What is in a name: Why are Christians readily accepting of Judaic theology and not Islamic theology?

[BilliardsBall]

I see that in the months since we've last interacted, you continue to make posts like "yes!" and "no!" without any supporting facts.

If you knew the scriptures half as well as Talmud, you might find eternal life within, as Jesus told us.

 

[Rival]

I see that in the months since we've last interacted, you continue to make posts like "yes!" and "no!" without any supporting facts.

If you knew the scriptures half as well as Talmud, you might find eternal life within, as Jesus told us.

Are you talking to me? Because if you are, I have never studied Talmud and I am asking you a simple question. You cannot just choose to be Jewish without formal conversion.

 

[Tumah]

I see that in the months since we've last interacted, you continue to make posts like "yes!" and "no!" without any supporting facts.

Unsubstantiated statements don't require supported rebuttals.

If you knew the scriptures half as well as Talmud, you might find eternal life within, as Jesus told us.

If you knew the Torah half as well as I know the Talmud, you'd know the NT devalues the paper it's printed on.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

No, it doesn't contradict it -- that is precisely the point I made.

Language origin is unrelated to theology.

Except that this is wrong. While you can say that conceptually (in their monotheism) the god figure is the same, then that's fine. But if your God claims to have said X, and mine claims to have said not-X, either you are accusing me of lying or you are accepting that the particular god figures (since the one god is not self-contradicting) must be different. So is my religion lying or are we talking about two different iterations, each supposedly conforming to the same ideal?

I think we are talking about the same God just in different time periods. The concept Muhammad brought he himself claimed that it is nothing new. Islamic philosophy presupposes that conceptually Islam is the primordial faith. I'm sure Islam went by another name during the time of Adam (conceptually speaking). Of course from a doctrinal perspective this is different when you look at the history of the children of Israel. God establishes a covenant with a specific group of people, sets down laws and wants them to follow them. Okay this was specific to the children of Israel but the core message which was understanding that there is only one deity in existence was still the same. I think therefore the way the messages were sent and conveyed were different based on the people these messages were revealed to. It is like me writing letter to people from different parts of the world.

If I write the message I love you, in Mandarin it may be said differently, or in Italian it might be said differently, but the core message means that I love you. In other words I believe God spoke to people of different region in the world at different times using different methods to convey the message. It may not be exact, but the core principle in my view is still universal.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

God gave dominion to man and men gave it to the enemy of God.

On what basis do I reject all prophets after Jesus (and there are many)? I believe what Jesus said, I’ve seen that His message is true. “Lay hands on the sick and they shall recover”. I’ve seen this.

The Bible is a finished book.

Lastly, Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil and save man. Why would God send another prophet?

What is evil about Muhammad's message when he says to prostrate not to stones or the sun or moon but prostrate to God, the Lord of all the Worlds? What is evil when Muhammad encourages his followers to recite sayings of seeking refuge with God from Satan? What is evil when God in the Qur'an says "And we are closer to you than your own jugular vein?"

You asked why would God send another prophet? Do you honestly think only prophets resides in the middle east? How is it fair to the Samoans or the Maori or the aboriginals or the Aztecs? Jesus never travelled to the New World so how is it possible for Native Americans to know about Jesus or Muhammad? Wouldn't it make sense that God would send messengers from among the different human groups of the world? I'm sure no Native American during the time of Jesus and even after him have ever heard of a Jesus of Nazareth. I think an Arab prophet makes perfect sense.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

And this is present even in Trinitarian beliefs. God the Father is the very same as God the Son (who is God the Father manifest in the flesh here on Earth,) who is the very same as God the Spirit (who is the breath of life and divine essence of god within all living things.)

It's also been addressed that Christianity quite selectively "accepts" Jewish theology. More often than not it changes and "updates" the theology, just as Islam did with both before it. They are all three Abrahamic in that they worship Yahweh, the god of Abraham.


An issue which is non-existent. If Islam's concepts regarding Yahweh are the exact same, then Christianity accepts and/rejects them on the very same level. Even by claiming and believing that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of Yahweh, Christianity diverges from Jewish theology significantly. Their portrayal of Satan as some villainous, evil spirit (of which Islam does too,) also separates from the Jewish theology regarding Satan.

So your issue seems very fuzzy. It's not like Christians are playing favorites with who they take cues from (which is where the chronology comes in; why would Christianity take inspiration from a later religion?), and they've changed quite a bit of Jewish theology to where it can't really be said that they're accepting it. Neither are Christians rejecting Islamic theology concerning the nature of Yahweh; the prophethood of Mohammed isn't a theological issue per se. This just seems to be yet another "those poor misunderstood and theologically bullied Muslims" thread.

Again you are missing the point and who the heck is talking about bullying? I'm talking about the nonsensical support of Jewish theology and the absence of support of Islamic theology when the core principles of Jewish theology and Islamic theology are the same. As some have mentioned here there is blind support because of tradition, not because of logic.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Are you saying that it is forbidden in Judaism to enter a temple of the Sikhs so you wonder about the distinction? If so, please provide the relevant Jewish responsa which will, no doubt, provide its sources to explain. Your assumption that Jews are allowed to enter mosques because of a "shared theology" is flat out wrong. it is because of a shared vision of monotheism which saves the mosque from any label of "house of idolatry" (according to most opinions -- for the dissenting opinion see footnote 15 of https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-bo/).

I'm only familiar with what Maimonides discussed and unfamiliar if there are other Rabbis who have stated whether it was permissible to enter a Sikh temple to pray as I've never heard it mentioned nor sanctioned. That is why I raised the question why not in a Sikh temple? I would assume because Sikhism is a relatively newer faith than Islam and does not share the Abrahamic traditions is my educated guess.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I don't really see this. Christians don't accept Jewish theology...otherwise they wouldn't be Christian. They re-interpret Jewish Holy Books to conform with Christian theology, probably not differently then Baha'i does to Islam. There's no acceptance there.

By accepting I'm referring to the beliefs of the Abrahamic deity which is God. You'll find many Christians professing a faith that they believe in the God of Abraham.

 

[Tumah]

By accepting I'm referring to the beliefs of the Abrahamic deity which is God. You'll find many Christians professing a faith that they believe in the God of Abraham.

OK, I understand that. But they get that from the Torah which they've absorbed into their own faith. I don't think they get it from a Jewish theological stance.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Yes, it is astounding, however, I've read 2/3 of the Noble Qu'ran (in English). DIVINE means Jesus is GOD, which is shirk in Islam. Christians don't believe Jesus was instilled with "divinity", they believe He was God eternally before being born of flesh, and is One with Father God.

No. Divine does not mean God. Divine is a substantive quality that exists in all living things. This quality emanates from God. The substantive quality I'm referring to is the immortal soul. When it comes to performing metaphysical acts, these are divinely inspired actions that are the result of God's direct influence.

 

[Rival]

OK, I understand that. But they get that from the Torah which they've absorbed into their own faith. I don't think they get it from a Jewish theological stance.

As an addendum they also use books not used by the Jewish people as scripture. Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians use Tobit, Judith, the books of the Maccabees (all four in the case of the Orthodox), Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon etc. To note, they also use Susanna and iirc that gets Halacha wrong.

So yes, more to do with which books are accepted than theology.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

OK, I understand that. But they get that from the Torah which they've absorbed into their own faith. I don't think they get it from a Jewish theological stance.

Perhaps this is a matter of perception but I don't see the distinction here. Sure they absorbed the view from the Torah but the belief to me is the same. From my view, as an outsider on matters of names for example, you'll find Christians blindly accepting Hashem as it relates to God but not Allah. Now we are talking about linguistics here but to me it amounts to the same.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

As an addendum they also use books not used by the Jewish people as scripture. Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians use Tobit, Judith, the books of the Maccabees (all four in the case of the Orthodox), Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon etc. To note, they also use Susanna and iirc that gets Halacha wrong.

So yes, more to do with which books are accepted than theology.

Ok let me rephrase......Let us take away the Bible or other books for a moment.

You decide to walk up to a Baptist minister and ask "Do you believe in the God of Abraham?"

99.99999% the minister will say Yes.

If you ask the minister do you believe there is one God who is the author of the entire universe?

99.99999% will say yes.

If you ask the minister do you believe in angels?

99.99999% will say yes (of course this may differ based on the sect).

If you asked the minister do you believe in an hour where all humans will be judged for what they do?

99.9999% will say yes.

Now without using the particulars of doctrine, flip this around and ask the minister do you believe in the Muslim perspective of the God of Abraham (which is essentially the same) wouldn't you think there would be significantly lower percentages of agreement?

 

[rosends]

If I write the message I love you, in Mandarin it may be said differently, or in Italian it might be said differently, but the core message means that I love you. In other words I believe God spoke to people of different region in the world at different times using different methods to convey the message. It may not be exact, but the core principle in my view is still universal.

But if you write "I love you and you alone" at 3PM and then at 4PM you write "I love someone else and I never said that I love you" then either

you changed your mind (which shouldn't be the case for a perfect deity)
or
you never said one of those things and someone is lying
or
the "I" is actually pointing to a different speaker

 

[rosends]

I'm only familiar with what Maimonides discussed and unfamiliar if there are other Rabbis who have stated whether it was permissible to enter a Sikh temple to pray as I've never heard it mentioned nor sanctioned. That is why I raised the question why not in a Sikh temple? I would assume because Sikhism is a relatively newer faith than Islam and does not share the Abrahamic traditions is my educated guess.

I choose not to represent Judaic belief unless I can source it in something concrete. Maimonides was clear in his discussion of Islam as not (necessarily) idolatry [though you might want to review some of the sources and see the subtleties] but he didn't list the others so I am not in a position to draw any conclusions about them.

 

[Fool]

I would like to begin this thread with the following video:

Thoughts?

allahu akabar than any exoteric religion.


love overcomes all differences. love transcends all things by making them equal to self, or to I AM that I AM.

Conference of the Religions

 

[Libski]

What is evil about Muhammad's message when he says to prostrate not to stones or the sun or moon but prostrate to God, the Lord of all the Worlds? What is evil when Muhammad encourages his followers to recite sayings of seeking refuge with God from Satan? What is evil when God in the Qur'an says "And we are closer to you thsn your own jugular vein?"

You sked why would God send another prophet? Do you honestly think only prophets resides in the middle east? How is it fair to the Samoans or the Maori or the aboriginals or the Aztecs? Jesus never travelled to the Ne World so how is it possible for Native Americans to know about Jesus or Muhammad? Wouldn't it make sense that God would send messengers from among the different human groups of the world? I'm sure no Native American during the time of Jesus and even after him have ever heard of a Jesus of Nazareth. I think an Arab prophet makes perfect sense

Jesus commands us to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. More disciples create even more disciples.


His purpose was clear and final - break the bond between sin and death and heal, save and make whole all who are lost.

He told us that those who would come after Him would be false prophets.

Also, (I didn’t say anything about anyone being evil) as Jesus accomplished what He was sent to do, what purpose would a prophet after Him have?

The Mormons, for instance, believe that Joseph Smith was sent to restore man - yet Jesus did that, and polygamy goes against God’s Word on love and marriage.

I was raised to believe something that isn’t true (Catholicism). Now that I know the truth, I can see how I was deceived.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

But if you write "I love you and you alone" at 3PM and then at 4PM you write "I love someone else and I never said that I love you" then either

you changed your mind (which shouldn't be the case for a perfect deity)
or
you never said one of those things and someone is lying
or
the "I" is actually pointing to a different speaker

You're using wordplay without using the example that I used.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Jesus commands us to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. More disciples create even more disciples.


His purpose was clear and final - break the bond between sin and death and heal, save and make whole all who are lost.

He told us that those who would come after Him would be false prophets.

Also, (I didn’t say anything about anyone being evil) as Jesus accomplished what He was sent to do, what purpose would a prophet after Him have?

The Mormons, for instance, believe that Joseph Smith was sent to restore man - yet Jesus did that, and polygamy goes against God’s Word on love and marriage.

I was raised to believe something that isn’t true (Catholicism). Now that I know the truth, I can see how I was deceived.

Ok

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I choose not to represent Judaic belief unless I can source it in something concrete. Maimonides was clear in his discussion of Islam as not (necessarily) idolatry [though you might want to review some of the sources and see the subtleties] but he didn't list the others so I am not in a position to draw any conclusions about them.

Fair enough