Are Allah and Yaweh the same God?

[LittleLambofJesus]

I wonder how many of the ones that voted yes/no in the poll are Christians?
I do know the 2 Mods that voted are ehehe

Yes they are

76 44.44%
No, They aren't

86 50.29%
They are similar, but not the same

9 5.26%

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

<snip>So, if the Jews deny that God has a Son, it's only by their own admission not by what the Tanakh said, for their Scripture (Tanakh) does not deny that God has a Son....

My bro Peter, the Apostle to the circumcision group, just happens to casually mention that

2 Peter 2:1 There became yet also False Prophets in the people, as also in ye shall be FalseTeachers, whoany shall be carrying in sects of destruction.
And the One buying them, Owner/Master/despothn <1203> disowning/denying, bringing on them swift destruction.
[Jeremiah 14:14,15/Matt 24:11/Jude 1:4/Revelation 6:10]

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G1203 matches the Greek &#948;&#949;&#963;&#960;&#8057;&#964;&#951;&#962; (despot&#275;s), which occurs 10 times in 10 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV
1203. despotes des-pot'-ace perhaps from 1210 and posis (a husband); an absolute ruler ("despot"):--Lord, master.

 

[xDenax]

Yes, it does. Your Tanakh shows Him to be both the Son of God and the Messiah, for He fulfilled everything given by the Laws and Prophets,

No, it doesn't.

but you guys deny Him by your own words. Whereas the Muslim Holy book denies that God ever had a Son. That's the difference.

No, the difference if you haven't warped the Quran into saying what you want it to say, seeing what you want to see. That is the difference.

The Tanakh attest to Christ. The Muslims however deny Christ as God's Son by both their book and their words.

Only becuase Christians have decided that is the case. You could do the same with the Quran, I'm sure. If you were so inclined.

Raze, I know you aren't going to agree with me here but I'm sure it's not news to you.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does. And I even quoted a Scripture from the Tanakh, you might want to look at Psalm 2:4-9.

And here is the funny thing, if you do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, guess what, you've missed it. Because all the prophecies of the Messiah can no longer be fulfilled, because the time of some of the prophecies has lapsed. But no worries, Christ fulfilled them.

No, the difference if you haven't warped the Quran into saying what you want it to say, seeing what you want to see. That is the difference.

I like how you said this and yet didn't actually deny that I quoted the Qu'ran and I quoted exactly what it said in the English version. If I warped it, it is on you to actually quote the exact passage that I did and then tell me what was warped.

Ask any Muslim....ask them if they believe that God had a Son? And ask them if their book teaches that God had a Son? And then you can tell me that I made the Qu'ran say something that it did not say, because I did not.

Only becuase Christians have decided that is the case. You could do the same with the Quran, I'm sure. If you were so inclined.

[sarcasm]Right ...we Christians were the one's who decided that was the case. It wasn't for the fact that the 12 apostles were Jewish, or that the disciples that followed Christ when He walked the earth were Jewish...not it was we Christians... [/sarcasm]

Interesting thing is, we Christians didn't get that name "Christian" until the Jews called us that in Antioch (Acts 11:26) for before that, they were simply Jews.

Have you ever read the Qu'ran? There is no way that you can make it sound that Jesus Christ is the Son of God with their book.

But you can with the Tanakh because Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies that were spoken of in the Tanakh.

Raze, I know you aren't going to agree with me here but I'm sure it's not news to you.

I challenge you to something:
I challenge you to read the New Testament with an open heart and then come back to me and tell me that Jesus Christ did not fulfill the laws and prophecy of the Old Law.

 

[xDenax]

Yes it does. And I even quoted a Scripture from the Tanakh, you might want to look at Psalm 2:4-9.

Are you under the impression that Jews don't see Jesus in the Tanach because we just haven't read it?

And here is the funny thing, if you do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, guess what, you've missed it. Because all the prophecies of the Messiah can no longer be fulfilled, because the time of some of the prophecies has lapsed. But no worries, Christ fulfilled them.

I'm not really worried about it.

I like how you said this and yet didn't actually deny that I quoted the Qu'ran and I quoted exactly what it said in the English version. If I warped it, it is on you to actually quote the exact passage that I did and then tell me what was warped.

What? I didn't say you warp the Quran. I said the opposite.

You warp the interpretation of the Tanach. You look at a verse and see jesus where the Jew can look at the same exact verse and Jesus is clearly not in the text. You see him because you want to see him. Also, not you personally (so far) but I've seen many Christians pull a chapter out of context and claim it's about jesus when in fact it was about current events at the time it was written.

Right ...we Christians were the one's who decided that was the case. It wasn't for the fact that the 12 apostles were Jewish, or that the disciples that followed Christ when He walked the earth were Jewish...not it was we Christians...

It dos not matter one iota if the apostles or disciples were Jewish. Why would it? Many Jews are into Buddhism, does that mean it's a legitimate Judaism? No. I have no idea why you even threw that into the equation.

Interesting thing is, we Christians didn't get that name "Christian" until the Jews called us that in Antioch (Acts 11:26) for before that, they were simply Jews.

And your point is?

Have you ever read the Qu'ran? There is no way that you can make it sound that Jesus Christ is the Son of God with their book.

I'm sure someone could find a way.

I challenge you to something:
I challenge you to read the New Testament with an open heart and then come back to me and tell me that Jesus Christ did not fulfill the laws and prophecy of the Old Law.

This is pretty easy to do however the problems is that you see jesus where he isn't. So no matter how much I say "that isn't Jesus" you won't believe me. No matter how many examples I can give you, you will deny it. I'm pretty much defeated before I begin. I can go find a few examples for you, maybe by tomorrow if you'd like. I'm not feeling well so don't expect them today.

 

[xDenax]

Actually, I am sorry but it has occurred to me that to take you up on that challenge would likely be against the rules. So, unfortunately I have to decline.

There will be no disrespect shown to Christianity, nor will there be any attempt to discredit or disprove Christianity.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Are you under the impression that Jews don't see Jesus in the Tanach because we just haven't read it?

What? I quoted it because that's what it says. I always quote Scripture so people know what verse I'm talking about.

What? I didn't say you warp the Quran. I said the opposite.

You warp the interpretation of the Tanach. You look at a verse and see jesus where the Jew can look at the same exact verse and Jesus is clearly not in the text. You see him because you want to see him. Also, not you personally (so far) but I've seen many Christians pull a chapter out of context and claim it's about jesus when in fact it was about current events at the time it was written.

How did I warp the interpretation of the Tanakh? Did I twist the Scripture? Does not that passage in Psalm said that God had a Son that He has begotten? Please explain to me how I twisted it. I'm not taking about many Christians who pulled out a passage out of context, I'm strictly speaking about the passage that I quoted in Psalm 2.

The first time I quoted that verse was not specifically because I saw Jesus but I quoted that verse to showcase that the Tanakh said that God had a begotten Son.

It dos not matter one iota if the apostles or disciples were Jewish. Why would it? Many Jews are into Buddhism, does that mean it's a legitimate Judaism? No. I have no idea why you even threw that into the equation.

You claimed that it was US Christians who decided it was the case, and yet it was not "us Christians" that decided it was the case, it was the Jews of the time who knew the Old law and knew that Christ fulfilled them and they preached that it was the case.

And your point is?

My point was that we would still be considered Jews if it wasn't for the fact that the Jews of that time wanted to separate themselves from those who followed Christ and it was them that gave us the name Christian. Before that, they were known as Jews.

Those Jews knew and followed the law and yet when they saw the Christ and saw that He fulfilled the prophecies of the Tanakh, they realized what was going on and they spoke of it.

This is pretty easy to do however the problems is that you see jesus where he isn't. So no matter how much I say "that isn't Jesus" you won't believe me. No matter how many examples I can give you, you will deny it. I'm pretty much defeated before I begin. I can go find a few examples for you, maybe by tomorrow if you'd like. I'm not feeling well so don't expect them today.

The only reason why we see Jesus is because He fulfilled the prophecies. I don't see anyone else but Jesus who fulfilled all the prophecies. You're waiting for a Messiah, we're telling you the Messiah have come, died and rose.

But it's a challenge to you to actually read the New Testament. You want to claim that Jesus is not the Christ, then read the claims about Him. You can give me examples if you like and I'll read them, but I challenge you to read the New Testament. If you never read it, then you don't know what you're denying. It's easy to deny Christ and say that He's not the Messiah if you never actually read the New Testament....same for those to say that we all worship the same God if they never read one's holy book. It's easy for someone to tell you something, it takes a person who really want to know to go out and research it and see if what someone says is true.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Actually, I am sorry but it has occurred to me that to take you up on that challenge would likely be against the rules. So, unfortunately I have to decline.

There will be no disrespect shown to Christianity, nor will there be any attempt to discredit or disprove Christianity.

The challenge to read the New Testament?

If you feel that you have something that discredit Christianity, you can private message me. But my challenge to you was to read the New Testament.

 

[xDenax]

What? I quoted it because that's what it says. I always quote Scripture so people know what verse I'm talking about.

How did I warp the interpretation of the Tanakh? Did I twist the Scripture? Does not that passage in Psalm said that God had a Son that He has begotten? Please explain to me how I twisted it. I'm not taking about many Christians who pulled out a passage out of context, I'm strictly speaking about the passage that I quoted in Psalm 2.

The first time I quoted that verse was not specifically because I saw Jesus but I quoted that verse to showcase that the Tanakh said that God had a begotten Son.

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt.

1 Chronicles 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. [10] He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be My son, and I [will be] his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

These are examples of how "son" is used on the Tanach and what it can mean. Israel has been refereed to as the son of God as well as particular people like Solomon.

My point was that we would still be considered Jews if it wasn't for the fact that the Jews of that time wanted to separate themselves from those who followed Christ and it was them that gave us the name Christian. Before that, they were known as Jews.

Judaism and Christianity are two different things. Of course I wouldn't expect the very first proponents of Christianity to have a new name for themselves. They were just starting out, it was new and I'm not convinced they would have recognized your version of Christianity anyway.

The only reason why we see Jesus is because He fulfilled the prophecies. I don't see anyone else but Jesus who fulfilled all the prophecies. You're waiting for a Messiah, we're telling you the Messiah have come, died and rose.

Like I said, I can't debate this with you without breaking the rules.

But it's a challenge to you to actually read the New Testament. You want to claim that Jesus is not the Christ, then read the claims about Him. You can give me examples if you like and I'll read them, but I challenge you to read the New Testament. If you never read it, then you don't know what you're denying. It's easy to deny Christ and say that He's not the Messiah if you never actually read the New Testament....same for those to say that we all worship the same God if they never read one's holy book. It's easy for someone to tell you something, it takes a person who really want to know to go out and research it and see if what someone says is true.

I've read a lot of it.

 

[xDenax]

The challenge to read the New Testament?

If you feel that you have something that discredit Christianity, you can private message me. But my challenge to you was to read the New Testament.

You wanted me to read it then come back and then tell you Jesus didn't fullfill prophecy. Which I'd do. Which would be against the rules.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt.

That's awesome. He also called someone else out of Egypt, do you want to know who?

1 Chronicles 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. [10] He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be My son, and I [will be] his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

That's even better. LLOJ showed the very same thing. All you've done was showcase that God said He had a son. But what I quoted in Psalm 2 was to showcase that God had a begotten Son and you won't find that phrase to mean Israel but you will find that phrase for someone else.

But my point of showing that God said He had a Son was to show the difference between Islam and Christianity and you were very helpful in showing that even in the Tanakh that God claimed He had a son. But the verse in Psalms 2 tells us that God had a begotten Son. We give that begotten Son a name.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Emmanuel. [God with us]. --Isaiah 7:14​

And let us be truthful about this verse, this verse was NOT fulfilled in the days of Israel. The King Ahaz did not have a son named Immanuel.

Luke 1:27-35
27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”
29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”
34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.​

These are examples of how "son" is used on the Tanach and what it can mean. Israel has been refereed to as the son of God as well as particular people like Solomon.

But no one was told that they were the begotten Son which is said in Psalm 2, except for.....you can take a guest.
"You are My Son, today I have begotten You."

Judaism and Christianity are two different things. Of course I wouldn't expect the very first proponents of Christianity to have a new name for themselves. They were just starting out, it was new and I'm not convinced they would have recognized your version of Christianity anyway.

We worship two different ways. You guys still worship under the old law and let's be truthful, you guys don't even practice every step in that old law to begin with (and the Tanakh shows that). And you're right, there are many denominations of Christianity that does not look anything like the practice that was done in the Bible, but that's our fault and our twisting of scriptures. But again, be truth, same can be said about Judaism.

But to go again on the names, it was the Jews of the 1st century, of which writings that we have, that were given that name, so they were called Christians very early for Paul (who wrote the majority of the New Testament) and Barnabas was given that name and even Peter told us to live like Christians.

Like I said, I can't debate this with you without breaking the rules.

You can debate it with me privately, if you actually care to.

I've read a lot of it.

By a lot do you mean that you read it in it's full context or looked at verses in the New Testament that some claim is false?

 

[xDenax]

You can debate it with me privately, if you actually care to.

Honestly? Not really. You are a Christian and it works for you. I am a Jew and it works for me.

By a lot do you mean that you read it in it's full context or looked at verses in the New Testament that some claim is false?

I mean the actual Christian Bible in full context. Matthew, Mark, Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, Titus, Hebrews, James, Revelations, the Peters, the Johns, etc.

 

[chris4243]

I quoted that scripture in my post that you quoted.
John 3:16-18

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.​

Oh, well those definitely aren't what Jesus meant when He said scripture. Those hadn't been written yet.

How about the number of Gods that Abraham worshiped?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Honestly? Not really. You are a Christian and it works for you. I am a Jew and it works for me.

Just to let you know, I didn't chose Christianity because it "works for me", I was searching for the truth and God found me. So please don't think that I am only a Christian because it is convenient for me. If that's not what you meant, I'm sorry, but that's how I took it and I wanted to get that out.

I mean the actual Christian Bible in full context. Matthew, Mark, Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, Titus, Hebrews, James, Revelations, the Peters, the Johns, etc.

I pray that you continue to read it, and don't get bogged down when you can't understand all of it. You need the Holy Spirit to understand all of it, that's stated in 1 Corinthians 2. But it's a great thing that the you know who the Holy Spirit is, for He is talked about in the Tanakh. Praise God!

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Oh, well those definitely aren't what Jesus meant when He said scripture. Those hadn't been written yet.

How about the number of Gods that Abraham worshiped?

You do realize that it was Jesus who said what I quoted right?

And Abraham worshiped one God. What was your point? Just because others claim that they worship the God that Abraham did doesn't mean it's true.

 

[xDenax]

If that's not what you meant, I'm sorry, but that's how I took it and I wanted to get that out.

Nope, that's not what I meant.

I pray that you continue to read it, and don't get bogged down when you can't understand all of it. You need the Holy Spirit to understand all of it, that's stated in 1 Corinthians 2. But it's a great thing that the you know who the Holy Spirit is, for He is talked about in the Tanakh. Praise God!

Uh...Jews aren't really into that Holy Spirit thing. I don't forsee me reading the Christian Bible again anytime soon. I have so many things I want to read at the moment and the Christian Bible is not on the list. No offense to you.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Uh...Jews aren't really into that Holy Spirit thing. I don't forsee me reading the Christian Bible again anytime soon. I have so many things I want to read at the moment and the Christian Bible is not on the list. No offense to you.

The offense isn't to me.
I pray God give you the time to be able to read His entire Scripture.
Have a blessed day.

 

[chris4243]

You do realize that it was Jesus who said what I quoted right?

Of course. But Jesus understood circular reasoning;
John 5:31
“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.

Jesus never called His own words scripture. They weren't even written down at the time!

And Abraham worshiped one God. What was your point? Just because others claim that they worship the God that Abraham did doesn't mean it's true.

Oh yes, but all denominations of Christianity have contradictory differences as to the attributes of God (eg whether God grants salvation to a preselected group, to those who have faith, or to those who do good works). I have no trouble saying they all worship the God of Abraham, but that some of them are mistaken about His attributes.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Of course. But Jesus understood circular reasoning;
John 5:31
&#8220;If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.

Jesus never called His own words scripture. They weren't even written down at the time!

I'm sure to you that argument make sense, not quite sure where you're getting circular reasoning at but okay.

As for the idea that God's word must be written to be God's word, I'm not understanding....does it not say God's word? Does "word" imply that it has to be written? Does it not imply spoken as well? I think you're thinking because we have the written word bound in the Scriptures, that it must have first been written to be God's word and that's not the case.

As for Jesus' not claiming that this was Scripture, let's see:
Jesus is God and Jesus taught them, what exactly would you call His gospels. The gospels tell us over and over again that He spoke with authority when He was teaching the people...when He said "Love your enemy" He spoke with authority and that's what He expects us to do.

And Jesus most certainly expect us to follow His word, for He told us time and time again, that His words are from the Father....that is the word of God. And Jesus is God, so you can pretty much bet that "word of God" applies to God.

Oh and just to complete your bible quote, so we don't take the word of God out of context:

John 5:31-47
If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true, there is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light, but I have a greater witness than John's for the works which the Father has given Me to finish--the very works that I do--bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me.

And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form, but you do not have the 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 to 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 in My words?"​

Oh yes, but all denominations of Christianity have contradictory differences as to the attributes of God (eg whether God grants salvation to a preselected group, to those who have faith, or to those who do good works). I have no trouble saying they all worship the God of Abraham, but that some of them are mistaken about His attributes.

Judaism disagree's on a lot of their doctrines and how best to follow the old law, but yet we don't say that they no longer worship God of Abraham because they don't disagree with what was said about Abraham. Christianity doesn't have conflicting doctrine but they have conflicting interpretations. That's not the Bible's fault that's men twisting words and wanting it to say what they want it to say. Judaism and Christianity worship the God of Abraham, and we don't have conflicting attributes about God, it's the interpretation of Scripture and some of the doctrines that we disagree with, not with God's attributes.

 

[chris4243]

I'm sure to you that argument make sense, not quite sure where you're getting circular reasoning at but okay.

It would be circular reasoning to say Jesus' words were reliable because He was God, and that He was God because Jesus said so. Hence the quote.

As for the idea that God's word must be written to be God's word, I'm not understanding....does it not say God's word?

But weren't we talking about scripture, rather than God's Word? Scripture is written down, that's what the name means, and when Jesus referred to scripture (or, "it is written"), He was talking about the Old Testament.

I'd like to see one of those Scriptures, if by Scripture you mean the same thing Jesus meant by Scripture.

As for Jesus' not claiming that this was Scripture, let's see:
Jesus is God and Jesus taught them, what exactly would you call His gospels. The gospels tell us over and over again that He spoke with authority when He was teaching the people...when He said "Love your enemy" He spoke with authority and that's what He expects us to do.

Certainly He expected us to obey what He said. But if you believe Jesus ever referred to His words as scripture, I'd like to see the quote.

Judaism disagree's on a lot of their doctrines and how best to follow the old law, but yet we don't say that they no longer worship God of Abraham because they don't disagree with what was said about Abraham. Christianity doesn't have conflicting doctrine but they have conflicting interpretations. That's not the Bible's fault that's men twisting words and wanting it to say what they want it to say. Judaism and Christianity worship the God of Abraham, and we don't have conflicting attributes about God, it's the interpretation of Scripture and some of the doctrines that we disagree with, not with God's attributes.

The Muslims like the Jews claim to follow the God of Abraham, and to this day follow the covenant that God made with Abraham but that us Christians have long abandoned. Yes, we all disagree about various things in contradictory ways, so only one of us can be right. We all claim to follow the God of Abraham, but only one of us got it right.

To give another example, suppose lots of people followed you on twitter. One says, I follow daydreamergurl15 because she's a democrat, another claims it's because you're repulican, and another one because you're libertarian. Are they talking about the same person?