What are the Differences between the Abrahamic Faiths?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

(he who saves?)

That would be G-d. Isn't He just the best, I love Him sooooo much.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

That would be G-d. Isn't He just the best, I love Him sooooo much.

Can't argue with that...not at all

[Faithfulservant]

Here is a big difference I think.

2 John 1:7-9 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward. Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.


I would agree Q all paths lead to God.. its where one goes afterwards that is in question.


John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall never perish but have everlasting life.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Here is a big difference I think.

2 John 1:7-9 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward. Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.


I would agree Q all paths lead to God.. its where one goes afterwards that is in question.


John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall never perish but have everlasting life.

Hi Faithfulservant

The Jesus (pbuh) Son of G-d or Prophet issue certainly seems to be the biggest difference. However, when you look at the other religious writings virtually the same verse can be found pertaining only to G-d (ie that unbelievers and deceivers are those that place anyone/anything with G-d).

For the faithful servants of each religion we have no problem, the scripture given to each of us specifically states something solid about what constitutes an unbeliever (hence all the we are right and you are wrong discussions). Where difficulties arise is that they cannot all be correct, can they? Either it is 'a must' to place a partner with G-d or it is 'forbidden'.

Or perhaps, as I believe, we are all given a seperate path by G-d to test our faith. You will never convince me that Jesus (pbuh) was the son of G-d or that he is the only way to G-d and I will never convince you otherwise. Perhaps that is not what is important. On Judgement Day we will all be accountable for our deeds and the faith in our hearts, not in how many people we convinced we are right and they are wrong.

Just a thought.

Salaam

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Hi Faithfulservant

The Jesus (pbuh) Son of G-d or Prophet issue certainly seems to be the biggest difference. However, when you look at the other religious writings virtually the same verse can be found pertaining only to G-d (ie that unbelievers and deceivers are those that place anyone/anything with G-d).

For the faithful servants of each religion we have no problem, the scripture given to each of us specifically states something solid about what constitutes an unbeliever (hence all the we are right and you are wrong discussions). Where difficulties arise is that they cannot all be correct, can they? Either it is 'a must' to place a partner with G-d or it is 'forbidden'.

Or perhaps, as I believe, we are all given a seperate path by G-d to test our faith. You will never convince me that Jesus (pbuh) was the son of G-d or that he is the only way to G-d and I will never convince you otherwise. Perhaps that is not what is important. On Judgement Day we will all be accountable for our deeds and the faith in our hearts, not in how many people we convinced we are right and they are wrong.

Just a thought.

Salaam

My bible teaches me that there is only ONE path and that path is narrow.. that path is accepting that Jesus Christ is God come to earth in the flesh to die on the cross for the sins of the world to be resurrected and He is risen to this day and He is in heaven preparing a place and will return. I cannot tell you that your way may be right because that goes against everything I am taught. I am even taught that if I do that your blood may be required at my hand..

My scriptures were written by God.. your scriptures even say so! So if I deny the authority of my scriptures I am denying the very word of God.

Let me explain something about judgement day.. According to scriptures The believers of Jesus Christ as the son of God will not be judged with those that do not believe. We are not judged because we have the righteousness of Christ Jesus.. the unbelievers are judged using the law of God. Believers works will be judged by fire for the intention of their hearts... and the judgement believers face will be the judgement of rewards not condemnation because the scriptures say that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus.

Im sorry I cannot lie to you and tell you that your way may be right and that your path is a path to salvation. I would be disobeying God.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

For the faithful servants of each religion we have no problem, the scripture given to each of us specifically states something solid about what constitutes an unbeliever (hence all the we are right and you are wrong discussions). Where difficulties arise is that they cannot all be correct, can they? Either it is 'a must' to place a partner with G-d or it is 'forbidden'.

Or perhaps, as I believe, we are all given a seperate path by G-d to test our faith. You will never convince me that Jesus (pbuh) was the son of G-d or that he is the only way to G-d and I will never convince you otherwise. Perhaps that is not what is important. On Judgement Day we will all be accountable for our deeds and the faith in our hearts, not in how many people we convinced we are right and they are wrong.

That's the kind of thinking that I like. It is the idea of not biasing oneself in either direction to say Jesus must be seen as Son (or part) of God or that Christians are wrong in their beliefs. I like the idea of not having to aggressively push my ideas on others as if I have to somehow prove myself but at the same time (the opposite) I don't want to think I'm somehow deranged or disturbed because of my beliefs.

As many of us know, the doctrine of the Trinity and the idea that Jesus is a part of God is really just a way of explaining something vague or "unclear" in the Christian New Testament (NT) -- Christianity's concept of God. The idea that Christians "assign partners" to God is a common depiction Muslims have of Christianity's concept of God. There is a possibility that Muslims may be right, that we do "assign partners" to God. On the other hand, what if Christianity's concept of God was misunderstood, not just by Muslims, but also by Christians themselves? What if this idea of "assigning partners" to God is only derived from Christians' own misconception of Christianity rather than Christianity itself being "broken" (so to speak)?

Is Christianity's concepts wrong? Most Christian beliefs arise out of an already-established culture where those beliefs are promoted and upheld. The "real Christianity" is more likely to be found in the text used by Christians. The "already-established culture" is where most people start learning about Christianity. A lot of people assume that this already-established culture defines Christianity.

The text used universally by (most) Christians around the world is the NT. Our concept of God is drawn from the hints in the NT about how God might be understood. The NT does not appear to define God. I think this is where the problem begins. Christians try to use a text that doesn't define God to go ahead and formulate a definition of God.

A text that doesn't define God treats God as an abstraction. The NT therefore treats God as an abstraction. Of course, the NT does contain hints that describe how the early Christians understood God. If these "hints" define "parts of God," they could be used to formulate a definition of God for Christianity. But there's a chance that these "hints" were never meant to define God either. If the "hints" don't define God, even parts of God, then what are they? Hints that don't define God, or parts of Him, but have something to say about God, or a person's interaction or encounter with God are more likely to be experiences of God rather than definitions of God. That may mean that Christianity never really had a definition of God. What you read in the NT, instead, is an experience of God. Does Christianity assign partners to God? Moreover, is God, in Christianity a three-in-one? These statements depend and rely on the idea that Christianity had a definition of God from the start.

That is not to say that Christianity doesn't have a "concept of God." Christianity may not have a "definition" of God but it may still have a "concept." The concept is not a definition, but an experience of God. The point here is a distinction between an abstraction and a concrete concept.

Christianity assigning partners to God? I've thought about this for quite a while. I think it unlikely that, Christianity, emerging from a Jewish culture, would have, as is commonly depicted in Islam, "assigned partners" to God. Because Judaism is the worship of one God, it would have been unlikely for Christianity to have gained ground if it had promoted such a belief. By the time the Romans came, the people of Israel had reformed, gotten rid of idol worship and became more devoted to Judaism and its concepts.

I don't see Christianity as flawed. Instead, I see our beliefs about Christianity as flawed. We believed that we needed to define God because by defining God we gave ourselves a sense of certainty. The logic behind a definition of God gave us a sense of certainty, which leads to the Christian notion of salvation. The notion of salvation is the idea that there must be some level of certainty in a religion.

This is where I think we parted from the early Christians. The early Christians were inspired and driven by an experience of God, and therefore didn't need to define God because the experience itself was enough to give them a sense of certainty that they had found God. They personally sought God. Our pursuit of definitions of God may mean that we are not as God-seeking as the early Christians and probably not as close to God as they had been. That is perhaps the problem. Jews and Muslims don't seek to define God as much as Christians. They treat God as an abstraction.

As Christians we've conditioned ourselves into believing in concrete definitions. We seem to distrust abstractions.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Let me explain something about judgement day..

The following is Matthew 25:31-46 from the King James bible (sorry it is old fashioned but it is the version of the bible I studied). Please point out to me where it says the sheep are those who believe Jesus (pbuh) is the son of G-d? Failing that can you point out where it says that Jews, Muslims, indeed anyone that believes in G-d and does good deeds is destined for hell fire?

The Judgment of the Nations

31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, Mt. 16.27 then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: Mt. 19.28
32 and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 for I was ahungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee ahungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 for I was ahungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee ahungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Dan. 12.2

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

That's the kind of thinking that I like. It is the idea of not biasing oneself in either direction to say Jesus must be seen as Son (or part) of God or that Christians are wrong in their beliefs. I like the idea of not having to aggressively push my ideas on others as if I have to somehow prove myself but at the same time (the opposite) I don't want to think I'm somehow deranged or disturbed because of my beliefs.

Thankyou Saltmeister,

Frankly I don't care if you wear womens underwear on your head and cluck like a chicken, if your heart is good, you have faith in G-d and you follow the commandments of G-d (which are all contained in all the scriptures - gosh spooky eh) then we have nothing to fear (insh'allah). Imagine all of that energy that goes into finger pointing and telling everyone else how wrong they are being channelled into being better individuals and doing good deeds for our fellow man - wouldn't the world be a better place.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

What if this idea of "assigning partners" to God is only derived from Christians' own misconception of Christianity rather than Christianity itself being "broken" (so to speak)?

Very, very well put. I was a Christian and converted because as a Christian it felt wrong to me to place partners with G-d (this is what I felt I was being told to do), so this is not something I have been taught by Muslims. I believe Christianity is not broken, people have simply misunderstood the role of Jesus (pbuh). To be fair, I also get very angry when I see how some Muslims idolise the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). Perhaps it is the nature of man to cling to something we can mentally conceive? As no-one can grasp the nature of G-d we try to grasp something our little brains recognise and then hate and kill because of this. What a crazy thing the human mind is.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Christianity assigning partners to God? I've thought about this for quite a while. I think it unlikely that, Christianity, emerging from a Jewish culture, would have, as is commonly depicted in Islam, "assigned partners" to God. Because Judaism is the worship of one God, it would have been unlikely for Christianity to have gained ground if it had promoted such a belief. By the time the Romans came, the people of Israel had reformed, gotten rid of idol worship and became more devoted to Judaism and its concepts.

Have you ever looked into the the timeline for the writing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? I find it fascinating that Judas becomes more demonised as time passes. This is not to criticise Christianity, it is just the nature of man. My grandfather witnesses something and tells my father, he tells me but of course adds a little to make it more interesting and by the time my grandchildren hear about it my grandfather would not recognise the story.


Salaam

[Faithfulservant]

The following is Matthew 25:31-46 from the King James bible (sorry it is old fashioned but it is the version of the bible I studied). Please point out to me where it says the sheep are those who believe Jesus (pbuh) is the son of G-d? Failing that can you point out where it says that Jews, Muslims, indeed anyone that believes in G-d and does good deeds is destined for hell fire?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

This is my belief that the Lord provides in His holy word.

Satan believes in God... Is he going to hell? Believing in God does not guarentee heaven. The demons tremble at His holy name... they are doomed. We are to use the intelligence God blessed us with.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away.


Our good deeds are as filthy rags without Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. If we deny Jesus Christ we are denying the gift of salvation which makes us clean and righteous with the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

1Corinthians 1:30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God--and righteousness and sanctification and redemption

2Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Now... understanding what Gods definition of righteousness is... Which is only His Righteousness... read that scripture you posted again.

So taking that scripture into context we know that the goats are those that rejected Him.. the Sheep are of His flock and those who accepted Him as their savior are numbered therein.

There is no compromise in this

You cant fit a square peg in a round hole.

I also think its interesting that you use one scripture and demand that it state everything you want it to state.. you hold your own scriptures to the same test?

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers, (Quran 2:191).

How is this speaking the peace which is to be Islam?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

Our good deeds are as filthy rags without Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sorry but it is a long time since I read the bible, please can you give me the chapter and verse numbers where it says this (I'd like to look it up in the King James bible as the manner of speech is often different to the modern versions and I have a better understanding of the older version).

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

So taking that scripture into context we know that the goats are those that rejected Him.. the Sheep are of His flock and those who accepted Him as their savior are numbered therein.

I do not reject him, Jesus (pbuh) was very special even among all the Prophets (pbut).

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

I also think its interesting that you use one scripture and demand that it state everything you want it to state.. you hold your own scriptures to the same test?

I demanded nothing, I simply asked you to explain where in the bible, specifically pertaining to the Judgement of The Nations, it said that only a certain group of people would be permitted to enter heaven.

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers, (Quran 2:191).

Yes Muslims are told by G-d to defend themselves, their property and their land. At the time this verse was revealed the Muslims were being driven from their homes, tortured and murdered. Without the right to defend themselves the Muslims would have been wiped out. I make no apology for that.

So are you saying the bible does not refer to holy wars or attaining victory in war through the help of G-d?

[Faithfulservant]

All I can tell you is to read the bible and dont listen to what your Imams say about it. Will you do that? I hope so.

I posted the scriptures you needed.

You are using a familiar tactic of twisting everything around and changing the subject so Im not going to get in a discussion that goes round and round.. its a waste of both of our time.

I never said Jehovah God said we are not to war.. your people say Islam means peace and your own scriptures negate that.

You say that Jesus Christ is just a man and My scriptures say He is the son of God.. he died on the cross and He rose from the dead and is Alive.

Your scriptures say this...

"...and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)..."; (Quran, 3:3). "...there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah..." (Quran, 6:34).

Yet you say it is corrupt


Everytime I get in a "tolerant" discussion with a muslim to look for peaceful similarities it never fails they do one of these things..

1 attack the validity of the bible
2 attempt to set Paul against Jesus
3 Misrepresent Christian Doctrine
4 Misinterpret various scriptures
5 claim their logic is correct and Christian logic is not
6 switch topic when they are challenged

In just a few posts you have already done several of these..

I cant wait to meet one that actually does what they say.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

...
Yes Muslims are told by G-d to defend themselves, their property and their land. At the time this verse was revealed the Muslims were being driven from their homes, tortured and murdered. Without the right to defend themselves the Muslims would have been wiped out. I make no apology for that.

So are you saying the bible does not refer to holy wars or attaining victory in war through the help of G-d?

Forgive my quick intrusion here. But when taken into the context of the time the Qu'ran was written, Islam was a fledging faith, just taking root, and the peoples of the land who took on the mantle of Islam were being driven out by their Neighbors (literally), who refused to accept this new faith. In this case both the persecutors and the persecuted were both Arabic in ethnicity and culture. Muhhamad was telling the faithful they had every right to remain where they were and to defend themselves from those who would attempt to be rid of them (probably one of the first beginnings of "civil rights" expectations the world had seen).

The problem becomes when after Islam is firmly established, the human leaders of the people of Islam decided they wanted more power, and control over matters of all men, so using the Qu'ran to their advantage, they convinced the people it was Allah's will to spread Islam all over the world, by peace and reasoning if possible, by brutal force if neccessary, but spread it none the less. I suspect if the common Muslim turned soldier realized he would get nothing for his efforts but loss of properties, family back home while he was out campaining for his leader and Islam, he would have told his leaders to get lost.

In this light, the Qu'ran's message was indeed "corrupted", by greedy, ruthless leaders of men.

Such with the Bible, the OT does describe wars ordered by God, and carried out by his followers, however though the NT makes references to taking up arms, there is no deliberate decree to go out and fight for the faith.

However, there are the leaders of the Christian faithful that had their ulterior motives for building up offensive armies to "spread the word". Oh, and bring back what is plundered for the good of the faithful and church, while you're at it. Same song and dance by the same kind of asses, for the same purposes, only under a different banner of faith. And they used the Bible to spur the faithful on to the battle field, though that is not what the Bible said to do. Therefore, man corrupted the word of God, for his own ends.

At the end of the NT, however there is a specific decree of a battle that is to come, and there will be given no quarter for the enemy of God. In fact this battle will be lead directly by God (in the guise of Jesus), and is to last only one day. But at the end of that day, all the armies of the earth that opposed God, will be dead on the battle field.

So in that light, there is a point where we are told the faithful will fight the last fight of man for a millenia, if not for ever.

Obviously these are stark examples of similarities to the darker sides of both faiths, and the honorable sides of the common man of both faiths to do what they think God wants them to do, in His name. Yet "GOD" never told anyone to fight over Him. The message that God did give to both faiths (that obviously got lost in the sands of time), was to trust in Him to take care of business.

We just keep screwing it up by taking matters into our own hands.

my 2c

v/r

Joshua

[InLove]

I think that the reason the Abrahamic religions battle about the nature of the One we worship is because we humans tend to assign our own understanding and subsequently our own limits.

InPeace,
InLove

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by InLove

I think that the reason the Abrahamic religions battle about the nature of the One we worship is because we humans tend to assign our own understanding and subsequently our own limits.

InPeace,
InLove

We also tend to make God in our own image, and jealously covet Him as our own...

Doesn't matter how much Gold and precious things we wrap God in, the gilded cage can not contain what can not be contained...

[InLove]

Spoken like a crusty sailor....