Allah and God one in the same?

I know that the description of God in the Bible is the true one. It's Faith.

^ Faith =/= knowledge

As such, you can believe that your interpretion of God is true, but other people have faith in different interpretions. And you can't all be right.

Exactly.


Everyone has faith that their particular flavour of deity is the correct one, so that, in and of itself, is not proof that your is genuine.

same thing different language.

the real diference here comes in determining the importance of Christ and Muhammad. Most Christians see Muhammad as either a fraud or as someone of greatly exaggerated importance. most Muslims see Christ solely as a good man, a great prophet and they believe Judas took the fall for Christ as punishment for his betrayal.

It's undeniable that each one believes in the same God, in the sense that they're all grounded in Abrahamic tradition: the Jews believe that they are descendants of Abraham's son Isaac, and Arabs believe that they are descendants of his son Ishmael. Both believe that their respective ancestor is the true heir to Abraham.

The main area of separation between the three religions, though, is in their interpretations of the Tanakh. Since Jews believe only in the Tanakh as the true book of God's teachings and his law, the beliefs of Christianity and Islam are wrong because they are at odds with their own. Christians, on the other hand, use the teachings of Jesus and interpretations of the Tanakh to reconcile those differences; and since Jesus did not prophesy about the coming of another prophet, and since the Qur'an is at odds with their own interpretations, they consider the beliefs of Muslims as incorrect. And since the Qur'an differs greatly from both the Tanakh and the teachings of Jesus, Muslims consider both religions as flawed, but with some semblance of truth.

None of the religions believe that any of the others worship a separate deity. They do, however, believe that they are approaching God incorrectly.

Jews believe that studying and following the teachings and laws of the Tanakh is the proper way of life. They do not believe that they need to be "saved," that there is a devil, or a heaven and hell. They believe that following God's will in life brings them closer to God, but denying it pushes them farther away. "Heaven" is simply where God resides, and "Hell" (Gehonim) is more akin to a state of deep shame, where people come to terms with their shortcomings in life, and become purified over time. None of these things are very thoroughly explored, however, because the importance is on what people do while alive. Jews do consider the soul eternal, however, and that there is an afterlife; this is known as Olam Haba, or "the world to come." In the end, though, to them the divinity of Jesus is invalid, and so are the teachings of Muhammad.

Christians believe that both the Tanakh and the teachings of Jesus are the inspired word of God, but that since Jesus came to save them, many of the laws of the Tanakh are now invalid. They also believe that Jesus is the only way to God, and to heaven, and that if they don't follow his teachings, they will go to hell. Thus, they believe that denying Jesus is heretical, and that Jews and Muslims are both damned.

Muslims believe that both Judaism and Christianity contain elements of the truth, but because they are at odds with Muhammad's teachings, they are flawed. They believe that following the Qur'an is the only way to attain paradise, and that disbelief damns a person to hell. Thus, they believe that both Judaism and Christianity are wrong, because they don't follow the changes brought by Muhammad.

They all worship the same deity, but believe that their own methods of worshiping him are the correct ones.

Basically, Slime's got it down.

Besides, as far as the Catholic Encyclopedia can tell me, Allah is simply seen as the Arabic term for God. The better question here is to ask, "Is the God of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism one and the same?"


All three have varying ideas concerning their neighbors, at best they see the others as misguided slightly on worship of the One God and at worst as pagan-gentile-kafirs worshiping a false deity or Satan himself. This, however, doesn't impress secular scholarship much, and all three are generally accepted to be religious polities based around the worship of the Jewish God of Abraham figure in ancient Hebrew history.


Most likely, as far as I'm concerned I suppose, they're all right and wrong, like three blind men touching a large elephant in different locations. The problem comes from reconciliation, or lack thereof, and a moving away from each other clinging to terminology and word-play, confounded also by simple stereotyping of one another's faith and theology.

Suffice to say, we're very good at doing this, with over 2000 years of practice.

Take all the different sects of Christianity. Do they not seem different, despite worshipping the different God?

Now imagine that instead of developing in an age where global communication was common place, Catholocism, Protestantism, and all the rest, developed a few thousand years ago. Would they still be considered to be worshipping the same God? Probably only in the same sense that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam worship the same God.

That is exactly what happened with these three religions. Abraham's two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, supposedly founded Judaism and Islam respectively. They were both worshipping the same God, the God their father knew and believed in, but their worhsip and religion was different. Over thousands of years, the two religions (with the addition of Christianity somewhere in between) have grown far enough apart that people no longer recognize their related religions for what they are.

I'm seeing general agreement on this all around now.

They are not the same God (In regaurds to the original question is Allah of Islam and God of Christianity the same). One cannot approach this by what human opinion is right, after all we are supposedly not dealing with human opinions. All three claim direct revalation. Therefor, each one is either right or wrong on its own. And if one is right than the others are wrong.

Let me explain...
Its a pretty common beliefe that God cannot lie. Well if he revealed himself as one thing to one religion and then turned around and tells another religion "no I'm not that" than he has lied. The moment the god of a religion lies the moment that religion no longer has a creadance. If one religion accepts another then they are saying God is capable of lieing therefor the god they serve is not the god he claims he is. Therefor a religion must be right, wrong, or believe in a dishonnest god.

Islam denies Jesus as God, therefor it cannot accept some of the teaching and not all of it unless reasoning is given. The only reason Islam could use any part of Christianity would be to say that Jesus was god but then stopped being and became just a prophet, which makes little sence. As they do not believe Jesus is God, that Jesus and Allah are not the same, by proclamation of their revalation from god do they show that it is not the same entity. You could only think that they were if you believe religion is entirely man made. But because you are being hypothetical as to "is there a God" you must be hypothetical to "are these revalations from God" When you do that they are clearly not the same.

However, when it comes to Judaism and Christianity it is a bit more complicated. According the the jews Jesus was not the Christ, not the messiah. Yet they claim there will be one. Christianity and Judaism fit together pretty nicely in the end accept for the small instance that accoarding to christians the jews have rejected what they were promissed and accoarding to jews they have not recieved it yet. The New testament only expounds on the old testament, no where does it contradict. There are even some evidences for the trinity in the torah, from the very beggining there are. Look to the creation story, "Let US make man in OUR image" why is God speaking plural to himself. He can't be talking to angels for we are not made in the image of angels. And the word for God used there "Elohim" in hebrew is plural, but the old testament makes clear there is only one true God. So is it a contradiction. The answer is in the new testament. A collection of books that show the prophecy of the isrialite's promised messiah being fulfilled and new revalations being added. The New testament is seemless it connecting all the dots.Someone who is Jewish and was familiar with the ancient prophecies has to either admit that they are fulfilled or that the writers of the new testament were genius in the knowledge of the Torah and experts at making stories that no one would find prophetic flaws in.

In the end, the introduction of Jesus is what makes them different gods. He was either God or not. You can't have it both ways. He cannot not be God and not at all God. And to answer the question that will inevitably come up. Accoarding to my beliefe, and its harsh to those who disagree, the Messiah has come and the Jews denied him, so now God denies them. They believe in the same God, but can not have a relationship with him without accepting that which they were promised long ago. Which they can at any time.

NuHylian

Originally Posted by NuHylian7

They are not the same God ... They believe in the same God

I'm sensing a contradiction here.

Hmmm is that the context or did you cut and paste to make your own context. here I'll fix it. The first part of what you quoted was ment to be to religions in general. The second part, Christianity and Judaism speciffically. Please post more than just rib shots on my terrible writing as opposed to what it was I'm clearly trying to say.

NuHylian

They are not the same God (Islam oppoees the other two more than they oppose each other. This will be explained further down). One cannot approach this by what human opinion is right, after all we are supposedly not dealing with human opinions. All three claim direct revalation. Therefor, each one is either right or wrong on its own. And if one is right than the others are wrong.

Let me explain...
Its a pretty common beliefe that God cannot lie. Well if he revealed himself as one thing to one religion and then turned around and tells another religion "no I'm not that" than he has lied. The moment the god of a religion lies the moment that religion no longer has a creadance. If one religion accepts another then they are saying God is capable of lieing therefor the god they serve is not the god he claims he is. Therefor a religion must be right, wrong, or believe in a dishonnest god.

Islam denies Jesus as God, therefor it cannot accept some of the teaching and not all of it unless reasoning is given. The only reason Islam could use any part of Christianity would be to say that Jesus was god but then stopped being and became just a prophet, which makes little sence. As they do not believe Jesus is God, that Jesus and Allah are not the same, by proclamation of their revalation from god do they show that it is not the same entity. You could only think that they were if you believe religion is entirely man made. But because you are being hypothetical as to "is there a God" you must be hypothetical to "are these revalations from God" When you do that they are clearly not the same.

However, when it comes to Judaism and Christianity it is a bit more complicated. According the the jews Jesus was not the Christ, not the messiah. Yet they claim there will be one. Christianity and Judaism fit together pretty nicely in the end accept for the small instance that accoarding to christians the jews have rejected what they were promissed and accoarding to jews they have not recieved it yet. The New testament only expounds on the old testament, no where does it contradict. There are even some evidences for the trinity in the torah, from the very beggining there are. Look to the creation story, "Let US make man in OUR image" why is God speaking plural to himself. He can't be talking to angels for we are not made in the image of angels. And the word for God used there "Elohim" in hebrew is plural, but the old testament makes clear there is only one true God. So is it a contradiction. The answer is in the new testament. A collection of books that show the prophecy of the isrialite's promised messiah being fulfilled and new revalations being added. The New testament is seemless it connecting all the dots.Someone who is Jewish and was familiar with the ancient prophecies has to either admit that they are fulfilled or that the writers of the new testament were genius in the knowledge of the Torah and experts at making stories that no one would find prophetic flaws in.

In the end, the introduction of Jesus is what makes them different gods. He was either God or not. You can't have it both ways. He cannot not be God and not at all God. And to answer the question that will inevitably come up. Accoarding to my beliefe, and its harsh to those who disagree, the Messiah has come and the Jews denied him, so now God denies them. They believe in the same God, but can not have a relationship with him without accepting that which they were promised long ago. Which they can at any time.

Or, quite simply, when God backed off to open up the 'free will' aspect of faith -- humans mucked it up? Let's assume for a moment that Jesus was just a guy with dodgy teeth and a bag of tricks who was interpreted in an interesting way, these being interesting times.

I see no reason why this can't have been one prophet and one God who split and meanings changed through word of mouth, mistranslation, and doctoring of holy scriptures by various corrupt churches.

Muslims see it as important that an image is never made of Muhammed -- because then people might see this person with God-like incidents and start worshiping him wrongly. Let's say that Jesus was a prophet whose image, for whatever reasons, was not protected from the cupidity of later humans.

So what do you all think? Please use good solid proof and stuff, like Bible/Koran verses or articles you think apply.

The bible and articles are by no way solid proof -- we can achieve that through philosophical reasoning -- but the proof can still be applied to everything and its pet cat.

I know that the description of God in the Bible is the true one. It's Faith.

Faith does not make the inherent nature of the world of man -- opinion -- that of knowledge. Everything is questionable as it has to be observed through a biased, irregular and above all basically stupid being.

Originally Posted by NuHylian7

There are even some evidences for the trinity in the torah, from the very beggining there are. Look to the creation story, "Let US make man in OUR image" why is God speaking plural to himself. He can't be talking to angels for we are not made in the image of angels. And the word for God used there "Elohim" in hebrew is plural, but the old testament makes clear there is only one true God. So is it a contradiction.

As far as I know, God usually says 'I'. This would be the first case I've heard of when he'd say 'us' and 'ours'. If this is the only time he says so then it doesn't count for much, does it? And I'm pretty sure neither Jesus or the holy ghost existed back then either way, so I'm just gonna go ahead and say we can ignore this altogether. It's a wee bit off-topic but I just wanted to throw it out there.

Just for the heck of it, I'm gonna throw something else out here, that's quite common:

Originally Posted by God

Thou shall not have other God's before me

Ya... by saying this, he recognizes that there are other gods. And I know, you can play the word game and have him mean something else, but if that's the case, your above point I answered to is also utterly pointless seeing as how I can do the very same thing.

This is why religious quotes fail. You can make God say anything you want, basically. I can probably find something in the bible that by God's will gives me the right to throw lime fruits at senior police officers in Dublin.

I think we can assume any quotes from any God are safe from nitpicky grammatical points because they've been translated from the mother dialect -- where they made sense -- into a daughter dialect which wouldn't make as much sense even if it was in the spoken form of 2,000 years ago.

^ While that is true (and yet another reason why quotes fail), some people keep claiming no change has been made whatsoever. Either way, there are flaws to be had.

And now watch me tie this to the topic

Since we obviously can't rely on that everything in the bible or koran is correct, how can we say that the differences in their respective description of God really matter?

Is there an inconsitancies of the Bible thread already? If there is I'll post what I believe as far as the possibilty for an infalible revalation there.

Let us make man in our image. Try finding a translation that doesn't have that in it. You are chosing what to throw out as proof for your own reasons, where as I just pointed out what's there. Also give me a couple days to dig up my evidence for the trilogy in the old testament. That might be its own thread though.

Nu Hylian