Do the Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God....?

[Spirit_Warrior]

And what if the scholars and the clergy have contradictory views ?
I have already pointed out Judaism ( who is a jew ? ) as an example.

Then, in this case of Mormonism, can you show me non-Mormon clergy and Christian scholars who accept it as Christian? That is part 1. Then part 2 is the reasons for those who do not accept it, such as the total inversion of Christian doctrines. Going from monotheism to polytheism is a massive inversion.

You got this mixed up. You would be doing the wrong survey.
What you should be asking is whether Christian consider 'cheating on their partner' to be in line with Christian ethics.

My argument was merely to show why popularity of opinion is not a valid argument, in fact is a fallacy.

Appeal to Popularity

Description: Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.

Logical Form:

Everybody is doing X.

Therefore, X must be the right thing to do.

Example #1:

Mormonism is one of the fastest growing sects of Christianity today so that whole story about Joseph Smith getting the golden plates that, unfortunately, disappeared back into heaven, must be true!

Explanation: Mormonism is indeed rapidly growing, but that fact does not prove the truth claims made by Mormonism in any way.

Appeal to Popularity
​

(It is a totally a coincidence that the example uses Mormonism!)

But how do you determine what Christianity teaches ? That requires a considerable degree of interpretation on your part, which is inherently subjective.

There are two ways

1) I can pick up the Gospels myself and read them to a get a good idea of the common themes they teach
2) I can read Christian scholarship over the last 2000 years and get a good idea of common doctrines, tenets, beliefs

I simply do not accept your argument which appears to be arguing that it is infinitely subjective. If I read in Jain scriptures "Do not commit any violence to any living being, in thought, speech or action" that is what I understand, how else do I interpret that? Not every sentence is ambiguous. If I say "Bring me an orange" and you bring me a tomato, the fault is not in my sentence, it is in your understanding. Similarly, there are a limited number of ways you can interpret a sentence in scripture. If it ambiguous, it does lead to different interpretations, but if is not, it can lead to only a limited number, or even just one.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I meant the other major denominations. I make a distinction between the views of the laity and the views of scholars and clergy. If we did another survey how many Christians have cheated on their partner, we might see similar percentages, but that does not mean it is NOT against Christian ethics.

I have made it clear already I do not consider subjective assessment or popularity of opinion valid. I measure it by more objective standards. The degree of how much one conforms to their religion is measured by how much they believe and practice what it teaches. So I know a Jain who eats meat is not a good example of somebody in that religion or a Muslim who eats pork is not a good example.
I have a consistent and objective standard that I can equally apply to my own religion as I can another --- this leads to some uncomfortable truths for some -- but hey truth hurts, right?

There would also be a difference between churchianity, cultural christianity and actual Christ followers

Even Jesus spoke of wheat and tares. Actually real and apparently real.

 

[Tumah]

Everyone knows that leave alone a Ger, even an Israelite couldn't switch tribal identities in this way. These Israelite tribal identities were strictly passed down the patrilineal line. So if they were non Israelites, they were Ger whether Toshav or Tzedek in your opinion

What are you talking about? Leave alone a ger? A ger's children already lose the ger status and that only has practical ramfications in a few things. A ger tzedek is like an Israelite for all things (BT Yevamos 47b). Some of these people ended up as judges in the Great Sanhedrin (Tanchuma Yisro 4). A ger and certainly a non-Jew couldn't do that. If they were non-Israelite, then they weren't gerei tzedek and consequently, couldn't be studying Torah by Osniel ben Kenaz (Sifri Zos Habrah 352).

Tribal identity is not what determines whether someone is Jewish.

Finally, thanks for saving me the need to provide sources that Kenites Gher (goy) non Israelites participated in the animal sacrifices with Jews.

Looks like you counted your chickens too early.

Also that the Kenites were known as salamai and muslamai. You have now become another Jewish source I can quote

Shalama'i. Not salamai and not muslamai. Shalama'i.

 

[Tumah]

Well it's two Jews now. The other is you. Remember this is what I said,



it had nothing to do with how the word Muslim is or isn't Salamai or Muslimai.

But it does have to do with whether the Shalam'i/Kenites should properly be identified as non-Jews. Which I've clearly demonstrated from Jewish sources, they were not.

 

[Tumah]

He is actually not saying that in my opinion. I think he is saying that followers of Orthodox Islam "could be" peaceful Noachides IF they revisit their Islamic sources.
His main point is that Orthodox Islamic sources are adequate to bring about such a change. So Sunni Muslims should look within their tradition to find answers.

Beyond that I think he is also a historian who enjoys reading about secular archaeological discoveries as well as religious books on Islam to better understand the forces that shape and could potentially change the beliefs of Muslims in the region.

Watch this video.

 

[Koldo]

Then, in this case of Mormonism, can you show me non-Mormon clergy and Christian scholars who accept it as Christian? That is part 1. Then part 2 is the reasons for those who do not accept it, such as the total inversion of Christian doctrines. Going from monotheism to polytheism is a massive inversion.

Mormonism is henotheistic and not simply polytheistic.
I have looked for a survey and I have found this one: http://lifewayresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Protestant-Pastors-Views-on-Mormons.pdf

About 17% of Protestant pastors agree that Mormons are Christian.

My argument was merely to show why popularity of opinion is not a valid argument, in fact is a fallacy.

Appeal to Popularity

Description: Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.

Logical Form:

Everybody is doing X.

Therefore, X must be the right thing to do.

Example #1:

Mormonism is one of the fastest growing sects of Christianity today so that whole story about Joseph Smith getting the golden plates that, unfortunately, disappeared back into heaven, must be true!

Explanation: Mormonism is indeed rapidly growing, but that fact does not prove the truth claims made by Mormonism in any way.

Appeal to Popularity
​

(It is a totally a coincidence that the example uses Mormonism!)

There is an exception to this fallacy which happens to be applicable to this case:

"Linguistic descriptivists argue that correct grammar, spelling, and expressions are defined by the language's speakers, especially in languages which do not have a central governing body. According to this viewpoint, if an incorrect expression is commonly used, it becomes correct. In contrast, linguistic prescriptivists believe that incorrect expressions are incorrect regardless of how many people use them."

Source: Wikipedia

There are two ways

1) I can pick up the Gospels myself and read them to a get a good idea of the common themes they teach
2) I can read Christian scholarship over the last 2000 years and get a good idea of common doctrines, tenets, beliefs

I simply do not accept your argument which appears to be arguing that it is infinitely subjective. If I read in Jain scriptures "Do not commit any violence to any living being, in thought, speech or action" that is what I understand, how else do I interpret that? Not every sentence is ambiguous. If I say "Bring me an orange" and you bring me a tomato, the fault is not in my sentence, it is in your understanding. Similarly, there are a limited number of ways you can interpret a sentence in scripture. If it ambiguous, it does lead to different interpretations, but if is not, it can lead to only a limited number, or even just one.

Not every sentence is ambiguous ?

I can agree to that, but notice the issue that arises:

Deuteronomy 2 ( NIV ) - Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the wilderness these forty years, to humble and test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands.

Acts 1:24-25 ( NIV ) - Then they prayed “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs."

Just a simple example to illustrate my point. If you simply read those in their plain meaning you will realize how contradictory they are. To reconcile these sentences you need to read beyond their plain meaning.

Not to mention entire excerpts, such as Genesis 1, that are often not taken literally since they don't match our current understanding on how our world came to be. Even though there is no surrounding context that would tell you to do that.

If you simply look at how the clergy interprets the bible then you will quickly come to realize there is disagreement on many areas.

 

[whirlingmerc]

If they don't worship the same God now, they will. After all God said he would bless every family on earth in Abram's seed. The Psalms, the prophets indicate the same and eventually 'He shall be their peace'

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Mormonism is henotheistic and not simply polytheistic.

Explain how. The belief in many Gods is polytheism, as far as I know.

I have looked for a survey and I have found this one: http://lifewayresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Protestant-Pastors-Views-on-Mormons.pdf

About 17% of Protestant pastors agree that Mormons are Christian.

That is a very small percentage, so I don't think it adds a lot of weight to your case.

There is an exception to this fallacy which happens to be applicable to this case:

"Linguistic descriptivists argue that correct grammar, spelling, and expressions are defined by the language's speakers, especially in languages which do not have a central governing body. According to this viewpoint, if an incorrect expression is commonly used, it becomes correct. In contrast, linguistic prescriptivists believe that incorrect expressions are incorrect regardless of how many people use them."

Source: Wikipedia

I don't see how.

I can agree to that, but notice the issue that arises:

Deuteronomy 2 ( NIV ) - Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the wilderness these forty years, to humble and test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands.

Acts 1:24-25 ( NIV ) - Then they prayed “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs."

Just a simple example to illustrate my point. If you simply read those in their plain meaning you will realize how contradictory they are. To reconcile these sentences you need to read beyond their plain meaning.

I agree, that there is a degree of interpretation required when dealing with specific passages, but I meant there are reoccurring themes, like monotheism in the Bible, I cited many passages earlier from the bible to show this.

I would interpret the above according to different contexts. The first is saying the Lord tested the person to see what was in their heart and the second is saying the same in a different context that the Lord knows what is in everybodies heart. I do not see any explicit contradiction here. In both passages the lord knows what is in each person's heart.

If you simply look at how the clergy interprets the bible then you will quickly come to realize there is disagreement on many areas.

So again, my argument is far broader, there are certain themes which reoccur throughout the bible e.g. monotheism which are central to Christian theology. Mormonism inverts these.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Spirit_Warrior , do you know what henotheism is?

 

[Koldo]

Explain how. The belief in many Gods is polytheism, as far as I know.

"Henotheism (Greek ἑνας θεός henas theos "one god") is the worship of a single god while not denying the existence or possible existence of other deities.[1][2] Friedrich Schelling (1775–1854) coined the word, and Friedrich Welcker (1784-1868) used it to depict primordial monotheism among ancient Greeks.[3]" - Wikipedia

That is a very small percentage, so I don't think it adds a lot of weight to your case.

I have shown to you non-Mormon clergy that accepts Mormons as Christians which you have asked for.

I don't see how.

It is how a word is used that gives it meaning.

I agree, that there is a degree of interpretation required when dealing with specific passages, but I meant there are reoccurring themes, like monotheism in the Bible, I cited many passages earlier from the bible to show this.

I would interpret the above according to different contexts. The first is saying the Lord tested the person to see what was in their heart and the second is saying the same in a different context that the Lord knows what is in everybodies heart. I do not see any explicit contradiction here. In both passages the lord knows what is in each person's heart.

The contradiction is that at one moment God needs to test people to know their hearts but at another God knows everyone's heart without any test.

Regarding Monotheism being a constant in the bible, I suggest reading Psalms. You will find some references to multiple gods existing.

 

[Katzpur]

"Henotheism (Greek ἑνας θεός henas theos "one god") is the worship of a single god while not denying the existence or possible existence of other deities.[1][2] Friedrich Schelling (1775–1854) coined the word, and Friedrich Welcker (1784-1868) used it to depict primordial monotheism among ancient Greeks.[3]" - Wikipedia

Regarding Monotheism being a constant in the bible, I suggest reading Psalms. You will find some references to multiple gods existing.

This is absolutely correct. The Bible does, on occasion, mention other Gods, and not always in a derogatory manner. It actually says that God is the "God of gods." If all references to "gods" were to "false gods," Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 22:22, Psalm 136:2, Daniel 2:47, Daniel 11:36 and Daniel 11:68 would all have to be interpreted as saying that the Almighty God, the God we worship is the "God of false gods." Logically, if God is the God of gods, doesn't that even make Him greater than if He were just the "God of men"?

The important thing for us to note is that these gods have absolutely nothing to do with us. They cannot hear our prayers, and if they could, they would be powerless to answer them. In 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, we read Paul's words concerning these other "gods": "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." Clearly, both Paul and his general audiences were henotheistic, but most Christians simply clog their ears and go into denial mode when you remind them of this.

Mormons simply recognize the existence of beings mentioned in the Bible that are referred to as "gods." They do not worship them or pray to them or consider them as having any supremacy over mankind. We don't claim to know anything about them, really. As for who we worship, we worship "one God, the Father, of whom are all things... and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things" -- just as the Apostle Paul did. So, if we're not Christians, we're apparently in pretty good company.

And just one more thing... The Bible never, ever uses any of the terminology some Christians use to exclude Mormons from the Christian family. If these individuals were to focus on what the Bible actually says instead of simply trying to slap a label of "polytheistic," "henotheistic," or "monotheistic" on everyone, they'd come out ahead in terms of actually understanding one another's position.

 

[whirlingmerc]

the Bible speaks of other godz mainly in derogatory or poetic fashion. God says in Isaiah is there another God, I know of none.

 

[Katzpur]

the Bible speaks of other godz mainly in derogatory or poetic fashion. God says in Isaiah is there another God, I know of none.

I'd say the Bible actually speaks of other "gods" in quite neutral terms, as if they are not inherently something to be despised, but simply making reference to their existence. It's when men start to either serve or worship them that God (i.e. the God of Abraham) becomes angry. When He says He knows of no other God, He is saying that, relative to His children (us), there are no others. In other words, they are "false" to us because they are entirely powerless to intervene in our lives, like our God. Paul couldn't really make this more clear than he does in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. In fact, it's interesting to note that when he says there are those who "are called gods," he specifies not only that they are called gods "on earth" but also "in heaven."

 

[MHz]

Yes but all 3 do it imperfectly.

 

[J2hapydna]

But it does have to do with whether the Shalam'i/Kenites should properly be identified as non-Jews. Which I've clearly demonstrated from Jewish sources, they were not.

Most of us know that the Israelite covenant was linked to a patrilineal tribal identity. So, if you have a verse saying that someone could adopt a Jewish tribal identity thru conversion (with all it privileges) then share it. As far as I know, even an Israelite couldn't just decide to become a Levite or Aaronite etc. you had to have patrilineal descent. However if you know of such a verse then share it.

Other than that, I just wanted to show that a non Israelite tribe of Kenites that had no covenant with the Jewish deity for land or tithes and that lived in separate cities did perform sacrifices with the Jews. whether the Quran calls its followers Muslims because these Kenites were known as Shalamai and Muslamai is incidental as far as I'm concerned.

So once again thanks for confirming it.

 

[J2hapydna]

1. Watch this video.

This video seems heavily edited, but still we can make out that he repeatedly says "if true" it "could be" ... In other words the similarity between the names is not a strong reason to believe Islam is the Din of the Kenites. He is just making an interesting observation

What we have established as real evidence, so far, is:


1. the Quraysh did worship a deity with the same name as the Christians by performing animal sacrifices at the Kaba

2. There was a Ger tribe of Midianites or Kenites who were also called Shalomai who lived in separate towns in Israel and maintained a separate non Israelite tribal identity that sacrificed animals and performed the Hajj etc at the temple.

 

[J2hapydna]

However, what is notable here that Jews themselves living in the times of Mohammed, drew the line between Judaism and Islam. That is because they knew of Allah's Pagan past, possibly a moon God, hence they did not accept Mohammed's effort to pass of Allah as YHWH. I understand there have been a few later Jewish scholars who have accepted Allah as the Jewish God, but the overall consensus appears to be Jewish people do not accept Allah as their God.

You need to consider that the Jewish tribes in Arabia didn't represent the official Jewish position on MP and Allah. The exilarchs did

On that front, caliph Umer restored the exilarchy for the first time since the time of Jesus , reversed the proclamation to murder Jews and lifted the ban on Jews entering Jerusalem imposed by Heraclius. Then Ali settled in Kufa which was essentially a Jewish town. Then the exilarchs essentially assisted Ali defend his rule in a civil war against the Ummayds.

 

[J2hapydna]

Abraham Jacob and Moses did replace Noah's covenant for Jews according to Judaism. According to Maimonides, creating a religion that isn't strictly the Noahide Laws is prohibited.

Judaism falls within the definition of the family of Noachide religions.

MP said he didn't create a new religion. This is the religion of your ancestors ... as the Quran says

Did Moses forbid Jetro from going back and telling his people?

 

[J2hapydna]

But besides for all of that, to say that a nation last heard from in Saul's time popped up almost 1,500 years later as polytheists who kept a tradition of their original name and monotheistic beliefs - despite being polytheists - to lend it to a new religion, that's a bit of a stretch, no?

Good question. I didn't say that they popped up 1,500 years later in Mecca without any sign. I think it is possible that Jews such as Onias the priest who were trying to minister to and unite Egyptians and Assyrians in an effort to fulfill Isaiah 19 may have rekindled their links with the Kenites and pagan Israelite priests in Egypt etc to further their program. Onias and his family would certainly have known about the history of the Kenites and could easily have transmitted a lot of their knowledge and customs to these people. In fact doesn't Josephus talk about some non Israelites working for the priests taking the treasures of the temple on the night before it was destroyed by the Romans?

 

[whirlingmerc]

I'm curious what the most stunning examples of mercy in Islam scriptures might be

Is there anything on the order of Hosea
see --> Hosea and his family, a portrait of grace
or possibly Jonah?

Is there a spectacular portrayal of mercy to point to?