• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

SethZaddik

Active Member
Sheesh guys. I'll try to make it simple.


I have no bias over which god is what. I also see outside of god-religious perspectives because I am not Jew, Christian, nor Muslim. So, what I say will sound wrong unless you try to understand what I say rather than prove me wrong.

That's like saying you believe in the Hindu creator because he is a creator.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are totally different religions. I don't see univeralist in any of these religions and especially in their practices and interpretations of god.



That depends. You believe there is only one creator. So, it does not make sense to you that there are more than one can be worshiped. If you looked at it from a true/false perspective, unless you are saying Muslims are the same as Christians, one got to be right (according to one side) and the other wrong. I know Muslims believe Jesus is a prophet. Christians believe jesus is god. How can you reconcile the Muslim god and the Christian god when one is a being and the other is human.



No sarcasm.

That's the fact. Each god-religion worships their god in the way their religion dictates them to worship him. If not, Muslims can take the Eucharist and Jews can pray at a Mosque.



Where have I said that?

I said they do not and that is why they don't believe in the same god.

Please read my posts.



The traditions and rules define the gods they believe in. The Eucharist is jesus christ. Do Muslims believe this? Do Jews? Jesus christ, to mainstream christianity, is god. Do Jews believe this? Christians believe jesus is the Messiah. Do Jews believe this?

These things define the creator and their differences define the creators they believe in.



Huh?



That's your belief. Look outside your point of view into others.



That is your belief. Look at it from my point of view.



I never said they did not. Point where?



If you like. Unfortunately, I can't speak for Jews and Muslims. Only say they have different traditions, practices, and if they were one, the creator would be contradicting himself.



No slightly. Walk into a christian church. Anyone. I walked into a Mosque and we have Muslims pray here at my school. No Christian (and scripture) does not support what you guys do. It must work boths ways. Ask a christian if they believe the bible tells them to do what the creator told Muslims to do. See what they say.



You believe in one creator. Of course, you can't see that people worship different creators. I can't expect you to see that just don't be saracstic or rude.



Yep. When I practiced Catholicism, we were part of the sacraments of christ. The traditions are not separate from their beliefs. As a Jew, I am surprised that you would see your traditions separate from your beliefs. But that's just me. I value tradition. Not many do.



If you like.

It's more, my aunt told my sister the story of my grandmother on my father's side and my cousin told me the story of my grandmother on my mother's side. While they are both grandmothers (hence why yall think they are the same) they are not. Regardless if we are part of the same family (children of abraham), the fact that your traditions define your creator makes you guys completely separate.

I can't expect you to see that since this is coming from outside in. Even when I was Catholic, I knew the Muslim god wasn't the Christian god. If that be the case, the Church would let Muslims take the Eucharist. They don't even let non-catholics take the Eucharist!

Christians believe in a different god than Muslims and Jews.

I cannot speak for Muslims and Jews only that they have different traditions and to me traditions define ones belief.


Further one of the myriad variants I mentioned of El, God in Hebrew usually rendered Elohim...

Is Eloah, a=e, remember?

Aloah, looking familiar?
Let's see what happens with no vowels, the way it was written:

Alah.

Well I will be damned!

Moses, Abraham, Ishmael, Israel, Aaron, Solomon, Jesus, Mary and many others are all mentionied in the Qur'an as are Jews and Christians and it is stated that all three have legitimate religions, that there is no compulsion in religion and that Judgement was not based on being a Muslim but on works, Righteousness and of course God.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You can't know something that is factually untrue, that is called a delusion or worse, intolerance. It is like saying that you know the sky is green and the world will end tonight.


If Christians agree with Jews and they both agree altogether with Muslims as a recognized established fact according to all reputable theologians and scholars, secular and otherwise including the Catholic Church.

I am not concerned with what you delude yourself into believing at all. The Pope and everyone I know from my family to my friends also knows, my Jewish Dr. and my Christian counselor, my whole city and the Unitarian Church I visit because it hung a sign supporting Muslims on the front of the Church, huge, and my whole city of tolerant people despite our myriad other flaws don't disagree on this, the world doesn't, Islam doesn't agree with you and only extremists think they can tell another religion what God it worships, and sometimes they don't even do that.

So you can take a leap. Don't nobody give a damn about what you want to be true, the world disagrees.

What thd hell?

I dont care for sarcasm and rudeness.

If you worship the same god, tell a caholic you can take the eucharist, you believe jesus is god, and believe in scripture more than the quran.

Traditions define belief. Both define your concept of god. If you cant see that, that is not your problem. It just means you cant see outside your definition of reality.

Take a step in another persons shoes then we can talk more without insultz.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
So because I don't deny facts it makes me biased?

I don't think you know much about common sense. You are not using it and you obviously.

The God of the Bible is the same God as the God of the Qur'an, a fact of life that only the unlearned deny.

Common sense should tell you that if the Qur'an discusses Biblical events, which it does, and mentions the same Prophets PBUT, that it is the same God.

I also never said anyone accept Christianity worships Jesus PBUH.

But I did say they worship his God, our God and the Jews God too.

If you don't like sarcasm don't run around denying facts because you prefer they are not true and it wasn't sarcasm even.

Just the truth.

This is not meant to be rude. Religious bias is you cannot see pass your own nose. (Idom for you can only see whst you define as reality). Im not blaming you for that.

If you cant talk abiut god in another person viewpoint, you will always be defensive when there is no need to be.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I know, I am familiar with the various arguments and the main is that he is never addressed as a Prophet and there is another reason but I don't remember. I think it is political due to having been written after Prophecy had allegedly ceased
Nope. There wasn't a time period where prophets stopped prophesying. It was when the last prophets died that prophecy ceased. So long as Daniel was alive, prophecy had not stopped. There were still prophets around in the early years of the Second Temple and they were some of the members of the Men of the Great Assembly.

or because the book is so related to Apocalypse and had to be reinterpreted to combine the Medes and Persians to make it about Rome, although Judaism might reject that interpretation.
Not sure what you're referring to here.

What is funny is that the qualifications they set against Daniel's status apply to books in the Prophets section but Daniel is rendered Hagiographa or writings, which meant at the time scripture, now scripture means the whole Bible but once it meant just writings.
Its not a qualification of a Book but a qualification of the prophet.

Daniel is definitely utilized by the Zohar as a prophetic device, maybe even had the most influence on Jewish mysticism as a whole with Ezekiel and Isaiah,
Within the first 75 pages of the Zohar, Daniel is quoted 16 times, Jeremiah 20, Ezekiel 23 and Isaiah 104 and Psalms 141 times. So maybe not that influential.

Song of Solomon is popular for its eroticism
You're the second or third person I've ever heard describe it as that and it never would have occurred to me to do so.

But Daniel is, I would say the most Kabbalistic book in the Tanakh. Ancient of Days or Atick Yomin is a popular theme with a whole book describing Him.
Its only three mentions in chapter 7, I don't think Daniel is more explicitly kabbalistic then Isaiah or Ezekiel.

I would say he is a Prophetic Oracle, if that means anything, otherwise I say he is an Apocalyptic Prophet outright which is what they mean, they say it is for the future only, something like that. But it also applied to Antiochus Epiphanies too so I don't know what to think regarding their decision to exclude him, I don't buy it.
That doesn't seem to be the distinction the Talmud is giving him, so I'm not going to agree there.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Further one of the myriad variants I mentioned of El, God in Hebrew usually rendered Elohim...
Actually, the plural of el is elim, not elohim. Elo-ah is the singular of Elo-him.

Is Eloah, a=e, remember?

Aloah, looking familiar?
Let's see what happens with no vowels, the way it was written:

Alah.

Well I will be damned!
Actually Elo-ah does have a letter (as opposed to vowel diacritic) not present in ilah as its spelled ELoWaH. Its the Aramaic variant that you're looking for, such as is found in Daniel 2:18 and 18 - ELaH, the same letters as ILaH (إله).
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
Nope. There wasn't a time period where prophets stopped prophesying. It was when the last prophets died that prophecy ceased. So long as Daniel was alive, prophecy had not stopped. There were still prophets around in the early years of the Second Temple and they were some of the members of the Men of the Great Assembly.


Not sure what you're referring to here.


Its not a qualification of a Book but a qualification of the prophet.


Within the first 75 pages of the Zohar, Daniel is quoted 16 times, Jeremiah 20, Ezekiel 23 and Isaiah 104 and Psalms 141 times. So maybe not that influential.


You're the second or third person I've ever heard describe it as that and it never would have occurred to me to do so.


Its only three mentions in chapter 7, I don't think Daniel is more explicitly kabbalistic then Isaiah or Ezekiel.


That doesn't seem to be the distinction the Talmud is giving him, so I'm not going to agree there.

There was a time when prophecy ceased according to Judaism and it was Malachi.

They don't accept any Catholic Apocrypha though they like ben Sirach, but during the time of Hyrcanus they did give him the titles of Priest and Prophet and Messiah, but they don't consider him to be a Prophet.

Malachi was the last Prophet.
 

idea

Question Everything
Anyone who is kind, loving, humble, gentle, meek etc. worships the same God...

Those who celebrate war, who are prideful, filled with hate, ... that is the worship of a different god.
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
Actually, the plural of el is elim, not elohim. Elo-ah is the singular of Elo-him.


Actually Elo-ah does have a letter (as opposed to vowel diacritic) not present in ilah as its spelled ELoWaH. Its the Aramaic variant that you're looking for, such as is found in Daniel 2:18 and 18 - ELaH, the same letters as ILaH (إله).

You are such a nit picker, it is so annoying and not even accurate.

Eloah is feminine and El+Eloha=Elohim, also a term for what is now considered archangels or high ranking angels.

None of that other nonsense applies.

Eloah, the only vowel is o, a/e Aleph, is not a vowel, o is, you don't write current pronunciation.

Meaning no w/v/u was used.

Eloah-o=Elah=Alah.

There is absolutely no issue the word was not written with a w or any other letters and there is not a thing wrong with anything above.

You just have nitpicking issues and need to correct people to the point you make serious mistakes.
 
Last edited:

SethZaddik

Active Member
Actually, the plural of el is elim, not elohim. Elo-ah is the singular of Elo-him.


Actually Elo-ah does have a letter (as opposed to vowel diacritic) not present in ilah as its spelled ELoWaH. Its the Aramaic variant that you're looking for, such as is found in Daniel 2:18 and 18 - ELaH, the same letters as ILaH (إله).

Elim would refer to lesser idol gods only because they didn't write a polytheistic Tanakh, even Elohim, a legitimately plural word, is singular in every case it applies to God and that is more often than anything besides maybe YHVH.

Eloah is a reference to El/Elohim.

So that is an irrelevancy.

Mostly because I never mentioned anything about plurality, was not a part of my conversation.
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
This is not meant to be rude. Religious bias is you cannot see pass your own nose. (Idom for you can only see whst you define as reality). Im not blaming you for that.

If you cant talk abiut god in another person viewpoint, you will always be defensive when there is no need to be.

Don't run around telling people what God they worship if you don't want an unleashing of Biblical truths you knew nothing about which invalidate not just your assertion that Jesus PBUH was God but every Christians, but I am trying only to prove beyond dispute that you are wrong, with truth, and that is not rude.

Christians still believe in Allah, any Arabic Bible will say Allah, Catholic or otherwise.
 

SethZaddik

Active Member
What thd hell?

I dont care for sarcasm and rudeness.

If you worship the same god, tell a caholic you can take the eucharist, you believe jesus is god, and believe in scripture more than the quran.

Traditions define belief. Both define your concept of god. If you cant see that, that is not your problem. It just means you cant see outside your definition of reality.

Take a step in another persons shoes then we can talk more without insultz.

You mistake sarcasm and rudeness for just plain truth, I have to tell you because that is all I told you were facts and wasn't sarcastic or rude.

What you are experiencing is the downside of being factually incorrect and that is on you.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Don't run around telling people what God they worship if you don't want an unleashing of Biblical truths you knew nothing about which invalidate not just your assertion that Jesus PBUH was God but every Christians, but I am trying only to prove beyond dispute that you are wrong, with truth, and that is not rude.

1. I have read the whole Bible. You know nothing about me. First get to know me before making accusations.

2. You are disputing I am wrong. You are arguing with me and getting defensive for some weird reason I cannot fathom.

Christians still believe in Allah, any Arabic Bible will say Allah, Catholic or otherwise.

1. That is your belief. Ask a Catholic if he believes in Allah of the Quran.

2. Do you believe jesus christ is god/creator? (If you do, is that a Muslim belief? If not, you do not believe in the same creator. It's black and white).

You mistake sarcasm and rudeness for just plain truth, I have to tell you because that is all I told you were facts and wasn't sarcastic or rude.

1. It is not truth. It is a belief. These are not facts. These are beliefs. Facts are confirmed by evidence that can be tested and proved universally. Beliefs are personally and are confirmed mainly by a person's experience and how they see life. Nothing wrong with beliefs. Don't mistake them as facts.

What you are experiencing is the downside of being factually incorrect and that is on you.

It is not "factually" incorrect.

1. Have you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
2. Have you read the full Bible?

Do you believe jesus christ IS your lord and savior?
Do you believe in being baptized in the holy spirit?
Do you believe that you need to repent to christ to absolve your sins?
Do you believe christ IS god?

Christians and Muslims do not believe in the same creator. Maybe you and a Jehovah's Witness may slide but instead of accusing me, ask them point blank. I honestly feel they know more about the Bible than a lot of mainstream christians do.

As for the Jews and Muslims, again, all I can say is your beliefs are embedded in your traditions.

The problem is you cannot see life without a creator. You can't see anyone having another creator but your own.

There is nothing wrong with that.

As long as you want to learn from others regardless if your religion claims our facts are true or not.
 

J2hapydna

Active Member
This was only true before the Torah was given. After we received the Torah, our rule became that Israelite status was passed through the mother, but tribal identity was passed through the father. One could no longer become an Israelite through patrilineal descent as evidenced by Ezra 10:3. There it says that everyone who "fears the commandments of G-d" are told to send their non-Israelite wives and children. Had we still followed patrilineal descent those children would be Israelites and not required to have been sent out.

The maternal line could be an additional requirement to the paternity requirement and not necessarily a substitute for it.

My feeling, after reading the Bible, was that tribal identity of a Ger didn't change to Israelite. I've yet to see the term Israelite or even Yehudi applied to any man of non Israelite paternal descent. In fact, why would there even be a need for a term such as Ger Tzdek? It would be redundant.

After having received the covenant that the Torah, it also became possible to to come under the Mosaic covenant and become an Israelite through conversion as well. Then one would become a "ger" - one who converted to the Israelite religion, having the same status as any other Israelite.


The concept of a convert is already discussed in the Torah. There are two types of "ger" mentioned in the Torah. Colloquially we call them "ger tzedek" - the convert and "ger toshav" - the one who is permitted to live among the Israelites in Israel.

This is readily identifiable by two otherwise contradictory verses:
"For the congregation, there is one statute for you and for the ger who dwells; a statute for generations. As it is for you, so shall it be for the ger before G-d. One teaching (lit.Torah) and one judgment shall be for you and for the ger with you."
- Num. 15:15

Couldn't that be a reference to one law i.e. The one divine law? It doesn't mean everyone follows exactly the same rules. After all, there are even differences in how a male and female practices some rituals under the same statute. Also a difference in how a lay person and priest practices the same statute. So it is never exactly the same rituals
 
Last edited:

RESOLUTION

Active Member
Your quote was that Jews "do not accept any Prophets born outside their own people." But Jews accept that Bil'am was a prophet born outside of Judaism. No one said he was a god.

I actually said and I quoted.....
Jews do not accept any Prophets born outside their own people. In that I mean that the teachings of Moses show that the Messiah will be raised up from among their own people the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.[/QUOTED]

Your reply wasn't in line or in anyway connected with what I actually said.

I explained what I meant by that.... the following sentence shows I was referring to the Messiah and the fact is they do not accept the Messiah to be a Prophet born outside their own people. My post is clear what I meant. Your apology is accepted.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I actually said and I quoted.....
So your "clarification" is "that the teachings of Moses show that the Messiah will be raised up from among their own people the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Do you see how making a statement about a future messiah has no bearing on the question of what Judaism believes about a prophet?

There is a logical problem (the two parts of the sentence are unrelated) exacerbated by a semantic problem in your use of tenses and your conflation of unrelated ideas. These are coupled on a false premise which cannot be "clarified" once it is established as a premise and is flawed.

Your apology is accepted. And I hope your unclear English won't be a continued problem.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
This simply is not true.

"Presbyterian" means "elder", which eventually got translated into different words depending on the language. For example, "Father ___", as used in the CC, comes from that Greek word-- not the word "Abba" as found in Hebrew.

Secondly, exactly how do you know that people in various congregations are "separated from Christ"? And why is it that Jesus said "... judge ye not...", and yet so many here, mostly Protestants, are so willing to judge others? Paul said he wasn't even willing to judge himself, and yet some here feel free to play "God" themselves and judge others.

Matthew 16:18 New International Version (NIV)

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

what do you think it was?

I'm not judging people - just showing you the words in the bible.

Ephesians 4:4 New International Version (NIV)

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called;

Ephesians 2:12 Living Bible (TLB)

Remember that in those days you were living utterly apart from Christ; you were enemies of God’s children, and he had promised you no help. You were lost, without God, without hope.

Sometimes the truth hurts at the first but its the truth we all have to face in the end.
 

J2hapydna

Active Member
That is your belief. Ask a Catholic if he believes in Allah of the Quran.

In general an Arab Catholic Christian in my limited experience usually believes that Muhammad the prophet (MP) and Muslims in general are talking about the same Allah as the one in their Bible, but Muslims are incorrect in their understanding just as the Jews, Unitarians, Arians, Ebionites and Nazarenes etc are wrong. They commonly believe that MP was probably suffering from some mental disorder, so what he thought were visions sent by Allah were actually not.

The main reason for this view is that in the days of MP, Allah was the term used by Christians to describe their deity and MP used it to describe his deity too. Also since the Quran repeatedly describes Allah as the deity worshipped by Adam, Noah, Lot, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jetro, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, Solomon, Ezra etc and the one the Christians call the father of Jesus etc. so any reasonable person who reads the Quran can see this is a book talking about that deity not Zeus or Krishna etc. it doesn't even seem to be about the 360 gods that the Quraysh worshipped. Although pagan goddesses LAAT UZZA and MANAT are mentioned once in the Quran they are ridiculed and the text doesn't draw legitimacy for worshipping Allah because of them

However, it is also correct that in terms of theologies there are big differences, so one can also reach the conclusion that these are different deities.
 
Last edited:

RESOLUTION

Active Member
So your "clarification" is "that the teachings of Moses show that the Messiah will be raised up from among their own people the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Do you see how making a statement about a future messiah has no bearing on the question of what Judaism believes about a prophet?

Do you see that it has every bearing on what Judaism believes regarding the Messiah being a PROPHET?
In fact your last sentence had no bearing on my original post. So is irrelevant.
There is a logical problem (the two parts of the sentence are unrelated) exacerbated by a semantic problem in your use of tenses and your conflation of unrelated ideas. These are coupled on a false premise which cannot be "clarified" once it is established as a premise and is flawed.[.QUOTE]

Thanks for the laugh...I really needed that. Want to talk about faith fine. But leave the semantics to the professionals you haven't got the knowledge or understanding to win your argument.
Your apology is accepted. And I hope your unclear English won't be a continued problem.
I am English by birth and I am an apologist not am apologiser. Hence the reason you lost the argument. Better luck next time.
 
Top