Is YAHWEH andALLAH the same person?

[Neochristian]

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/jesus-christ-is-yahweh
This does not deal with the argument, or even offer an alternative explanation to it, since the argument that had been put forth is nto based on the Biblical verses of "the Father and I are one".

The Biblical argument put forth is that Jesus, the Son, is Yahweh.
This would correspond with much of modern Biblical scholarship too, with verses associated with the name Yahweh being rather than Elohim being associated with a much more human form of God.
The article simply did not state that the Trinity was Yahweh. The article contends on the biblical evidence that Jesus is Yahweh. That is, the second person of the Trinity is yahweh.

What? It doesn't have to be based on that. I added a verse, which makes my explanation more comprehensive, and therefore more legitimate.

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

I'm Christian =)

You should change your faith identity then to reflect that. =)

 

[Neochristian]

None of the blind men has his specific detail wrong. Each detail is accurate, albeit not a complete comprehension. The man who does not experience the elephant at all does not know whether the elephant really exists at all, and if his details do not correspond with any detail of any of the blind men who actually touched the elephant, then that man with no experience is simply wrong.

The Islam comprehension of God is not merely incomplete, it's specifically wrong. The description of Allah in Islam is not the description of the God worshipped by Christians, any more than the "King George III" is the same person as "King George VII," despite the fact that both are known by the title "King George."

It does not follow from "if the details of the man of no experience of the elephant do not match the details of those of experience of the elephant" that "then the details of the man of no experience of the elephant are wrong"—it SUGGESTS his details are wrong, but in no way PROVES his details are wrong.

Also, that "the description of Allah in Islam is not the description of the God worshipped by Christians" is exactly the entire point of the elephant analogy. One blindman feels the TUSKS. Another blindman feels the TAIL. One says the elephant has TWO HARD UNMOVING things sticking out of it. Another says the elephant has ONE SOFT MOVING thing sticking out of it. See how those apparently incompatible descriptions are in no way the same (except that both agree there is something sticking out of it)?

 

[Neochristian]

Paul cites a statute that was marked with the title unknown god.

Your interpretation of scripture is obscured and I appeal to you to consider what Paul truly meant to convey to the Greeks.

You see Paul was telling the Greeks that every false god under the kitchen sink you have identified and worshipped amongst the pantheon of Greek gods, however the God that you do not know and have not worshipped is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel that I am introducing to you.

You see the Greeks in order to cover all basis, they endeavoured even to plaquate a statue with the title the unknown god, that to them was not worshipped, but in case he existed that he would not be offended by their lake of knowledge of him. So they were obviously covering all their basis.

Having said that, even though they plaquated a statue with the title the unknown god they never knew him nor did they ever worship an entity that they knew not. For the learnered Greeks it would be absurd to worship an unknown god. Basically this was a disclaimer clause or act on their part to cover their bums.

Paul uses this disclaimer of the Greeks in a satirical manner in which his intentions was to ridicule the shortcomings and antics of the Greeks . So, something that is satirical often looks like the real thing in order to make fun of it. In this circumstance it was just that!

Paul's intentions were never to give credit to the Greeks by implying that they worshipped the true God of the Bible.

Fun note: the word for superstition he uses is dysdaimonia, meaning 'bad spirits', which is the diametric opposition of the word for happiness or thriving, eudaimonia, meaning 'good spirits.'

 

[Neochristian]

For the political interfaith one world universal religious enterprise to prosper, then the LIE they push must also prosper.

At the end of the day this political agenda amongst the religious heads is to abolish the cross at calvary slowly slowly, until they brain wash the future generations. When the old generations pass away the new generations are the new recipients to the one world universal religion of peace and safety in the absence of the offensive cross. Believe it or not they will one day condemn the cross in the same way the Nazi swats sticker is condemned today. The cross will be labelled the symbol of evil. This is why the muslims say when Jesus comes he will break the cross and kill the pigs (true Christians).

I have warned the flock and if people do not heed my warning and continue to be part of this deception, by pushing this LIE, then they will give an answer to God to why they helped and abetted the enemies of Christ.

This is also a warning from brother Paul

Did you know the golden rule is found in every religion.

 

[Neochristian]

B, you would have been a champion sheepdog if you hadn't been guided the wrong way. Such incredible spirit.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Really? Where would those texts be exactly?

Well, the book of Ruth...

 

[Neochristian]

She would be right about the Christian teachings. These are of course different than those in Islam.

Apparently not imcompatible, as there is a person believing both. She must be a miracle-worker.

 

[Neochristian]

You should change your faith identity then to reflect that. =)

What does it say now? How do I change it?

 

[RDKirk]

It does not follow from "if the details of the man of no experience of the elephant do not match the details of those of experience of the elephant" that "then the details of the man of no experience of the elephant are wrong"—it SUGGESTS his details are wrong, but in no way PROVES his details are wrong.

Also, that "the description of Allah in Islam is not the description of the God worshipped by Christians" is exactly the entire point of the elephant analogy. One blindman feels the TUSKS. Another blindman feels the TAIL. One says the elephant has TWO HARD UNMOVING things sticking out of it. Another says the elephant has ONE SOFT MOVING thing sticking out of it. See how those apparently incompatible descriptions are in no way the same (except that both agree there is something sticking out of it)?

No, each of the blind men actually holds a true fact about the elephant, simply not the entire picture.

Anyone can touch the tail and make the same observation as the man who touched the tail. Anyone can touch the tusks and make the same observation as the man who touched the tusks. Each of those observations is consistently repeatable. Moreover, any of the blind men can trade observations--the man who had touched the tail can move over and touch the tusks, and his observation would be the same as the man who had first touch the tusks.

But if the man who has never touched the elephant makes an assertion that conflicts with any one of the actual observations of the men who have touched the elephant, that man who has never touched the elephant is wrong.

 

[Neochristian]

No, each of the blind men actually holds a true fact about the elephant, simply not the entire picture.

Anyone can touch the tail and make the same observation as the man who touched the tail. Anyone can touch the tusks and make the same observation as the man who touched the tusks. Each of those observations is consistently repeatable. Moreover, any of the blind men can trade observations--the man who had touched the tail can move over and touch the tusks, and his observation would be the same as the man who had first touch the tusks.

But if the man who has never touched the elephant makes an assertion that conflicts with any one of the actual observations of the men who have touched the elephant, that man who has never touched the elephant is wrong.

First paragraph: that is exactly how I described it, so I don't know what you are disagreeing with.

Second paragraph: if the metaphor is to describe what we observe, then we must say that some people describe the same part differently, and this is denomination or sect. When a person moves from one part to another, this is conversion. We must also say that when people at different parts talk to one another, because some agree and some disagree, this is called universalism and brotherly love, and non-universalism and non-brotherly love.

Third paragraph: "do not match" is not equivolent to "conflict." If we're gonna allow getting deep in the metaphor, I could argue that he guessed and got lucky about something nobody else noticed. It could also be that somehow they each got some detail wrong, and the other man guessed correctly.

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

What does it say now? How do I change it?

It says Seeker.
I don't know how you'd change it. Faith identity is something one chooses when they join.

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

Apparently not imcompatible, as there is a person believing both. She must be a miracle-worker.

That's one way to look at it. The other is that if she's a Muslim she's still lost in her sins. Islam teaches that their god inspired sin in humans who are imperfect sinners. And salvation is only attained through the worship of Allah alone. That humans are born sinless and to retain that state they must hold to Allah's commands in the Qur'an.
Salvation in Islam is works based only. Quran Sura 7:6–9.
So your friend believing in Jesus as the only means of salvation, my words per recall of your remarks concerning her faith in that respect, is not actually following the tenets of Islam and is considered Kafir. An unbeliever.
And as a Muslim she's not Christian even though she recognizes Jesus, who is a minor prophet in Islam, as the means of salvation.

Islam and Christianity are entirely incompatible. Your friend is putting her soul at risk living as a Muslim. That she believes in Jesus is a start. Perhaps you can lead her to renounce Islam and accept Christ as her savior.

 

[SolomonVII]

What? It doesn't have to be based on that. I added a verse, which makes my explanation more comprehensive, and therefore more legitimate.

You contended that the argument is too weak, but evidently it is too heavy for you to lift.

 

[Neochristian]

It says Seeker.
I don't know how you'd change it. Faith identity is something one chooses when they join.

Oh, yeah. I identify as a Christian. Seek and ye shall find.

 

[Neochristian]

That's one way to look at it. The other is that if she's a Muslim she's still lost in her sins. Islam teaches that their god inspired sin in humans who are imperfect sinners. And salvation is only attained through the worship of Allah alone. That humans are born sinless and to retain that state they must hold to Allah's commands in the Qur'an.
Salvation in Islam is works based only. Quran Sura 7:6–9.
So your friend believing in Jesus as the only means of salvation, my words per recall of your remarks concerning her faith in that respect, is not actually following the tenets of Islam and is considered Kafir. An unbeliever.
And as a Muslim she's not Christian even though she recognizes Jesus, who is a minor prophet in Islam, as the means of salvation.

Islam and Christianity are entirely incompatible. Your friend is putting her soul at risk living as a Muslim. That she believes in Jesus is a start. Perhaps you can lead her to renounce Islam and accept Christ as her savior.

Clearly, her branch teaches otherwise. She says she was taught that only Christ takes away sin, and she also identifies as a Muslim.

She is evidence that the two are not incompatible.

I cannot lead somebody to where they already are.

 

[Neochristian]

You contended that the argument is too weak, but evidently it is too heavy for you to lift.

I provided you with an alternative explanation that you rejected because I cited scripture to back it up.

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

Clearly, her branch teaches otherwise. She says she was taught that only Christ takes away sin, and she also identifies as a Muslim.

She is evidence that the two are not incompatible.

I cannot lead somebody to where they already are.

I'll leave her in your hands.

 

[SolomonVII]

I provided you with an alternative explanation that you rejected because I cited scripture to back it up.

I neither rejected nor accepted your explanation.

But if you make the claim that the argument put forth is weak, so far it is stronger than anything that you have put down to counter it.

Fair enough thoug.

You have nothing.

 

[Neochristian]

My explanation accounts for what the other is based on.