Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

[Renji]

Trouble is that none of you people actually bother to study scripture.

So you call what you do as 'studying the scripture'? You're just using the scripture but is not giving out anything that could back it up....

 

[Renji]

Tssk, tssk, that's the problem with you. You are so literalist that you always look for verses. Well let's see what Dardess have to say on that: "First of all, the Koran uses the pronoun I or He when referring to God. " Clearly bowman, it's either on the first or second person. Let's continue: "In Quran, God speaks directly to humankind. THERE IS NO INTERMEDIARY voice in it, NO NARRATOR, NO HUMAN SPEAKER AT ALL-NOT EVEN THE VOICE OF MUHAMMAD. God and God alone is heard, in tones as fresh and vibrant as those in which God first delivered them to Muhammad fourteen hundred years ago." Again bowman, it's first person when the chapters say "I". FYI, Dardess is a Christian who studied Islamic teachings for many years. So there would be no bias in his statement.

And yeah, only one man wrote the Koran. That can actually be traced from highschool history books: "Muhammad wrote the Koran at around 610 to 632 CE. However, it is still not in book form in 632, year of his death"-- text from my highschool history book, written by a G. Zaide, a historian.

Note:I'm not actually saying that I agree on their faith, but I just want to clarify the facts historically and based on the studies of Dardess. I just don't want someone to twist the facts. That would be insulting if someone do the same on the Catholic Church.

Give me historical and literature proofs that could dispute this, Bowman and perhaps we could get on something useful and worth debating.

 

[Quagmire]

Nope.

Yup.

You're stalling.

Again.

Stalling? put it this way: "Since you won't answer my questions, neither will I answer yours"

Bet a bunch you have no idea at all what that's from.
(although I would fully expect you to Google it and claim you already knew).

You have nothing.

I would put my knowledge of the Bible up against yours any day, in any arena. First though, we would have to make sure we're talking about the same Bible.

So again, Bowman, what version are you using (and just how big a box of crayons did it come with?)

Come back when you can back up your assertions instead of mocking...

You're consistently backing my assertions up for me. In this case, the mockery is almost unavoidable.

 

[Bowman]

Neither does the Bible. The idea that it does is actually a fairly recent bit of self-serving propaganda.

Your stalling has ended, brother...


And he says to me, Write: Blessed are the ones having been called to the supper of the marriage of the Lamb. And he says to me, These Words of God are true. (Rev 19.9)



And I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of Heaven from God, having been prepared as a bride, having been adorned for her Husband. And I heard a great voice out of Heaven, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God with men! And He will tabernacle with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes. And death shall be no longer, nor mourning, nor outcry, nor will there be pain any more; for the first things passed away. And the One sitting on the throne said, Behold! I make all things new. And He says to me, Write, because these Words are faithful and true. (Rev 21.2 – 5)



And I, John, was the one seeing and hearing these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel showing me these things. (Rev 22.8)



The bulk of the Koranic material is taken directly from the Book of Revelation – of which, this Biblical material is clearly signed by John, as both seeing and hearing Jesus’ divine Revelation and writing it down.

John was directly inspired to write down the Words of God.

 

[Quagmire]

Your stalling has ended, brother...


And he says to me, Write: Blessed are the ones having been called to the supper of the marriage of the Lamb. And he says to me, These Words of God are true. (Rev 19.9)

Yeah, that's an angel talking to someone receiving a vision. It's supposed to be taken for granted that an angel (ie, a messenger of God) would be conveying God's wordsto the person receiving the vision.

This says absolutely nothing about any event outside of the vision, and is making no claim for any writings or words outside of the message contained in the vision.

One portion of one event in one book. Not a very strong case for categorizing a collection of books under the same heading.

We can take any random dialogue from any part of the Bible and make the same weak case: If we use, for example, "Pilate said to the crowd...." are we then to assume that the entire Bible is meant to be considered the words of Pilate? It wouldn't be any more ridiculous than what you're trying to do with your examples.

And I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of Heaven from God, having been prepared as a bride, having been adorned for her Husband. And I heard a great voice out of Heaven, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God with men! And He will tabernacle with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes. And death shall be no longer, nor mourning, nor outcry, nor will there be pain any more; for the first things passed away. And the One sitting on the throne said, Behold! I make all things new. And He says to me, Write, because these Words are faithful and true. (Rev 21.2 – 5)

Yes, THESE WORDS, that is, the words in that particular passage. Unless you're trying to claim that John wrote the entire Bible.

And I, John, was the one seeing and hearing these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel showing me these things. (Rev 22.8)

Again: one portion, of one event, from one book. And again: unless you're trying to suggest that John wrote the entire Bible, how do these examples come anywhere near suggestion that the entire Bible is claiming to be "The Word of God"?

(I'll even give you the answer: they don't).

The bulk of the Koranic material is taken directly from the Book of Revelation –

AH! and since, just now, you were showing why you believe the book of Revelation to be the Word of God, or at least a claim to that effect, it would follow that you now believe that the Koran, based on these words, would also have to be the word of God.

Interesting development.

of which, this Biblical material is clearly signed by John, as both seeing and hearing Jesus’ divine Revelation and writing it down.

John was directly inspired to write down the Words of God.

Again: one event, from one portion, of one book.

And again: since that event detailed an account of a vision, ie., a revelation, of course it's to be assumed by the reader that the message of the vision is supposed to be God's words. That's how visions/revelations work in the Bible.

Even taking into account the writings of the Prophets, visions only make up a small portion of the text as a whole.

 

[Bowman]

Yeah, that's an angel talking to someone receiving a vision. It's supposed to be taken for granted that an angel (ie, a messenger of God) would be conveying God's wordsto the person receiving the vision.

This says absolutely nothing about any event outside of the vision, and is making no claim for any writings or words outside of the message contained in the vision.

One portion of one event in one book. Not a very strong case for categorizing a collection of books under the same heading.

We can take any random dialogue from any part of the Bible and make the same weak case: If we use, for example, "Pilate said to the crowd...." are we then to assume that the entire Bible is meant to be considered the words of Pilate? It wouldn't be any more ridiculous than what you're trying to do with your examples.

Your ignorance of the Book of Revelation is showing, brother.

The Book of Revelation is almost entirely composed of OT material.

Demonstrating our point in this one book alone demolishes any argument you could make...

Yes, THESE WORDS, that is, the words in that particular passage. Unless you're trying to claim that John wrote the entire Bible.

Again: one portion, of one event, from one book. And again: unless you're trying to suggest that John wrote the entire Bible, how do these examples come anywhere near suggestion that the entire Bible is claiming to be "The Word of God"?

(I'll even give you the answer: they don't).

Again: one event, from one portion, of one book.

And again: since that event detailed an account of a vision, ie., a revelation, of course it's to be assumed by the reader that the message of the vision is supposed to be God's words. That's how visions/revelations work in the Bible.

Even taking into account the writings of the Prophets, visions only make up a small portion of the text as a whole.

The quoted verses reside at the end of the Book of Revelation, and encompass the entirety of it....of which, you are now cognizant that it already references the whole of previous scripture.

AH! and since, just now, you were showing why you believe the book of Revelation to be the Word of God, or at least a claim to that effect, it would follow that you now believe that the Koran, based on these words, would also have to be the word of God.

Interesting development.

Nope.

The authors of the Koran never claim that it was divinely inspired.

They do, however, claim that the Biblical material that they copied was divinely inspired.

Try again...

 

[Quagmire]

Your ignorance of the Book of Revelation is showing, brother.

The Book of Revelation is almost entirely composed of OT material.

Wrong, it's a low quality remake of the Book of Daniel. What does that prove?

Demonstrating our point in this one book alone demolishes any argument you could make...

Don't say, show.

The quoted verses reside at the end of the Book of Revelation, and encompass the entirety of it....

Only if you choose to ignore John's messages to the 7 churches and his narration of the events therein.

of which, you are now cognizant that it already references the whole of previous scripture.

References? We're referencing scripture in this thread. Does that mean our posts are the Word of God?

Really, Bowman. You' haven't shown anything so far except what you personally believe.

For your argument to have any worth whatsoever you would have to demonstrate (not just say) how the words of one character, in one portion of one book are somehow meant to be taken as a description of every portion of all the books.

Good luck with that.

Nope.

The authors of the Koran never claim that it was divinely inspired.

LOL! Maybe not, but you were just making that claim for them whether you realize it or not.

They do, however, claim that the Biblical material that they copied was divinely inspired.

So if someone copies "divinely inspired material", the material in the copies somehow ceases to be divinely inspired?

In that case you should probably throw away your Bible (or do you have the original ?)

Try again...

Balls in your court.

 

[Yona]

The Trinity, crucifix, resurrection, communion, Hail Marys, and what have you stem from the Christian views of Jesus. The Jews do not have this because Jesus is seen as no body significant. The Muslims view Jesus as a prophet. But Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah, or one of the more cultural or or language spelling correct names of God, he is the same God. It's not sugarcoating anything, it's rather the acknowledgment that they all worship the same exact God, and even the Koran states this that the Jews and Christians are too Muslim, which translates to "submissive to God" in which they are all submissive to the same God.

Precisely and while yes, each faith has traditions, teachings and beliefs that are distinct and make each religion and it's culture distinct, all three do infact worship the same Deity. Infact if you were to drastically simplfy things it could read like this:

Judaism = Judaism.
Christianity = Judaism + Jesus.
Islam = Judaism +Jesus +Muhammad.

While, yes, Christianity is drastically different from Judaism they still share similar core teachings and Christianity's teachings are based upon the teachings of the prophets of Judaism plus the teaching of Jesus and his disciples and for Muslims, they believe in the teachings of Jesus plus the teachings of Muhammad and his sucessors (whomever one believes them to be) and again, shares core teachings with both Judaism and Christianity. Again, while distinct teachings and beliefs and practices may seperate us, we still worship the same G-d. It again seems silly to me to argue over semantics or words and so on when the answer is clear. Literally, regardless of sectarian arguments, the Deity is the same, the one G-d. I mean, all three are monotheistic and teach that there is only one G-d and that this G-d is the creator of all and that he was the G-d of Abraham and of Moses and of David, if all three talk about this one G-d, who created everything, who is one and that this unity and singularity is like none on Earth, who do you think this one G-d is? Who do you think they are all talking about? Logic would say the same G-d especially considering all three share the same spiritual father, Abraham.

 

[Bowman]

Wrong, it's a low quality remake of the Book of Daniel. What does that prove?

You have not read nor studied the Book of Revelation.

Thus...another of your meritless assertions...

References? We're referencing scripture in this thread. Does that mean our posts are the Word of God?

Really, Bowman. You' haven't shown anything so far except what you personally believe.

For your argument to have any worth whatsoever you would have to demonstrate (not just say) how the words of one character, in one portion of one book are somehow meant to be taken as a description of every portion of all the books.

Good luck with that.

Your initial assertion has been defeated through the very scriptures contained at the end of the Book of Revelation.

You have nothing left to deny.

LOL! Maybe not, but you were just making that claim for them whether you realize it or not.

You don't sound too confident, brother...

So if someone copies "divinely inspired material", the material in the copies somehow ceases to be divinely inspired?

The authors of the Koran state that the Holy Bible is divinely inspired.

However, you have not read nor studied the Koran, thus, yet more meritless assertions on your part.

 

[Quagmire]

You have not read nor studied the Book of Revelation.

Yes, I have. and I've done it objectively, not through the filter of an agenda.

Thus...another of your meritless assertions...

again: show, don't tell.

Your initial assertion has been defeated through the very scriptures contained at the end of the Book of Revelation.

Wrong. If anything all you've done is make my case for me by showing how baseless your beliefs are. Anyone with their eyes open (and with any sense) can see that all your argument demonstrates is your own desperate need to believe something that has no reasonable---or even biblical---basis.

I've explained why your argument doesn't work (although I do congratulate you on finally trying to actually present an argument). You haven't addressed my objections. All you've done is make meaningless and undemonstrated accusations of ignorance on my part.

Basically all you've said in response to my objections just boils down to "You disagree with me, therefore you don't know what you're talking about". How much weight do you expect that to carry with anyone other than yourself?

You have nothing left to deny.

That's OK, I'm not the one in denial here.

You don't sound too confident, brother...

Just a figure of speech, amigo. The claim of devine origin for the Koran is Muslim tradition, just as the claim for divine origin of the Bible is nothing more than "Christian" tradition (and sorry for the quotation marks but I really don't want to lump any innocent bystanders into the same group). What's more the Christian's claim is a fairly recent tradition, and one held by a small (if vocal) minority.

The authors of the Koran state that the Holy Bible is divinely inspired.

However, you have not read nor studied the Koran, thus, yet more meritless assertions on your part.

It's true I haven't read all of the Koran or looked too deeply into any commentary on it, but I have read your posts and that was what I was basing my response on. And you didn't address my point or answer my question.

You're just trying to give yourself an easy out here. What does that tell you?

 

[Bowman]

Yes, I have. and I've done it objectively, not through the filter of an agenda.

If you had taken the time to read and study the Book of Revelation, then you would be cognizant that Daniel is only one of the numerous Biblical Books that it references.

A simple google search could even tell you this much…

The fact that you even mentioned Daniel, on your own, in the first place, supports my claim even more.

Put forth some effort, brother.

Wrong. If anything all you've done is make my case for me by showing how baseless your beliefs are. Anyone with their eyes open (and with any sense) can see that all your argument demonstrates is your own desperate need to believe something that has no reasonable---or even biblical---basis.

I've explained why your argument doesn't work (although I do congratulate you on finally trying to actually present an argument). You haven't addressed my objections. All you've done is make meaningless and undemonstrated accusations of ignorance on my part.

Basically all you've said in response to my objections just boils down to "You disagree with me, therefore you don't know what you're talking about". How much weight do you expect that to carry with anyone other than yourself?

You have been shown clear Biblical scripture.

You cannot deny.

You have just run out of excuses.

Just a figure of speech, amigo. The claim of devine origin for the Koran is Muslim tradition, just as the claim for divine origin of the Bible is nothing more than "Christian" tradition (and sorry for the quotation marks but I really don't want to lump any innocent bystanders into the same group). What's more the Christian's claim is a fairly recent tradition, and one held by a small (if vocal) minority.

Since you are not familiar with the Koran, how would you even know that the claim came from ‘tradition’?

You would not.

As for the Holy Bible, you have already been shown several examples from a book which summarizes the whole of the Bible – thus, this is scriptural, not ‘tradition’.

It's true I haven't read all of the Koran or looked too deeply into any commentary on it,...

Actually, your replies show that you don’t know anything at all regarding the Koran.

 

[Quagmire]

If you had taken the time to read and study the Book of Revelation, then you would be cognizant that Daniel is only one of the numerous Biblical Books that it references.

A simple google search could even tell you this much…

The fact that you even mentioned Daniel, on your own, in the first place, supports my claim even more.

Put forth some effort, brother.

I should have said "essentially"

No reason for me to give you more straws to grasp at.

You have been shown clear Biblical scripture.

and told it means something it doesn't.

You cannot deny.

No reason for me to, you haven't made any actual points yet.

You have just run out of excuses.

If that ever happens I'll know where to go to stock up again.

Since you are not familiar with the Koran, how would you even know that the claim came from ‘tradition’?

Didn't say I wasn't familiar with it. I'm just not in the habit of claiming expertise about something I haven't put the necessary time and effort into. I'm sure that seems strange to you.

You would not

As for the Holy Bible, you have already been shown several examples from a book which summarizes the whole of the Bible – thus, this is scriptural, not ‘tradition’.

You've shown me several examples of how a desperate mind can make something mean something else.

Actually, your replies show that you don’t know anything at all regarding the Koran.

More claims without demonstration.

Let me try that: your replies show that you are in fact an orange and purple talking ostrich from mars.

hmmmmm. Not seeing the appeal to this game. am I doing it wrong?

 

[kai]

Precisely and while yes, each faith has traditions, teachings and beliefs that are distinct and make each religion and it's culture distinct, all three do infact worship the same Deity. Infact if you were to drastically simplfy things it could read like this:

Judaism = Judaism.
Christianity = Judaism + Jesus.
Islam = Judaism +Jesus +Muhammad.

While, yes, Christianity is drastically different from Judaism they still share similar core teachings and Christianity's teachings are based upon the teachings of the prophets of Judaism plus the teaching of Jesus and his disciples and for Muslims, they believe in the teachings of Jesus plus the teachings of Muhammad and his sucessors (whomever one believes them to be) and again, shares core teachings with both Judaism and Christianity. Again, while distinct teachings and beliefs and practices may seperate us, we still worship the same G-d. It again seems silly to me to argue over semantics or words and so on when the answer is clear. Literally, regardless of sectarian arguments, the Deity is the same, the one G-d. I mean, all three are monotheistic and teach that there is only one G-d and that this G-d is the creator of all and that he was the G-d of Abraham and of Moses and of David, if all three talk about this one G-d, who created everything, who is one and that this unity and singularity is like none on Earth,

who do you think this one G-d is? Who do you think they are all talking about? Logic would say the same G-d especially considering all three share the same spiritual father, Abraham.

Who is this God indeed? you tell me Yona? if i am to worship Jesus as divine am i worshipping the same God as a jew or a Muslim? They are talking about their own perception of God according to distinct teachings and beliefs and practises and they dont share Abraham so much as claim him.

Remember to Muslims Christianity is corrupted which leads its believers into "shirk" (which means to consider anyone god other than the God)

 

[J2hapydna]

Who is this God indeed? you tell me Yona? if i am to worship Jesus as divine am i worshipping the same God as a jew or a Muslim? They are talking about their own perception of God according to distinct teachings and beliefs and practises and they dont share Abraham so much as claim him.

Remember to Muslims Christianity is corrupted which leads its believers into "shirk" (which means to consider anyone god other than the God)

Yeah, but to Muslims, Christians are shirking the worship of the true God with the created Messiah (full of God's spirit) not the devil, so perhaps a compassionate Muslim God can forgive a little and let the Christians slide. Similarly, to Christians, Jews and Muslim may not worship Jesus, but they are still worshipping the Father, so perhaps a compassionate Christtian God can forgive them too. To Jews, Muslims may reject the scripture, but they worship the correct form of God and Christians may reject the correct form of God, but they uphold the scripture, so a Jewish G-d may forgive them too.

I think, in the end, it comes down to whether people believe in a compassionate God or some exclusive and unforgiving God, who has no consideration for the frailities of human existence. It is not people from one religion will go to heaven, but good people from all religions will go to heaven.

 

[kai]

Yeah, but to Muslims, Christians are shirking the worship of the true God with the created Messiah (full of God's spirit) not the devil, so perhaps a compassionate Muslim God can forgive a little and let the Christians slide. Similarly, to Christians, Jews and Muslim may not worship Jesus, but they are still worshipping the Father, so perhaps a compassionate Christtian God can forgive them too. To Jews, Muslims may reject the scripture, but they worship the correct form of God and Christians may reject the correct form of God, but they uphold the scripture, so a Jewish G-d may forgive them too.

I think, in the end, it comes down to whether people believe in a compassionate God or some exclusive and unforgiving God, who has no consideration for the frailities of human existence. It is not people from one religion will go to heaven, but good people from all religions will go to heaven.

That could be the case but if so then theres no need for revelation is there? what's the point of revealing to the prophet the only true religion if it doesn't matter anyway?. Whats the point of God sending his son to die in order for us to reach redemption through him, if it doesn't matter anyway? and whats the point of the law if it doesn't matter anyway? just be good ,forget the rest and you will enter paradise , is that doctrine anywhere?

 

[Renji]

No reason for me to, you haven't made any actual points yet.

Well congratulations Quagmire. I thought I was the only one here who notices that. However we need more effort to make this guy post an intellectual and credible point of view. He's just diverting the discussion actually when he cannot answer a specific post.

To non-christians in my thread, please do not think that we Christians are propagandist or something. Bowman is just giving personal and literal interpretations of our Scripture. You cannot found some of his points in the Roman Catholic Cannon and dogma or other Christian sect's teachings

 

[Renji]

Let me try that: your replies show that you are in fact an orange and purple talking ostrich from mars.

:biglaugh:

Does that mean that he is using the Starwars' 3D bible?

 

[Sajdah]

I see now, so the appropriate equivalent of that in Christian teachings would be 'angels' (in that sense), and some of them (1/3 according to tradition) disobeyed God (fallen angels),and their leader is Satan.....

Interesting, that's the first time to know that angels have free will in christianty, anyway, thanks for the information!

 

[Renji]

Interesting, that's the first time to know that angels have free will in christianty, anyway, thanks for the information!

Yeah, some chose to serve God, and some had become fallen and joined Satan to deceive mankind

 

[J2hapydna]

That could be the case but if so then theres no need for revelation is there? what's the point of revealing to the prophet the only true religion if it doesn't matter anyway?. Whats the point of God sending his son to die in order for us to reach redemption through him, if it doesn't matter anyway? and whats the point of the law if it doesn't matter anyway? just be good ,forget the rest and you will enter paradise , is that doctrine anywhere?

Kai, I suppose, if one thinks the purpose of scripture was to make one and his tribe smarter and wiser than all others, then there would be no purpose of giving people a scripture. However, if the goal was to enable people to talk to each other and find ways to reflect on their scriptures in a light they may not ordinarily see, then it would make sense to give three different nations three different lights, so the tyrants and maniacs who usually end up in power and destroy these lights could not. Personally, my life has been enriched by people from all three Abrahamic religions.