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

[Tarheeler]

Please don't belittle and disparage others behind their backs. Approach him directly and debate him, but don't attack him when he isn't here to defend himself.

If there is a fact he has presented then show us why you disagree. If there is fact he has presented and you don't know the source then ask me. However let's avoid the mud slinging. What do you say?

Please don't make it about the messenger, let's talk about the message. He is saying there were Kenites who were non Jews who worshipped with the Jews and performed animal sacrifices in hajj. Are you questioning or denying this point?

You offer him as your sole source of information, expect everyone to take it at face value, but don't want him discussed even though his opinion is seen by many as very odd? You're the one that brought him into the discussion.

Are you going to be providing the evidence for his position?

 

[Tarheeler]

Your argument makes no sense. How can I not be a Christian, and then be from an Evangelical Christian background.

It's not that hard. I am a Jew, but I come from an evangelical Christian background.
I was raised as a Southern Baptist prior to converting to Judaism.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

It's not that hard. I am a Jew, but I come from an evangelical Christian background.
I was raised as a Southern Baptist prior to converting to Judaism.

Ok, was raised Sikh and converted to Hindu.

 

[J2hapydna]

Its always fun, whenever some "Jewish Rabbi" says something in favour of Islam you can never really find any information about him anywhere.

"Ben Abrahamson is an orthodox Chassidic Jew from Israel who works as historian and consultant to an important Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem. He enjoys talking about the Haddith; histories of Tabari, Ibn Hisham & Waqidi; the kings of Himyar, as well as the Midrash Rabbah, the Midrashei Geulah, Rambam, Tosefos & Shulchan Aruch."

Ah an "important Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem".

Probably because there are lunatics who are hounding him

The funny thing is that you are attacking him rather than what he saying. Are you disagreeing with him that Kenites were non Jews who worshipped with Jews by performing hajj and animal sacrifices at the temple?


By the way he is an American born Rabbi who has spoken at the Knesset, House of Lords in London and the UN. He received his Rabbinical Ordination from Rabbi Amos Cherky of Jerusalem. He is a student of the school of Rabbi Benamozegh.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Probably because there are lunatics who are hounding him

The funny thing is that you are attacking him rather than what he saying. Are you disagreeing with him that Kenites were non Jews who worshipped with Jews by performing hajj and animal sacrifices at the temple?


By the way he is an American born Rabbi who has spoken at the Knesset, House of Lords in London and the UN. He received his Rabbinical Ordination from Rabbi Amos Cherky of Jerusalem. He is a student of the school of Rabbi Benamozegh.

Can you confirm what he saying?

 

[Katzpur]

Your argument makes no sense. How can I not be a Christian, and then be from an Evangelical Christian background.

Of course it makes sense. If you were raised in an Evangelical Christian home, you come come an Evangelical Christian background, even if you no longer practice or believe in Christianity. I know what Evangelical Christians think of Mormons and I know how heavily they rely on CARM for their "facts" as to who is a Christian and who isn't. Catholics don't do that and neither do any of the more liberal Christian denominations. As a matter of fact, according to CARM, Roman Catholics aren't Christians any more than Mormons are. I have yet to run across a Catholic who would describe CARM as balanced, objective or credible.

If you do not come from an Evangelical Christian background, I can't help but wonder what it was about CARM that led you to accept it as a reliable, trustworthy authority on what's Christian and what's not. I can't imagine you just stumbled onto the website and bought into it hook, line and sinker. Someone must have pointed you in that direction and convinced you that it was your best source of accurate information on Christianity.

You are just shooting the messenger. I am showing you what Christian sources are saying.

I'm sorry if you feel that I'm attacking you. I'm merely stating what Mormonism actually teaches and what Mormons actually believe. Most of the "Christian sources" you have provided disagree with what I have found to be the case in my 68 years as a practicing Mormon. Don't you think that in 68 years of attending church on a weekly basis, I'd have heard the Bible referred to as "the work of the Devil" if that was, in fact, part of Mormon theology? You must either believe that I am just about the stupidest person around or else that I am flat out lying about what I believe. I'm just not sure which.

However, ironically I also posted a Mormon source, which refers to Joseph Smith as a prophet. In other words Smith really is a founder of a new religion and not just a sect. The sources I have looked at and cross-reference, all confirm that the Mormons accept their own scripture book of Mormon as their scripture and the book of Mormon teaches many doctrines which are the total inversion of Christianity e.g. Polytheism.

I appreciate your posting a Mormon source, but that source does not say what you are claiming it says. The fact that we believe Joseph Smith to have been a prophet does not imply that he founded "a new religion and not just a sect." Yes, Mormons do accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. That does not mean that we do not also accept the Bible as scripture. As a matter of fact, we devote roughly twice as much time to Bible study in our adult Sunday School classes as we do to the Book of Mormon, and the Bible has been described by one LDS Apostle as "foremost of [the Church's] standard works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as [its] written guides in faith and doctrine." Finally, I challenge you to provide one single, solitary verse from the Book of Mormon that teaches polytheism. Before you waste too much time, though, here, for your information, are two verses from the Book of Mormon, that state the exact opposite of what you claim:

2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.

Mormon 7:7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

 

[J2hapydna]

You offer him as your sole source of information, expect everyone to take it at face value, but don't want him discussed even though his opinion is seen by many as very odd? You're the one that brought him into the discussion.

Are you going to be providing the evidence for his position?

I'm not offering HIM as the source of information. He has made some broad statements such as Kenites worshipping G-d with Jews by performing sacrifices at the Hajj at the Jewish Temple. Are you questioning this? If you are then I will provide you the source

 

[Tumah]

He was here to establish a covenant with the Ishmaelites.

In the Quran, Allah advises MP to not waste his time helping Jews make decisions under their covenant when they kept coming to him. Allah says they have all they need to make their decisions on their own. However, MP was told that if they came to him then he could if he had the time. In other words, MP didn't come to abrogate or abolish your covenant and convince you to follow his. So he wasn't your prophet in that sense.

So I guess the question is, do you think goy can have prophets and can G-d establish covenants with them or not?

Its possible for a non-Jew to attain prophethood according to Maimonides. But I don't think its possible that G-d would establish a new covenant with non-Jews. There's already one. We're not into replacement theology.

 

[Tarheeler]

I'm not offering HIM as the source of information. He has made some broad statements such as Kenites worshipping G-d with Jews by performing sacrifices at the Hajj at the Jewish Temple. Are you questioning this? If you are then I will provide you the source

If you have sources other than Abrahamson's interview you linked to in post #147, I'd like to read them.

 

[Tumah]

Please don't make it about the messenger,

I didn't make it about him, I explained that he is a lone opinion who presented his opinion without any evidence. He might be a great guy, but that doesn't mean when he makes a statement without evidence we need to take it as fact.

let's talk about the message.

He is saying there were Kenites who were non Jews who worshipped with the Jews and performed animal sacrifices in hajj. Are you questioning or denying this point?

I don't think the ones who worshiped with Jews were non-Jews. From what I can tell according to Jewish sources, there seems to be at least two groups of Kenites: one who are the children of Jethro (Rashi 1 Sam. 15:6) and another who is the nation of Amon (Rashi, Chizkuni Gen. 15:19) or the nation of one of the children of Canaan (ibn Ezra).

The former group according to Jewish sources seems to have become a scholarly family of converts (BT Sotah 11a, Tanchuma Jethro 4, et al.) who spent 480 years in Jericho (Rashi Judges 1:16) and later moved to Arad in Judah near where the Amalekites lived (Rashi 1 Sam. 15:6). The latter group doesn't seem to have any relation to Jews.

As converts, I would expect them to have worshiped with the Jews. By hajj I suppose you mean pilgrimage to Jerusalem and not at the kaaba in Mecca.

What I do argue with is almost everything else you say here:

These people practiced the Qurban shalomay (Qurbani salami /animal sacrifice) with the Jews but had other religions. They were also known as Shalomites or Muslimites to the Jews. So although you may think Allah was being peeled away from paganism it is also very possible that the Quraysh were originally theosabeans who worshipped the Jewish god as Allah with animal sacrifices at the Kaba, but were being drawn into paganism until they reverted under Islam.
​

There is no evidence that the Jethro-nian Kenites were called "Shalima'a" because they brought the "Shelamim" sacrifice. I could just as easily argue that they were called "Shalima'a" because they converted.

The Quraysh tribes trace their lineage to Ishmael not to the Sabeans. Do you have any reason to mix the two?

Shalima'a does not mean Muslim. The Jews of the time wouldn't call them Muslims. No evidence has been brought for that, only agenda-driven speculation. Yes, the root of the word Shalima'a is peace. Yes, Islam bears resemblance to the word for peace (although on this thread an Arabic speaker explains that the name Islam isn't derived from the word for peace).

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?

What that guy is really trying to say is - and I explained this on that thread I linked you to earlier - is that Islam is an acceptable incarnation of Noahidism. Then he's going back and re-naming all previous Noahides as Muslims by virtue of Islam being an incarnation of Noahidism. It makes it look nice to Muslims although he's either dissembling for the sake of inter-religious relations or ignorant of Jewish sources.

 

[Sakeenah]

Regarding MP, yes Muhammad the Prophet

Regarding the if then,
I was saying that if MP's message didn't require Jews to convert / adopt the Ishmaelites Sharia then it wouldn't have been a problem to Jews.

In my opinion MP actually didn't expect or require Jews and Christians to adopt the Ishmaelite Sharia. In my opinion, the ideas that they had to convert or pay Jizya was invented by the Umayyads who were psychopathic megalomaniacs. I say this because MP didn't require Najashi to change his Sharia to be considered a Muslim.

The prophet muhammad's message did require jews and christians to convert.
The prophet muhammad didn't require najaashi to change his shariah because this was during the makkan period and the first migration to Abassinya.During this time prophet muhammad's focus was on the foundations of Islam (monotheism) and there were hardly any laws.
The majority of verses related to Shariah such as the jizyah were revealed in the madinah time period which was years after the first migration. According to Islamic sources Najashi did convert to Islam and it was the beginning of the spread of Islam in Abassinya and the rest of East Africa.

 

[J2hapydna]

Its possible for a non-Jew to attain prophethood according to Maimonides. But I don't think its possible that G-d would establish a new covenant with non-Jews. There's already one. We're not into replacement theology.

MP didn't replace Noah's covenant anymore than Abraham, Jacob and Moses. I think both the Mosaic covenant for the Jews and MP's covenant for Ishmaelites are within Noah's covenant.

 

[J2hapydna]

The prophet muhammad didn't require najaashi to change his shariah because this was during the makkan period and the first migration to Abassinya.During this time prophet muhammad's focus was on the foundations of Islam (monotheism) and there were hardly any laws

Nagashi performed the wedding of MP and Ramla bint Abi Sufyan in 628.

Ramla bint Abi Sufyan - Wikipedia

So MP said a funeral prayer for Najashi at some point after that, at which the hypocrites scoffed because Najashi hadn't faced the Kaba or followed the Arab Shariah according to the Arab sources. So, this is not during the Meccan period

In addition how do you explain 3:199 and 28:48-50?

 

[Sakeenah]

Nagashi performed the wedding of MP and Ramla bint Abi Sufyan in 628 before dying. So this isn't the Meccan period.

Ramla bint Abi Sufyan - Wikipedia

Then MP said a funeral prayer for him at his death at which the hypocrites scoffed because Najashi hadn't faced the Kaba or followed the Arab Shariah according to the Arab sources

That marriage wasn't right after the first migration which was 615 CE. Some of the muslims stayed in abasinya untill the prophet muhammad ordered them to move to madinah after the second migration and this was in 628 CE. The prophet muhammad send letters to various kingdoms to invite them to Islam(628 CE-6th year of hijrah) he send one to Najashi he accepted and ultimately confessed his faith in the religion in Islam to his people.

"Najashi later died in Rajab 9 A.H. shortly after the battle of Tabuk. The Prophet announced his death and observed prayer in absentia for him. Another king succeeded Negus to the throne and another letter was sent to him by the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) but whether or not he embraced Islam is still a question not answered yet."[Sahih Muslim 2/99]

The story of Najashi shows that prophet muhammad's message did require jews and christians to convert.

There is no such thing as Arab Shariah.You've mentioned you aren't muslim so I'm wondering where you get your interpretation from and can you maybe quote your islamic sources.


Letter of Prophet Muhammad to Negus (Najashi) Calling him to Islam

Negus, King of Abyssinia (615 C.E.)

Al Najashi (Ethiopian King) :: Muftisays Islamic Question & Answers

 

[J2hapydna]

As converts, I would expect them to have worshiped with the Jews

So, according to you these people who were Kenites and not Israelites, who lived in separate cities than the Jews, who received no portion in the land of Israel or tithes under the Israelite covenant were actually converts to Judaism. Thanks

So modern converts become members of the tribe of Judah. To which Israelites tribe were these convert given a membership?

 

[J2hapydna]

That marriage wasn't right after the first migration which was 615 CE. Some of the muslims stayed in abasinya untill the prophet muhammad ordered them to move to madinah after the second migration and this was in 628 CE. The prophet muhammad send letters to various kingdoms to invite them to Islam(628 CE-6th year of hijrah) he send one to Najashi he accepted and ultimately confessed his faith in the religion in Islam to his people.

"Najashi later died in Rajab 9 A.H. shortly after the battle of Tabuk. The Prophet announced his death and observed prayer in absentia for him. Another king succeeded Negus to the throne and another letter was sent to him by the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) but whether or not he embraced Islam is still a question not answered yet."[Sahih Muslim 2/99]

The story of Najashi shows that prophet muhammad's message did require jews and christians to convert.

There is no such thing as Arab Shariah.You've mentioned you aren't muslim so I'm wondering where you get your interpretation from and can you maybe quote your islamic sources.


Letter of Prophet Muhammad to Negus (Najashi) Calling him to Islam

Negus, King of Abyssinia (615 C.E.)

Al Najashi (Ethiopian King) :: Muftisays Islamic Question & Answers

Please also explain 3:199 and 28:48-50 what are these verses talking about in your opinion?

Seems like you are suggesting there was another Najashi for 3 years for whom MP said an absentee funeral prayer. First of all there is no secular evidence for any Najashi coming to power in 628, converting to Islam and dying off all within a span of 3 years. In addition, you should know that waqidi and Tabari accounts speak of the hypocrites taunting MP for saying a funeral prayer for a Christian. So please provide an account of when and where he prayed facing the Kaba or paid zakat or came to perform Hajj etc. in contrast it is generally agreed that 3:199 is about Najashi and his followers who accepted Islam had both a Bible and Quran as scripture. Also, what do you make of the 2 books that pagans described as two sorceries mentioned in 28:48-50? Where are these two? Why didn't the Arabs save them both? Finally, nobody can really believe that the Jews and Christians had the time to remove references to MP in the Bible after seeing MP. There are preIslamic Bibles that are identical to the current ones. In addition, the Jews and Christians were at war and living in different empires at the time. So they couldn't collude even if they wanted to. So why don't you explain what convinced these Christian kings to accept Islam and give up the Bible in your opinion by explaining 28:48-50?

 

[Tumah]

I agree there can be leeway, which is what I argued above, there can be minor differences like disagreement in dietary habits or interpretations. However, I am sure you can agree this leeway cannot be infinite, there has to be a point of demarcation or a line that once you have crossed you can no longer be within that tradition of thought. This is what I have attempted to argue above with Mormonism. I have called out the fallacy as a slippery slope that just because we can allow some minor differences between sects of a religion, then are forced to allow major differences of a divergent religion still claiming to be in that lineage.

I agree that there is a line of demarcation. But I am arguing that the line is further out than you are saying. I don't think its a slippery slope because we seem to have the line quite well drawn: The Islamic god-concept is considered acceptable by Jewish standards, the Christian one is not. Even more than that - we (OJ's) need to have the line drawn clearly because it has practical ramifications on how we can associate with them.

You are also assuming that differences between sects are minor compared to those between religions. I don't think that's necessarily so.

The problem with this analogy is that in this case the two daughters have actually heard you and you know that you exist and you exist as a flesh and blood person as they do to too. However, 99.999% of religious believers do not know of God's existence, have not heard God or seen God, but believe in God as faith based on the revelation of another who claims to have seen or heard him or had messengers like angels. Hence, they work with a borrowed understanding of God.

Those working in the tradition of Moses, work with Moses's understanding of God and within those boundaries(with some leeway) Hence, they are worshipping Moses understanding of God. According to that understanding, Jews are the chosen people.

Those working in the tradition of Mohammed's understanding of God, work with Mohammed's understanding of God and within those boundaries(with some leeway) Hence, they are worshipping Mohammed understanding of God. According to that understanding, Muslims are God's chosen people and he hates Jews.[/quote]
I don't think that makes a difference. First of all, say instead of two daughters, we speak of their children who never met their grandfather. Does that mean daughter Y's kids are going to believe in a grandfather that never existed? Let's say instead of a grandfather it was a teacher. Student A heard X and student B heard Y, but the teacher really said X. Now both students pass on these lessons to their students in the name of their teacher. Doesn't B's students believe in a teacher that never existed? Its the same idea. There's key concepts here that parallel each other enough that we would say, they believe in the same teacher but one of them is mistaken as to what the teacher said.

But we can take integrate your idea into this as well. Because the fact is that Muhammad got his god-concept from Moses (or if you prefer the scholarly tradition, from whoever came up with the Jewish version). That is true both from a scholarly point of view (they certainly seemed to have borrowed heavily from the Jewish tradition) and theologically true as I'm fairly sure Muslims validate their religion as a continuation of Judaism through supersessionism.

Now there are four ways to approach this

1. Moses heard it right, and hence the correct understanding
2. Mohammed heard it right, hence has the correct understanding
3. Both heard it wrong, hence both have the wrong understanding
4. There is no God in the first place, they made it up​

​

5. Moses heard it right and Muhammad borrowed from it.

As followers of either Moses, Mohammed or Jesus whatever we know of "God" is based on the attributes and narratives they gave. Hence, we cannot speak of "God" as separate from the attributes and narratives. Whatever God we hear is somebodies revelation.

I don't think that would be true even within Judaism. Different prophets have different revelations of G-d. If they all experienced revelation differently than are you going to say that they each had a different god? In Song of Songs 5:10-11, G-d is described as having a ruddy complexion with black hair. In Daniel 7:9 G-d is described as "ancient" with hair like "white wool". Do Solomon and Daniel worship two different gods? Even Adam before he sinned and after he sinned had different revelationary experiences. Does that make him a polytheist?

We Hindus also have our own understanding of God and ours is revealed through our equivalent of prophets or Rishis. They obtained it not through God coming in person to them, or an angel or messenger, but through meditation they experienced God within themselves. Hence, we inherit a very different understanding of God, as a pure or highest state of consciousness/Self(God within) and thus we describe God as an abstract entity as the substratum of existence, consciousness and bliss. However, the distinction here these are not attributes of God, but the rather the nature of God.

I don't think you know enough about the Jewish god-concept or prophecy concept to say its a "very" different understanding.

Attributes and narratives would be saying stuff like "God has a son, a daughter, God came and spoke this, God lives in heaven, God cried, God laughed" As attributes and narratives depend on posteriori knowledge, that is knowledge from experience we gain from the 5 senses and mind, none of these finite categories can capture God. As God is infinite and absolute existence that precedes us and will be there after us too, nothing that we attribute to God is valid. It is at best an image, symbol or tool that reminds us of God(proper) but taking it be God, would be like taking the picture of the moon to be the moon. Therefore, we Hindus allow infinite images of God, but never mistake the image to be God itself.

And we say the opposite. Because we uphold apophatic theology, no image would ever be a valid image to remind one of G-d with any effective degree of legitimacy. Therefore we Jews prohibit all images and only use abstract references.

 

[Tumah]

MP didn't replace Noah's covenant anymore than Abraham, Jacob and Moses. I think both the Mosaic covenant for the Jews and MP's covenant for Ishmaelites are within Noah's covenant.

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.

 

[Koldo]

So let me ask you a counter-question. Do think there should be infinite leeway to interpret beliefs and practices or should there be some limits beyond which you cease being a part of that tradition?

The limit is social acceptance. We are talking about 'labels' after all. This acceptance depends on meeting certain expectations that have been placed on members of each religion.

Nope, I would say they were not Catholics though. As Jesus nether confirms or disconfirms trintarianism in the gospels, but leaves it ambiguous by claiming to be the Son of God and also oneness with God, the interpretations are valid.

In other words, trinitarianism isn't a requirement to be a Christian.

On the other hand, Mormonism is not an interpretation of what Jesus said in the bible, because it rejects the authority of the bible, it claims a new scripture and bases its teachings on that. Hence, it cannot be regarded as a valid Christian tradition working in the same understanding of God as Jesus's. Rather, it is working with the understanding of God of Joseph Smith, and hence why its followers regard Smith as their prophet.

There are some books called deuterocanonical books. They have been included in the Catholic bibles, but not in many Protestant bibles. This means that regarding the very same books as holy scripture is not a requirement, per se, to be a Christian.

And if you think that adding new books leads to a view different from Jesus' then most Christians are not Christians. Let me explain what I mean by this: Most of the New Testament is composed of letters written after Jesus' death. Many of those letters, as you probably know, were written by Paul the Apostle, but Paul never met Jesus in person. He only had a vision of Jesus, and it is only after this vision that he converted. If you deny the validity of claiming divine inspiration then there is no way that Paul could have accurately represented Jesus' view. Which means that nearly every Christian would be working with the understanding of Paul the Apostle, rather than Jesus'. On the other hand, if you accept divine inspiration as valid, then why can't a Christian accept that Joseph Smith also had a divine revelation and remain Christian in doing so ?

I am not sure it should be based on the criteria of one specific sect. It should be based on the criteria of the founding prophet itself. I know what is Christian and unchristian by the degree of conformity it has with what Jesus is suppose to have said in the gospels.

But how do you determine the criteria set by the founding prophets? Doesn't that rely on how you interpret their words ?

 

[Tumah]

So, according to you these people who were Kenites and not Israelites, who lived in separate cities than the Jews, who received no portion in the land of Israel or tithes under the Israelite covenant were actually converts to Judaism. Thanks

So long as they didn't merge into a tribe, that's right. They did have a portion in Jericho for over 400 years though. According to Rashi, that was purposely so that the area the Temple would be on, would belong to no one tribe. They held Jericho and when it was time to build the Temple, Benjamin pushed them out and replaced their part of the Temple land with it.

So modern converts become members of the tribe of Judah. Which Israelites tribe were these convert given a membership?

Judges 1:16 "And the children of Keini the father in law of Moses went up from the City of Dates (Jericho) with the children of Judah to the Judean desert in the south of 'Arad and they went and dwelled with the nation.

So I guess its like you said. That's exactly as Gersonides puts it, "and behold, the children of Keini returned to the faith of Israel, [because of] that, they settled in Judah."