Are Allah and Yaweh the same God?

[BruceDLimber]

Bible, Quran and your guiding book, are also "man-made."

You are eminently welcome to your opinion!

But IOV these are not "man-made" but Divine Revelation.

We have many scriptural works of our own, BTW--around 200 volumes, to be exact.

(And if you replied to my point about Arab Christians' worshipping Allah, I didn't see it. But we needn't repeat that as the point holds in any case.)

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

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?

You might try a less extremist response, such as considering the Irish & Britain or the Crusades (not to mention both sides in the World Wars).

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

he 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....

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.

And there is of course a fourth option, held by the Baha'is: that Jesus, as a Divine Messenger, does indeed hold a dual status, being fully human AND representing the Face of God on earth (so that it's appropriate to address Him as such without meaning that He Himself literally is God!

(The Baha'i scriptures go on to explain this in detail; quote upon request.)

Best!

Bruce

 

[humblemuslim]

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

Yeah, I've used BibleGateway before. Reason why I asked which is the original Greek is I want to know which one of these I should pay closer attention to. There are a bunch.

Thanks anyways

 

[Wicked Willow]

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

Well, but each of the Abrahamaic religions asserts that their definition of the God of Abraham is the only true one, with the others following a "false" God.

Jews assert that the God of Abraham wasn't complicit in authoring either the "New Testament" or the Qur'an, and certainly didn'T have a son or a triune nature.

Christians assert that the God of Abraham orchestrated the events of the "Old Testament" to pave the road for the "New" - that the Son died for the sins of the world, and that God had no part in the Qur'an.

Muslims assert that both the Jews and the Christians corrupted the original revelation, and that the God of Abraham sought to correct that mistake by giving Muhammad a verbatim revelation.

They are not worshipping the same God, really. They claim that their specific deity is the God of Abraham, with the others worshipping either a false idol or a corrupted image of the One True God. It's a bit like a trademark dispute.

 

[S.gal83]

I believe allah and Yahweh is the same God.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Yeah, I've used BibleGateway before. Reason why I asked which is the original Greek is I want to know which one of these I should pay closer attention to. There are a bunch.

Thanks anyways

Kione Greek

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Kione Greek

That would be the form of the language, Koine Greek! He was asking about text.

 

[PT Calvinist]

That would be the form of the language, Koine Greek! He was asking about text.

oops...misread.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

No prob.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

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.

I have not heard about the blood and water in deities veins argument before, but I thought I read that it was possible to explain it in physiological and medical terms, I found this;

The difficulty surrounding exhalation leads to a slow form of suffocation. Carbon dioxide builds up in the blood, resulting in a high level of carbonic acid in the blood. The body responds instinctively, triggering the desire to breathe. At the same time, the heart beats faster to circulate available oxygen. The decreased oxygen (due to the difficulty in exhaling) causes damage to the tissues and the capillaries begin leaking watery fluid from the blood into the tissues. This results in a build-up of fluid around the heart (pericardial effusion) and lungs (pleural effusion). The collapsing lungs, failing heart, dehydration, and the inability to get sufficient oxygen to the tissues essentially suffocate the victim.5 The decreased oxygen also damages the heart itself (myocardial infarction) which leads to cardiac arrest. In severe cases of cardiac stress, the heart can even burst, a process known as cardiac rupture.6 Jesus most likely died of a heart attack.

After Jesus’ death, the soldiers break the legs of the two criminals crucified alongside Him (John 19:32), causing suffocation. Death would then occur quicker. When they came to Jesus, He was already dead so they did not break His legs (John 19:33). Instead, the soldiers pierced His side (John 19:34) to assure that He was dead. In doing this, it is reported that “blood and water came out” (John 19:34), referring to the watery fluid surrounding the heart and lungs.

In Focus - Azusa Pacific University

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

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.

You didn't exist 2000 years ago, Christianity did. So let them define the attributes of the GOD they met in person. If you have any accusation towards my Scriptures, that is a different issue.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

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!

The split took place between truth and heresy. Though name these major Christian groups please. You are not one of them.

The Nicene Creed (with scriptural references)

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)v
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

Those who REJECT this reject the Christian Scriptures due to their own convenience and interpretative freedom.

Just the facts.

Confirmed them for you.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

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!

Name them, explain the work that has been done. This is simply your prerogative as the Church has extensive extra-biblical sources and Tradition to confirm or deny this allegation.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

(And if you replied to my point about Arab Christians' worshipping Allah, I didn't see it. But we needn't repeat that as the point holds in any case.)

Arab Christians worship Isa Al-Masih, who is the son of Allah, do you see ANY language of that in Quran? Wicked Willow did a splendid job explaining you the difference between semantics and theology.

 

[Wicked Willow]

I have not heard about the blood and water in deities veins argument before, but I thought I read that it was possible to explain it in physiological and medical terms,

Yeah, I am familiar with that one, too. The thing is, though: an ancient audience wouldn't have been aware of such specifics, especially if we assume that most of the readers/listeners were ordinary people rather than physicians. And in that light, it wouldn't make much sense to put so much emphasis on the testimony - after all, the passage spends more time asserting that the Roman soldier testified to it than on the description of the wound itself.
As such, I'd say that if this event actually happened, the naturalistic explanation would pretty much account for it - yet originally, it was meant to curb a theological debate.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Thank you for mentioning it though, I had never heard it before.

 

[BruceDLimber]

You didn't exist 2000 years ago; Christianity did.

Eminently irrelevant.

If you have any accusation towards my Scriptures, that is a different issue.

We recognize and respect your scriptures, too, though they're not what we directly follow. We (like many Christians) do stipulate that the Bible is no longer 100% intact and some portions are indeed spurious later additions. I'm sure you know (or can easily find out) who the Christian groups are who hold this view.

And the huge split was between what are now the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths, a divide which (as I said) continues to this day.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[PT Calvinist]

We (like many Christians) do stipulate that the Bible is no longer 100% intact and some portions are indeed spurious later additions.

You mean the Catholic Epistles?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Sorry, I totally forgot about this, thanks PT Calvinist.

Eminently irrelevant.

So are you, compared against the Orthodox Theology of Early Christianity. Please don't brand yourself with it.

We recognize and respect your scriptures, too, though they're not what we directly follow.

That is totally fine, muslims say the same thing, however there is no application. This doesn't mean you don't apply it, but realize that you are out of our theology. You do not belong. I am not making this up.

We (like many Christians) do stipulate that the Bible is no longer 100% intact and some portions are indeed spurious later additions.

Stipulations are, in this matter, not factual. There is so much extra-biblical evidence to compare against. I don't deny the spurious additions by, like the Ebionites, but Church was not sleeping at the same time when the canonization occurred.

I'm sure you know (or can easily find out) who the Christian groups are who hold this view.

Mostly modern groups that didn't exist in the early times and could not claim apostolic succession. They are guided by secular sources like Church had any reason to lie to them before that.

And the huge split was between what are now the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths, a divide which (as I said) continues to this day.

Other than a handful dogmatic views, both consider each other Apostolic. Our common points outweigh the differences, and by that standard, Bahai faith is simply an outsider.

Pax Vobiscum