(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yeah right. You don't stop trolling me until it's your turn to reply. Then nothing.

I guess I really can't do anything if you don't' believe me ...

Oh well.

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You quote an Islam website on another religion. Are you serious?!

Yes, but my point still remains correct that Arab Jews and Christians have been calling God "Allah" for centuries, which you denied earlier.

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: And lol to those videos.

Very amusing, eh? Especially when you get proven to be wrong.

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you want the counter argument to your link, it's here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses...entity.htm

And I am not convinced by the counter arguments at all ... sorry, pal.

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Well your Wikipedia link says differently. "Some scholars trace the name to the South Arabian Ilah, a title of the Moon god"

You left out the important part in that quote which I will include below:

Quote:Some scholars trace the name to the South Arabian Ilah, a title of the Moon god, but this is a matter of antiquarian interest ... it is clear from Nabataean and other inscriptions that Allah meant 'the god'.

And I posted more things on the moon god theory which you haven't addressed in your post.

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: And I explained to you the Christian response to that, which you thanked me for. Unlike in Islam, Christianity is consistent with Judaic theology. This speaks volumes to me about your claims of flawed interpretation. But I'm not here to argue with you about it. I have merely stated that there are differences. Islam has a vested interest in making God and Allah the same. You have to argue it I guess.

No problem if you don't want to argue about it. I don't have much interest in arguing about that either, so ... let's just save our time.

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You touch upon the simple difference betwen our faiths, the trinity, but fail to address the meat of the argument: the evolutionary step I refer to, mentioned above.

You mean that God came down to earth in the form of a man and then crucified himself on a cross and then came back to life just to make a sacrifice?

Whoa, dude. That really is a great evolutionary step.

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The Judaic God and the Christian God are identical, from the Old Testament. the interpretation of the trinity causes some post interpretation perhaps, but the reading is exactly the same. Jesus as a Jew links directly to Judaism and Judaic law. There is no misheard approximations as found in the words of Mohammed... the trinity of the the father, mother and son, for example.

I disagree because according to the Old Testament - just like in Islam - it is considered to be a great blasphemy and a sin to attribute Jesus as being God Himself or anything of that sort. To the Jews and Muslims, Jesus was only a Prophet of God, nothing else. And he didn't come to earth to perform any kind of a sacrifice on himself for anyone's sins. However, one of the core beliefs of Christianity is the death of Jesus/God as an "atonement" for sins. That is one of the central beliefs of Christians today which are in contradiction with Muslim and Jewish beliefs.

The two lectures below (from a Rabbi) explain how authors of the Bible have changed and misinterpreted the Old Testament to such an extent that they themselves have misled Christians like yourself about the original teachings on God, His attributes, and His relation to man ... all which you merely think you know.

Amazing Differences Between Christianity & Judaism

Judaism vs Christianity: Parting the Ways

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Christianity isn't a 3rd party bolt on. It's a continuation from the source material.

Well, if it's really a continuation, and if the Gospels are unchanged and if everything is translated correctly from the original Hebrew, then there shouldn't be any contradictions between the OT and the NT, but there are. You can see some of those contradictions and inconsistencies between them at the link below:

Why Jews Cannot Accept the New Testament

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I was looking for this earlier - a nice tableture comparison between the 3 Abrahamic faiths: http://christianityinview.com/xncomparison.html

And that comparison further supports my opinion that the Islamic and the Judaic concepts of God have a greater similarity between them than they have with that of Christianity.

Not to mention that the whole Trinity aspect is indeed a major difference, not a minor one.

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Damn. And another: http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/compa...ianity.htm

Same as above.

---

(May 7, 2013 at 10:10 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Let me get this straight... are you saying that the Christian God and Allah are the same god or not?

Yes, but just not the same as the altered and re-defined "Christian God" whom you believe became the man Jesus.

There is even some evidence that the first Christians did not worship Jesus as God:
http://www.amazon.com/Did-First-Chri.../dp/0664231969

Quote:In the light of such reflection and conclusion the particular question, 'Did the first Christians worship Jesus?', can be seen to be much less relevant, less important and potentially misleading. It can be answered simply, or simplistically, even dismissively, with a mainly negative answer. No, by and large the first Christians did not worship Jesus as such. Worship language and practice at times do appear in the New Testament in reference to Christ. But on the whole, there is more reserve on the subject. Christ is the subject of praise and hymn-singing, the content of early Christian worship, more than the one to whom the worship and praise is offered.

- James Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, p.150

(May 8, 2013 at 5:21 am)Rayaan Wrote: I guess I really can't do anything if you don't' believe me ...

The facts tell a story Ray. Why not post a place holder saying you'd get back?

(May 8, 2013 at 5:21 am)Rayaan Wrote: my point still remains correct that Arab Jews and Christians have been calling God "Allah" for centuries, which you denied earlier.

So you're taking a very biased source as fact. I don't. Point not proven. Allegation still denied.

(May 8, 2013 at 5:21 am)Rayaan Wrote: And I am not convinced by the counter arguments at all ... sorry, pal.

How surprising. I hope you rationalised both sides fully to come up with your own thoughts. I'm sure we can all trust that.

(May 8, 2013 at 5:21 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Well your Wikipedia link says differently. "Some scholars trace the name to the South Arabian Ilah, a title of the Moon god"

You left out the important part

No. That was the important part which directly contradicted your assertion.

(May 8, 2013 at 5:21 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: And I explained to you the Christian response to that, which you thanked me for. Unlike in Islam, Christianity is consistent with Judaic theology. This speaks volumes to me about your claims of flawed interpretation. But I'm not here to argue with you about it. I have merely stated that there are differences. Islam has a vested interest in making God and Allah the same. You have to argue it I guess.

No problem if you don't want to argue about it. I don't have much interest in arguing about that either, so ... let's just save our time.

Then why are you trolling me here??

(May 8, 2013 at 5:21 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You touch upon the simple difference betwen our faiths, the trinity, but fail to address the meat of the argument: the evolutionary step I refer to, mentioned above.

You mean that God came down to earth in the form of a man and then crucified himself on a cross and then came back to life just to make a sacrifice?

Whoa, dude. That really is a great evolutionary step.

Right. You don't begin to understand. No problem.

(May 8, 2013 at 5:21 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The Judaic God and the Christian God are identical, from the Old Testament. the interpretation of the trinity causes some post interpretation perhaps, but the reading is exactly the same. Jesus as a Jew links directly to Judaism and Judaic law. There is no misheard approximations as found in the words of Mohammed... the trinity of the the father, mother and son, for example.

I disagree because according to the Old Testament - just like in Islam - it is considered to be a great blasphemy and a sin to attribute Jesus as being God Himself or anything of that sort. To the Jews and Muslims, Jesus was only a Prophet of God, nothing else. And he didn't come to earth to perform any kind of a sacrifice on himself for anyone's sins. However, one of the core beliefs of Christianity is the death of Jesus/God as an "atonement" for sins. That is one of the central beliefs of Christians today which are in contradiction with Muslim and Jewish beliefs.

Yeah, you don't get this either. Sure, our faiths reach very different conclusions (see the tables). But what Xtianity takes from Judaism is unadulterated Judaism, with the addition of a Jewish interpretation if the messiah was to appear. Some Jews would argue that Jesus didn't fulfil their exact prophesies, but Christians, and Jesus, showed how those prophesies did indeed apply.

Now this is very different to what Mohammed did to Judaism. He took Judaism and erm... changed it but didn't add anyting to it. In fact his version is Judaism made worse. Allah takes on attributes that contradict the Judaic God. And to what end?

:: video's I can't watch from here ::

(May 8, 2013 at 5:21 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(May 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Christianity isn't a 3rd party bolt on. It's a continuation from the source material.

Well, if it's really a continuation, and if the Gospels are unchanged and if everything is translated correctly from the original Hebrew, then there shouldn't be any contradictions between the OT and the NT, but there are. You can see some of those contradictions and inconsistencies between them at the link below:

So let me see if I understand your argument here Ray. You're saying the NT must be a fake because it contradicts some of the OT?

So you missed the memo where Jesusaid he came to interpret the laws correctly? Rabbi's confirm this. Christ says that he changes nothing of the law, but comes to re-interpret it to it's original meaning.

Once more, as it doesn't seem to be sinking in: the Christian Bible OT is not an attempt to re-write the OT. The point is to takee the original text.

Of course Jews don't accept that Jesus was the Messiah. they wouldn't be Jews if they did now would they? I do know Jews that converted to Christianity too.

The NT isn't the OT extended addition. It's the OT fullfilled by the messiah it fortells.

(May 8, 2013 at 5:21 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(May 7, 2013 at 10:10 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Let me get this straight... are you saying that the Christian God and Allah are the same god or not?

Yes, but just not the same as the altered and re-defined "Christian God" whom you believe became the man Jesus.

Yes. Get over it. The Judaic father God is identical to God the father, God the holy spirit and parts of God the son that Christians understaind from the OT.

(May 8, 2013 at 5:21 am)Rayaan Wrote: There is even some evidence that the first Christians did not worship Jesus as God:

Those were cults Ray. Yes, a few people got it wrong. That's also addressed in the Bible with letters to those churches.

LMAO! Are you for real? Have you even looked at how different the Christian version of the Abrahamic God is from the Jewish version of it? One is all "I'll burn you in a vat of lava for all eternity because I'm a nasty cunt and I hate you all!!!!" And the other is all loving and forgiving and newborn-baby-kitten-like.

Islam has it's own version of the same god. It is still the same god. The same one that Abraham first worshipped. Unless you're suggesting that Abraham met two Gods? How many Gods are there supposed to be in your opinion anyway?

Another thing you keep doing that's annoying is talking about the Trinity as if it is a basic Christian belief. No. The Trinity isn't something all Christians believe. So stop it.

Is this "trinity" bull crap stolen from the Celts (with little or no understanding) and their triune gods?

wasn't it ripped of the sumerians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Celtic_deities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigid a triple goddess

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrigu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_gods

Seems the number three was of significance with the Celts






the Triskelion represents the innate human ability to “land on our feet” no matter what life throws at us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triskele

(May 8, 2013 at 12:07 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: LMAO! Are you for real? Have you even looked at how different the Christian version of the Abrahamic God is from the Jewish version of it? One is all "I'll burn you in a vat of lava for all eternity because I'm a nasty cunt and I hate you all!!!!" And the other is all loving and forgiving and newborn-baby-kitten-like.

Do you even read what people write on this forum Nora?

(May 8, 2013 at 12:07 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Islam has it's own version of the same god. It is still the same god. The same one that Abraham first worshipped. Unless you're suggesting that Abraham met two Gods? How many Gods are there supposed to be in your opinion anyway?

Not from the conclusions muslims draw from that God. Allah has conflicting attributes. Go ask a Jew.

(May 8, 2013 at 12:07 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Another thing you keep doing that's annoying is talking about the Trinity as if it is a basic Christian belief. No. The Trinity isn't something all Christians believe. So stop it.

There are indeed non trinitarian Christians. But a Christian, as widely adopted, described on the wiki page for Christianity, and commonly referred to by the vast majority of people, and is the one actually adhered to by the 3billion people that like to call themselves Christians, is someone that believes in the trinity.

(May 8, 2013 at 12:22 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

Hey!!! I have a T-shirt with this symbol on it!

Still, don't you find it odd that the christians would go all the way to Ireland to get inspiration for their new god?... Mesopotamia was just next door.

---

Here's what I mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anu

Quote:He was one of the oldest gods in the Sumerian pantheon and part of a triad including Enlil (god of the air) and Enki (god of water). He was called Anu by the later Akkadians in Babylonian culture. By virtue of being the first figure in a triad consisting of Anu, Enlil, and Enki (also known as Ea), Anu came to be regarded as the father and at first, king of the gods.

So Ray... are you still participating in this discussion? Or have you abandoned it now?

From the comparison tables, one item in particular interests me... Islam doesn't agree with Christianity and Judaism that the Adam and Eve story describes the human condition, ie fallen man.

This is what I mean when I say that Islam disagrees fundamentally with the understanding of the source text. Christianity is a perfectly acceptable translation of the source given the appearance of the Messiah... the fulfillment of the OT. What you have in Islam is a conflicting theology. One that does not and could not add up to Jews. Added to which is the conflicting ideas of what constitutes the central deity.

Mohammed wrote down the exact words of Allah as it was dictated to him (well he got someone else to write it who could write of course), where the Christian/ Judaic bible is not. Yet we have glaring inaccuracies in the text like the misunderstanding of what Christianity was about. Allah, then, didn't know everything?! Plenty of basic contradictions easily upheld doesn't help me to start trusting anything from Islam.

(May 13, 2013 at 5:33 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So Ray... are you still participating in this discussion? Or have you abandoned it now?

Well, I abandoned it earlier, but now I guess I ... unabandoned it?

I just felt like adding some more information in this thread since I had more free time today and because I wanted to see what is your response to them. I will do so by condensing my thoughts to the most important points so that the discussion doesn't become too laboring for ourselves.

(May 13, 2013 at 5:33 am)fr0d0 Wrote: From the comparison tables, one item in particular interests me... Islam doesn't agree with Christianity and Judaism that the Adam and Eve story describes the human condition, ie fallen man.

I think that the idea of "fallen man" is just a particular interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, but the story itself is basically the same in all 3 religions.

Secondly, what you said about the human condition is contrary to that which is shown in the comparison table you linked to.

Here it is again but with an inclusion of red lines:



... which shows that Islam and Judaism agree with each other that no man is born into sin, thereby negating the fall of man.

Wikipedia Wrote:Many Christian denominations believe that the fall corrupted the entire natural world, including human nature, causing people to be born into original sin, a state from which they cannot attain eternal life without the gracious intervention of God. Protestants believe that Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice for the elect, so they may be redeemed from their sin. In other religions, such as Judaism, Islam, and Gnosticism, the term "the fall" is not recognised and varying interpretations of the Eden narrative are presented. The term "prelapsarian" refers to the sin-free state of humanity prior to the fall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_man

Thirdly, we were talking about the concept of God as described in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, not about the Adam and Eve story. That's a deviation from the main topic.

As I wrote here, the whole Trinity aspect is major difference between the Christian and the Jewish view of the nature of God. You purposely skipped that (important) point.

From the other link you posted:



Which of those two are most similar to each other? Hmm that's a very difficult question actually. /not


And yes, whatever things that Jesus taught was nothing outside of Judaism; he basically taught the same Jewish laws because he was a Jew himself.

As Bart Ehrman wrote in his book Jesus, Interrupted:

Quote:We have already seen that there was nothing about Jesus’ message or his mission that stood outside Judaism. He was a Jew, born to Jewish parents, raised in a Jewish culture; he became a teacher of the Jewish law, gathered around himself a group of Jewish followers, and instructed them in the essence of what he saw to be the true worship of the Jewish God. (Ehrman, p. 237)

But, later, Paul and some other Christians before him changed the central message of Christianity in a way as if keeping the Jewish law has nothing to do with because, to them, only through the belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus as an atonement for sins can a person be saved - not through the Jewish law.

Quote:Jesus taught his followers to keep the law as God had commanded in order to enter the kingdom. Paul taught that keeping the law had nothing to do with entering the kingdom. For Paul, only the death and resurrection of Jesus mattered. The historical Jesus taught the law. Paul taught Jesus. Or, as some scholars have put it, already with Paul the religion of Jesus has become the religion about Jesus. (Although, as I have pointed out, Paul did not invent this new take on Jesus but inherited it.) (Ehrman, p. 239)

Aside from that, again, the main point of my discussion (which you still haven't been able to refute) is that the Trinitarian Christian god is certainly not the same as the Judaic god nor the Islamic god. The god that you believe in is a misinterpreted version of the Judaic god which was originally the same as the Islamic god. Your own link states that Islam and Judaism are about "strict monotheism" whereas Christianity is about "Trinitarian monotheism."

All the above is more support for my argument that the Islamic and Judaic gods have more in common with each other than they have with the contemporary Christian god.