Christianity vs. Islam

[Ebionite]

There's only one G-d in Tanakh.

No.

But ye are they that forsake YHWH, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for GD[גד], and that furnish the drink offering unto MNY.
Isaiah 65:11

And Leah said, A troop cometh: and she called his name Gad[גד].
Genesis 30:11

 

[Rival]

No.

But ye are they that forsake YHWH, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for GD[גד], and that furnish the drink offering unto MNY.

Isaiah 65:11

And Leah said, A troop cometh: and she called his name Gad[גד].
Genesis 30:11

I'm honestly not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

[Ebionite]

I'm honestly not sure what you are trying to say here.

I'm showing how "G-d" is ambiguous in the context of the Tanakh. In the context of this thread "God" is also ambiguous, since it can refer both to Allah (singular) and Elohim (plural).

 

[Rival]

I'm showing how "G-d" is ambiguous in the context of the Tanakh. In the context of this thread "God" is also ambiguous, since it can refer both to Allah (singular) and Elohim (plural).

I'm really not sure what your hangup is here. G-d identifies Himself as one in the text. Unless you have a radically different interpretation to it than Orthodox Judaism I don't understand your stance.

 

[Ebionite]

I'm really not sure what your hangup is here.

It's not a hangup. Ambiguity can suggest deception, specifically by the fallacy of equivocation. I'm not saying that your intent is to mislead, but you don't seem to know what "G-d" represents. The game here is to own the interpretation. By supplying the ambiguous term "G-d", the rabbis can give whatever definition works depending on the context.

The term HaShem (the name) was once used, which is an unequivocal reference to the tetragrammaton. The core issue here is the role of Satan, (the adversary), and how this role is relevant to the different religious ideas held by the Abrahamac religions. Unless unambiguous language is used, people often end up talking at cross purposes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"G-d" is ambiguous.

"G-d" is about as ambiguous as saying Zeus. Especially considering its a trait we see Jews doing, and since Rival is Noahhide its very easy to infer what "G-d" means in that context.

 

[Rival]

It's not a hangup. Ambiguity can suggest deception, specifically by the fallacy of equivocation. I'm not saying that your intent is to mislead, but you don't seem to know what "G-d" represents. The game here is to own the interpretation. By supplying the ambiguous term "G-d", the rabbis can give whatever definition works depending on the context.

The term HaShem (the name) was once used, which is an unequivocal reference to the tetragrammaton. The core issue here is the role of Satan, (the adversary), and how this role is relevant to the different religious ideas held by the Abrahamac religions. Unless unambiguous language is used, people often end up talking at cross purposes.

Oh I see now.

'Those evil Rabbis and their made up Judaism.'
Where have I heard that before?

Yeah I know what HaShem means.

You're the person not accepting what Jewish and Noahide people are telling you Satan is in their own religion.

 

[Ebionite]

"G-d" is about as ambiguous as saying Zeus.

No, there's only one Zeus in religious myth.

 

[Ebionite]

'Those evil Rabbis and their made up Judaism.'

Your words, not mine.

You're the person not accepting what Jewish and Noahide people are telling you Satan is in their own religion.

I'm not a person, and I don't really care what they believe as part of their religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, there's only one Zeus in religious myth.

And only one group who specifically writes "G-d."

 

[Ebionite]

And only one group who specifically writes "G-d."

Straw man. The issue is how "G-d" is interpreted.

 

[Rival]

I'm not a person,

and I don't really care what they believe as part of their religion.

Then why are you having this discussion at all? Its context is the Jewish view of Satan.

 

[Ebionite]

Persons are representations. In English the phrase "a man's person" means the body and clothes of a man. Linguistically, person associates with mask and face. The distinction is more important when you're talking about the rights of people versus the rights of persons.

Then why are you having this discussion at all? Its context is the Jewish view of Satan.

From your perspective, sure. From my perspective it's how the different interpretations relate to the religious differences between the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Rival]

Persons are representations. In English the phrase "a man's person" means the body and clothes of a man. Linguistically, person associates with mask and face. The distinction is more important when you're talking about the rights of

...as if you had no idea what I meant.

From your perspective, sure. From my perspective it's how the different interpretations relate to the religious differences between the Abrahamic religions.

And I'm giving you the Jewish interpretation to which you made a claim that so far I believe you have not supported. I'm still waiting for your proof of an evil Satan in Tanakh that is akin to Christianity's devil.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Straw man. The issue is how "G-d" is interpreted.

"G-d" is pretty much as specific as saying Horus because we know who spells it and uses it that way. But, to a person who's not a person, ambiguities are possible.

 

[Ebionite]

...as if you had no idea what I meant.

Like I said, the game is about owning the interpretation.

And I'm giving you the Jewish interpretation to which you made a claim that so far I believe you have not supported. I'm still waiting for your proof of an evil Satan in Tanakh that is akin to Christianity's devil.

I didn't say that Satan was evil. What I said was that the Satan of the book of Job said that Job would curse YHWH, but that didn't happen. I also said that (in a Christian context) the word devil is a translation of diablos, meaning slanderer. To falsely accuse someone of something is to slander them, so there's the connection.

The other angle is to look at the Hebrew words which are translated as "devils". The translation isn't accurate, but there is a connection to Job's Satan:

They sacrificed unto devils[שדים]...
Deuteronomy 32:17

And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils [שעירם], after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.
Leviticus 17:7

And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed Elohim in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.
Job 1:5

 

[whirlingmerc]

They both turned him into something he's not, deviating from how he is in Judaism. Christianity looked at Satan and created the devil; Islam did not correct this mistake. And, also, both do have those who believe in predestination, which is a terribly hateful and spiteful belief that ultimately is saying god creates people with the full knowledge and intention of making them just to send them to hell (something else they created as the location and concept are foreign to Judaism).

One difference is the stunning mercy of God in Christ, example being the podiagal son's father. He shockingly gives the wild child his portion of the inheritance, the kid gets out of dodge to some gentile country and blows his families money on short tern fun. He remembers his father is find and decides to ask for a job as one of his dads day workers and when his confession is barely going out of his lips his father is smothering his with kisses welcoming him back. Stunning mercy. The older brother? obedient on the outside? not so much on the inside? he was lost in plain sight at home. the two boys both lost -one openly and secularly, one religiously and scrupulously. Jesus invites both to join the joy of the father.

The two boys represent the secular and non secular lost in many ways and are invited to join 'the joy of the father'. And the fathership of God would be one area Jesus stresses not in the Koran. Jesus even calls God father in all his prayers to God except one.

 

[whirlingmerc]

As I heard a rabbi say once: "You're praying to our dysfunctional father who art in heaven."

???

"As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my thoughts above your thoughts and my ways above your ways" Isaiah

 

[Harel13]

???

"As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my thoughts above your thoughts and my ways above your ways" Isaiah

A. It's a joke, but based on a real misconception many people have of God.
B. Did you scroll up to see where my comment originated from? Judaism doesn't have a concept of a permanent hell like Christians do.
I don't know why you brought that verse.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One difference is the stunning mercy of God in Christ, example being the podiagal son's father. He shockingly gives the wild child his portion of the inheritance, the kid gets out of dodge to some gentile country and blows his families money on short tern fun. He remembers his father is find and decides to ask for a job as one of his dads day workers and when his confession is barely going out of his lips his father is smothering his with kisses welcoming him back. Stunning mercy. The older brother? obedient on the outside? not so much on the inside? he was lost in plain sight at home. the two boys both lost -one openly and secularly, one religiously and scrupulously. Jesus invites both to join the joy of the father.

The two boys represent the secular and non secular lost in many ways and are invited to join 'the joy of the father'. And the fathership of God would be one area Jesus stresses not in the Koran. Jesus even calls God father in all his prayers to God except one.

That doesn't address my point of Christians having taken a powerful and fiercely loyal and obedient angel of Jehovah and turned him into a rebellious devil. And I'm aware of the story you speak of. It means nothing to me now and holds no sway over me.