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

[MJFlores]

You seem to be confusing peace with some megalomaniac's vision of order. Please read Quran 5:28. We are from different nations with different experiences languages and customs in a race to do good

I don't have Quran.
Now, Jews, Christians and Muslims do not - I repeat do not worship the same God.

Jews - 1 - Yahweh

Christians:

1. Catholics and Protestants - 3/3 - Trinity
2. Mormon - ?/? - F+S+HS+bible prophets+Adam+Eve+everyone can become Gods
3. Pentecostal - Jesus - is the F+S+HS (oneness)
4. Church of Christ - Father - is the only true God John 17:1-3

Now which do you think Allah resembles above?

 

[Tumah]

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

In Lev. 24:11 the person who curses G-d is called the "son of the Israelite woman". The implication being that his father was not an "Israelite man" (and according to Midrashic sources, his father was an Egyptian who raped his mother). If he wasn't an Israelite himself, what was he doing with the Israelites?

My feeling, after reading the Bible, was that tribal identity of a Ger didn't change to Israelite.

Deut. 23:4 prohibits Moabites and Ammonites (and others) from joining the "congregation". The implication being that others can join the "congregation". Compare that to Num. 15:16 "For the congregation, there is one statute for you and for the ger who dwells..." Here the born Israelite is called "the congregation" and the ger is included in it.

I've yet to see the term Israelite or even Yehudi applied to any man of non Israelite paternal descent.

Again, see Lev. 24:10-23.

In fact, why would there even be a need for a term such as Ger Tzdek? It would be redundant.

Most it is redundant. The extra mention of a Ger Tzedek in Biblical Law revolves around being extra mindful of his circumstances. So having come without a support structure (in terms of family and history in the community) we have an additional commanded to love the convert beyond our normal requirement to love our fellow Jew. And coming from idolaters we have an additional prohibition to cause anguish to a convert (such as by reminding him of where he comes from) in addition to our requirement to not cause anguish to a Jew. Things like that.

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

That's true. But there are no Laws in the Torah for non-Jews, which is logical because the Torah wasn't given to non-Jews. How would they be expected to know it? So all the Laws in it are those that apply to different segments of the Jewish population. Even the Laws governing a Ger Toshav (resident alien - one who isn't Jewish but is allowed to reside in Israel among Jews) are specifically Laws of how Jews need to relate to them, not how they need to conduct themselves.

 

[Tumah]

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

Malachi is the last Book of the prophets. I don't know if he was the last prophet to die.

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.

I don't know who "they" are.
Ben Sirachh isn't considered a book of the Bible. Its not believed to have been written with prophecy, but by a wise man.
Hyrcanus was a priest, a descendant of the Hasmonean dynasty who made themselves kings.

Malachi was the last Prophet.

You're right if he happened to be the last prophet to die. His generation included a number of other prophets and I simply don't know who died first.

 

[Tumah]

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

Eloah is feminine

In Daniel 11:37-39 Elo-ah is used three times with masculine adjectives and verbs. So I'm disinclined to agree with you.

and El+Eloha=Elohim,

That's not how Semitic languages work. The plural of el is elim, the plural of eloah, is elohim. The IM suffix is added onto the word to indicate plural. EL becomes ELIM. ELOH becomes ELHIM.

also a term for what is now considered archangels or high ranking angels.

No idea where you're getting this from. Maimonides places the type of angels called elohim rather low on the list.

None of that other nonsense applies.

Is that an argument?

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

There are three vowel points used in Elo-ah. A segol under the Aleph, a cholam on top of the Vav and a pasach under the He.

Meaning no w/v/u was used.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but if you just take a look at the Hebrew spelling of the word in every instance that its used, you will find the letter vav.
Job 3:5, 6:4, 11:5-7 19:6, 27:3, 31:2 Daniel 11:37-39

If you drop the vav, you have the word ELH, which means "these". In the Aramaic, the vav is dropped but its also pronounced differently as there's a kamatz rather than a cholam in place. In Hebrew Elo-ah, in Aramaic, Ela-ha.

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.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Tumah]

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.

What's that got to do with anything? We aren't talking theology, we're talking correct grammar.

Eloah is a reference to El/Elohim.

Usually, but not always. True.

So that is an irrelevancy.

This response is an irrelevancy.

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

It was when you mistakenly thought that E-l is rendered as Elo-him.

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

That is wrong, because the word "el" is never rendered as "elohim". Eloah is, because that's the singular form of the word elohim. El in its plural form "elim" is never used to refer to G-d. Elo-ah in its plural form Elo-him, is used often to refer to G-d - albeit with the intent that it be taken as a singular.

 

[rosends]

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.

You should learn the basics of formatting in your answers so you don't look so foolish.
The question of your contention has nothing to do with whether the messiah will be a prophet. You made a claim about Jewish belief. You were wrong. Trying to defend and contextualize an incorrect blanket statement after the fact instead of amending your original statement when presented with new facts is not a strong rhetorical approach.

As for leaving semantics to the professionals, since I am one of the professionals, I appreciate your confidence in my abilities. You should leave discussions of Jewish belief to the professionals, and I am also one of those.

 

[RESOLUTION]

You should learn the basics of formatting in your answers so you don't look so foolish.

There is the difference between you and I. If you already knew what I had said, why pretend it was something else.
Better to look or appear foolish than deliberately deceptive.

The question of your contention has nothing to do with whether the messiah will be a prophet.

The truth is I made remark about Jews only accepting a TRUE Prophet from amongst their own people and I also backed up what I meant by that in regards the true Messiah having to be from their own people.
It made clear that no books or Prophets in the OT Bible who had written the books were actually anything but the people of God.
All under a covenant of some type with God of the bible. So someone informed about these matters would have understood.

You made a claim about Jewish belief. You were wrong. Trying to defend and contextualize an incorrect blanket statement after the fact instead of amending your original statement when presented with new facts is not a strong rhetorical approach.

Semantics again.Something you incorrectly used when making a point previously. My QUOTE was the original quote and my statement clearly said I was referring to Prophets as far as the Messiah was concerned. However what Prophets write in the letters does not constitute that the people named are Prophets in the same understanding as Isaiah and Jeremiah in that they had their books named after them. We see Elijah and Elisha written about as Prophets of the Most High God and we see what happens to false prophets as those in Prophets which speak for false Gods.
If a donkey can speak does that make it a Jew or a Prophet of God? If John tells people that God can turn stones into the descendants of Abraham, what does that teach us about true descendants of ABRAHAM and true Sons of God.
Men are not just decendants BECAUSE of their lineage. The true Sons of Abraham like the true Sons of God do as their Father did. So the true Prophets coming from their own people mean what? You accuse me falsely because of your lack of
knowledge and understanding of whom GOD really is and how people become his people.

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Being Gods people is about being acceptable to God not man.
However you may state your case. I am being true to the knowledge I have.Could be God has now straightened
the matter out in your own eyes. The LORD making it plain we should never be wise to our own understanding when it comes to the matters of God and his people.

As for leaving semantics to the professionals, since I am one of the professionals, I appreciate your confidence in my abilities. You should leave discussions of Jewish belief to the professionals, and I am also one of those.

t
Clearly NOT!
As Gods words show otherwise.

 

[rosends]

There is the difference between you and I. If you already knew what I had said, why pretend it was something else.
Better to look or appear foolish than deliberately deceptive.

I knew what you said ("you and me" not "you and I" -- object of the preposition...) and that what you said was wrong and not mitigated by what followed.

The truth is I made remark about Jews only accepting a TRUE Prophet from amongst their own people and I also backed up what I meant by that in regards the true Messiah having to be from their own people.

Except I showed you that Judaism accepts that there are "true" prophets from outside of Judaism. If you want to redefine your notion of "true" feel free. Until then, my counter example deflates your claim.

It made clear that no books or Prophets in the OT Bible who had written the books were actually anything but the people of God.

So you feel that Iyov was Jewish. OK, some agree with you. But others don't which means that others accept that one of the prophets was not of the "people of God" unless you want to redefine that also.

All under a covenant of some type with God of the bible. So someone informed about these matters would have understood.

Everyone who exists is under a "covenant of some type with God of the bible." So?

Semantics again.Something you incorrectly used when making a point previously.

You should leave that argument up to the professionals.

My QUOTE was the original quote and my statement clearly said I was referring to Prophets as far as the Messiah was concerned.

Your quote included a statement about Jewish belief which is wrong. Why can't you just accept your error and move on?

The true Sons of Abraham like the true Sons of God do as their Father did. So the true Prophets coming from their own people mean what? You accuse me falsely because of your lack of
knowledge and understanding of whom GOD really is and how people become his people.

Now you have gone off the rails completely. The discussion at hand has nothing to do with true sons of anyone. It has to do with the error you made about Judaism. Focus.

 

[Tumah]

So you feel that Iyov was Jewish. OK, some agree with you. But others don't which means that others accept that one of the prophets was not of the "people of God" unless you want to redefine that also.

Are we the only religion that has to argue with other people about what we believe? How is this even happening??

 

[rosends]

Are we the only religion that has to argue with other people about what we believe? How is this even happening??

Well, what do we know...we just live it. We should let the experts speak...

 

[metis]

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?

How does this supposedly refute what I posted? How do you interpret "my church"?

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.

So?

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

But you haven't refuted anything I said.

 

[metis]

Now, Jews, Christians and Muslims do not - I repeat do not worship the same God.

Again, this simply is not true, and it's very easy to check on this:

Abrahamic religions, emphasizing and tracing their common origin to the tribal patriarch Abraham or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him, are one of the major divisions in comparative religion (along with Indian, Iranian, and East Asian religions).Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the largest Abrahamic religions in terms of numbers of adherents...

The unifying characteristic of Abrahamic religions is that all accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham. All are monotheistic, and conceive God to be a transcendent creator and the source of moral law. Their religious texts feature many of the same figures, histories, and places, although they often present them with different roles, perspectives, and meanings...

All Abrahamic religions claim to be monotheistic, worshiping an exclusive God, although known by different names. -- Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia

 

[MJFlores]

Again, this simply is not true, and it's very easy to check on this:

Abrahamic religions, emphasizing and tracing their common origin to the tribal patriarch Abraham or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him, are one of the major divisions in comparative religion (along with Indian, Iranian, and East Asian religions).Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the largest Abrahamic religions in terms of numbers of adherents...

The unifying characteristic of Abrahamic religions is that all accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham. All are monotheistic, and conceive God to be a transcendent creator and the source of moral law. Their religious texts feature many of the same figures, histories, and places, although they often present them with different roles, perspectives, and meanings...

All Abrahamic religions claim to be monotheistic, worshiping an exclusive God, although known by different names. -- Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia

Christians have this to worship

Now does Islam have this?

Do Jews worship this?

If they say they don't then their God is different from these depiction.

 

[metis]

Christians have this to worship

If they say they don't then their God is different from these depiction.

A painting of Jesus and the trinity simply is not God.

Did you actually read what I posted? Did you check out the link?

The reality, whether you want to accept it or not, is that observant Jews and Muslims believe in the same God that you worship, but fortunately they are far less judgmental towards others.

 

[SethZaddik]

You should learn the basics of formatting in your answers so you don't look so foolish.
The question of your contention has nothing to do with whether the messiah will be a prophet. You made a claim about Jewish belief. You were wrong. Trying to defend and contextualize an incorrect blanket statement after the fact instead of amending your original statement when presented with new facts is not a strong rhetorical approach.

As for leaving semantics to the professionals, since I am one of the professionals, I appreciate your confidence in my abilities. You should leave discussions of Jewish belief to the professionals, and I am also one of those.

I will address the only relevant thing you mentioned.

El absolutely is an alternate term, name even, of God and means God, the Hebrew El as in El Elyon and El Shaddai is, mostly in Psalms, used to refer to the El of Israel, El Elyon, God Most High or just God.

Which renders your argument useless and pointless, as usual.

 

[SethZaddik]

Christians have this to worship
View attachment 16480
Now does Islam have this?

Do Jews worship this?
View attachment 16481

If they say they don't then their God is different from these depiction.

Irrelevant artwork, has no claim to being a deciding factor WHATSOEVER with regards to the redundant debate at hand.

What matters is all three religions recognize they each worship the same God, the God of Abraham.

You need to stretch logic and include pictures that prove nothing to even attempt to discredit an established fact, pathetic.

 

[SethZaddik]

What's that got to do with anything? We aren't talking theology, we're talking correct grammar.


Usually, but not always. True.


This response is an irrelevancy.


It was when you mistakenly thought that E-l is rendered as Elo-him.

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

That is wrong, because the word "el" is never rendered as "elohim". Eloah is, because that's the singular form of the word elohim. El in its plural form "elim" is never used to refer to G-d. Elo-ah in its plural form Elo-him, is used often to refer to G-d - albeit with the intent that it be taken as a singular.

Why do you repeat what I said as if you are arguing I didn't already say Elim refers to, "lesser idol gods"?

Seriously? I clearly said that and remember saying it without even looking, you had my message in front of you.

Ridiculous.

 

[SethZaddik]

I have had a great time in this thread telling people how and why it is absurd to even argue if an established fact is true or not, enough people seem to get it but there is always a nut who thinks that their unlearned opinion or bias is enough to override and cancel out over 1300 years of established tradition which makes it a fact, and that is before the conclusive proof, the Qur'an and the Bible have the same God.

Anybody who thinks that they can do anything to change established fact because they don't know the facts but do have uneducated opinions, the other option being you are a religous extremist in thought if not in deed by saying it, a deed by definition that makes you one who denies truth.

And one who denies truth either doesn't know it or doesn't want it to be true and wants people to know this is how they feel, powerful enough to change facts with their will alone.

Have fun with yourself.

 

[SethZaddik]

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.

No relation to the quote above I was just on this page.


For the record the oldest known usage of El or Illu and Illhim, the source of the God of Israel and the god who was the enemy Baal, hero of the Canaanites who was Baal Illyon, Baal Most High, though still subservient to El/Illu ultimately. Also the Goddess Asherah is from the Canaanites in the same Ugaritic texts, tablets written in cuneiform much older than the Bible but from the same land that became Israel.

Also Yam or Sea in Hebrew, Mot or death in Hebrew, both come from the Canaanite gods of the same tablets who are the gods of the sea and underworld/death, respectively. Asherah may come from Athirat or a lesser goddess whose name is much closer etymologically but I have to look it up, I have a book of some of the tablets transliterated and translated both. It's possible that the name YHVH came from a lesser known God mentionied in lesser known tablets I have in my book, again in order to avoid any mistakes I will have to check but it is close.

Regardless of that, the connection is undeniable, the evidence conclusive based on names, language and location.

And Illhim refers to the Sons of El/Illu and possibly a few goddesses or the Goddess Athirat, Baal and Marduk or Dagon, I forget which, is another, it says 70 gods besides Illu and Athirat.

Which is exactly the number of nations and Sons of God (Israel in the corrupted Masoretic text) in Dt. 32 and the table of nations, 70 in total each get each a Son of God as inheritance from El Elyon, these are considered angels now but it doesn't say that and the oldest versions, LXX and the DSS two fragments of Dt. 32 have YHVH receiving Israel "as an inheritance" from "El Elyon." The LXX has "angels of God" instead of Sons.

So there is good reason to believe Elohim was originally a term for the sons of El, that YHVH was one and the El of Israel only, while they believed other gods existed all throughout the Bible, plus "Let US make man in OUR image" implies that God alone did not make man, but gods.

"Let US make", is together, us, make man, and let us make him look like our image, implying that they all look alike in some way as one man and one woman were created in the first account, apparently simultaneously too, which is why we have the Lilith story in the Alphabet of (Jesus) ben Sirach. And the Zohar, she is mentionied a time or two in the Bible, Lilim plural and what is sometimes translated as "night hag" is Lilth too.

 

[SethZaddik]

There is the difference between you and I. If you already knew what I had said, why pretend it was something else.
Better to look or appear foolish than deliberately deceptive.

The truth is I made remark about Jews only accepting a TRUE Prophet from amongst their own people and I also backed up what I meant by that in regards the true Messiah having to be from their own people.
It made clear that no books or Prophets in the OT Bible who had written the books were actually anything but the people of God.
All under a covenant of some type with God of the bible. So someone informed about these matters would have understood.



Semantics again.Something you incorrectly used when making a point previously. My QUOTE was the original quote and my statement clearly said I was referring to Prophets as far as the Messiah was concerned. However what Prophets write in the letters does not constitute that the people named are Prophets in the same understanding as Isaiah and Jeremiah in that they had their books named after them. We see Elijah and Elisha written about as Prophets of the Most High God and we see what happens to false prophets as those in Prophets which speak for false Gods.
If a donkey can speak does that make it a Jew or a Prophet of God? If John tells people that God can turn stones into the descendants of Abraham, what does that teach us about true descendants of ABRAHAM and true Sons of God.
Men are not just decendants BECAUSE of their lineage. The true Sons of Abraham like the true Sons of God do as their Father did. So the true Prophets coming from their own people mean what? You accuse me falsely because of your lack of
knowledge and understanding of whom GOD really is and how people become his people.


Being Gods people is about being acceptable to God not man.
However you may state your case. I am being true to the knowledge I have.Could be God has now straightened
the matter out in your own eyes. The LORD making it plain we should never be wise to our own understanding when it comes to the matters of God and his people.


t
Clearly NOT!
As Gods words show otherwise.

Again not to this quote.

According to Hebrew4Christians:

Eloah is commonly thought to be the same as the Arabic Allah and the Aramaic Elah(Alah).

There is absolutely no w in either spelling or pronunciation. EE LO AH EE LAH ALLAH.

I know I have already proven my point and I don't usually cite sources because I check so many before accepting something as fact most of the time, this I was sure of from the get go, but I like my debates thoroughly settled.

I will also point out that "commonly believed" is not a belief that the website challenges and does accept as it's rather obvious why it is commonly believed and were it erroneous, rest assured they would.

I will also add that it is used about 70 times in total in the Tanakh, mostly in poetic expression.

Which should be more than enough proof for everyone who, not you, but everyone who is unlearned and thinks that it is not a fact all honest (even minimally educated) people know already and that they are accomplishing anything by denying the truth, other than showing how unlearned they are to learned people and only the other unlearned people are going to agree, because they just don't like something about one of the religions and think they are so mighty their factually incorrect opinion will change established facts.


Which is delusional to say the least, or lazy and uneducated, take your pick.

You can nitpick me to death about things I am not wrong about all you want, you realize this fact so you are OK in my book!