you over emphasize good things or even bad things, you in essence distort things. When you put them in balance by looking at both aspects and then making conclusions, you are more likely to have a good perspective than when ignoring one side. If I only looked at the good aspects of communism, would my analysis of communism be good? Absolutely not!

I don't think that you use good judgment when you look at only one side or try to ignore one side for the benefit of harmonizing religions so that they all represent a particular perspective. I can't deny that many religions have common things and even good things that can be admired, but I would be foolish to conclude from that observation that they have a common source or that they teach basically the same. It would be like saying that all governments are good because they help organize societies and then I ignore the fact that some of them often injure people by taking away their basic human rights and even kill those who oppose their government in order to reach their goals.

 

[1TrueDisciple]

Just like jews who worshiped the calf in absense of Musa (AS) were not worshipping the God of Musa (AS) similarly those who worship the son of God are not worshipping the God of Abraham(AS)

You're free to hold that opinion, but it is quite mistaken. It comes from the Islamic religion which, in the view of Christians, was founded by someone who was not even a prophet.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by elwill

i wnna to tell you that i can accept jesus (pbuh) as a lord

If you did, then you would be a Christian. You can't claim lordship of Jesus if you believe that He did not save you from the consequences of your sins.

he will save his people (jews) , not the world

That would not be accurate. He came to save the world, which obviously is comprised of more than Jews.

Joh 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
Joh 4:35 Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.
Joh 4:36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.
Joh 4:37 And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.
Joh 4:38 I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours.
Joh 4:39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
Joh 4:40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
Joh 4:41 And many more believed because of his own word;
Joh 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

anyway which sins the verse refer to ? is it Adam sin or his people sins ?

Matthew 15:1-9
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'
6he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for breaking the Commands of GOD Almighty
is it the sins of his people which he came to saving him from it ?

This context is talking about Israel.

other sins for his people here

Let us look at Romans 1:20-32 (from the New Testament)
"20. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23. and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30. slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31. they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."​

This is not pertaining to Jews. It is talking about mankind in general.

i will supposed that you are right , he dead for our sins
well , where in the bible it said that i must acknowledge that , to become a believer and enter paradise

This is rather logical, elwill. If Jesus didn't die for our sins, then we cannot enter heaven because our sins would cause us eternal damnation if they are not covered by God. That is why it was necessary for Jesus to die and resurrect. His death allowed the consequences of sin to be buried with Him. His resurrection allows us to be alive without the consequences of those sins as long as we trust in his atoning work of righteousness on our behalf.

the verse you found out proof my point
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ

in this verse he pray for two , 1'st the God and specified him as the father
2'nd his lord jesus christ , not God jesus christ

It only proves your point if you omit the entire implications of what this means. The next verse tells us more. Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: You just can't drop out sentences and claim you have a point. That is being disingenuous. The implication is that a human cannot give himself for our sins. This is only a function of God.

Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

jesus be suffered , insulted , condemned , stoned and oppressed from his people , all of that is enough to say that he gave his life for our sins , it dosn't necessery to be dead

Elwill, that is just plain silly! You are making up something to justify your disbelief. You can't do that with scripture and expect us to believe that it is a true interpretation. You should know better.:o

beside i didn't find the condition of acknowledge his death and resurrection

If you study, you will reach that conclusion without needing a verse saying exactly that. I will try to find something that will state this.

 

[Arthra]

My own view is that Abrahamic religions which is the topic here are founded on universal values..

From the Psalms:

For thou wilt light my candle: the LORD my God will enlighten my darkness.

- Psalm 18:28

and here are some examples say found in the Gospels..

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

- Matthew 5:45

and

"In him was life, and that life was the light of men."

- John 1:4

"The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world."

- John 1:9

In the Qur'an:

Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.

- Qur'an 24:35

In the Baha'i Writings:

O NOBLE friends; seekers after God! Praise be to God! Today the light of Truth is shining upon the world in its abundance; the breezes of the heavenly garden are blowing throughout all regions; the call of the Kingdom is heard in all lands, and the breath of the Holy Spirit is felt in all hearts that are faithful. The Spirit of God is giving eternal life. In this wonderful age the East is enlightened, the West is fragrant, and everywhere the soul inhales the holy perfume. The sea of the unity of mankind is lifting up its waves with joy, for there is real communication between the hearts and minds of men. The banner of the Holy Spirit is uplifted, and men see it, and are assured with the knowledge that this is a new day.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 19)

What is there to gain by focusing on differences and strife today when mankind needs to be reconciled and at peace?

- Art

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by Arthra

My own view is that Abrahamic religions which is the topic here are founded on universal values..

From the Psalms:

For thou wilt light my candle: the LORD my God will enlighten my darkness.

- Psalm 18:28

and here are some examples say found in the Gospels..

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

- Matthew 5:45

and

"In him was life, and that life was the light of men."

- John 1:4

"The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world."

- John 1:9

In the Qur'an:

Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.

- Qur'an 24:35

In the Baha'i Writings:

O NOBLE friends; seekers after God! Praise be to God! Today the light of Truth is shining upon the world in its abundance; the breezes of the heavenly garden are blowing throughout all regions; the call of the Kingdom is heard in all lands, and the breath of the Holy Spirit is felt in all hearts that are faithful. The Spirit of God is giving eternal life. In this wonderful age the East is enlightened, the West is fragrant, and everywhere the soul inhales the holy perfume. The sea of the unity of mankind is lifting up its waves with joy, for there is real communication between the hearts and minds of men. The banner of the Holy Spirit is uplifted, and men see it, and are assured with the knowledge that this is a new day.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 19)

I can agree that there are similarities in the words themselves, but when we examine the context, those words start to take on different meanings. That is something you ignore. Even in the passages above, John 1:4,9 and Qur'an 24:35, We can see that the light is referring to two contradictory entities. In John, Jesus is understood to be the light, and in the Qu'ran, Allah is understood to be the light. We already know that Jesus ≠ Allah in either Christian or Islamic understanding; so, in one sense, we are comparing apples with oranges.

What is there to gain by focusing on differences and strife today when mankind needs to be reconciled and at peace?

- Art

That is fallacious reasoning, Arthra. Discussing differences does not lead to strife; however, differences between various religions can lead to strife when certain differences are acted upon.

What is there to gain? A sense of what reality is instead of a myopic view of life. You are so worried about peace. If we examine certain negative aspects of religions, we can find out that some of them will destroy the very peace you are looking for. How do you expect humanity to confront these things if they don't discuss them? I think that you are highly naive.