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

[Tumah]

I think that a corrolary of the "the righteous live in/with their faith" is that "the man with faith is righteous" because if a man with faith is not righteous, he will lose his faith, which is another sound Christian doctrine (cf. Jesus' parables).

That is not deducible from the verse. The verse doesn't tell us whether faith is the only requirement for being righteous. It just tells us that it is a requirement. When we look at all the rest of the Torah, we see that there are many other requirements as well.

In theory?

Yes. In theory, if it could be empirically proven that this is the same Torah given to Moses, then they would believe in it.
Torah in Islam - Wikipedia

I don't think it is possible for Jews to obey the Torah today (no temple or tabernacle or sacrifice)

That's just a stupid Christian argument. The Laws that require a Temple or Tabernacle are conditional to having a Temple or Tabernacle. Just like the Laws requiring to not eat from a tree during it's first three years is conditional to having a tree and keeping the Sabbatical year is conditional to it being the seventh year.

and most don't even observe the moral Torah.[/quote
There is only one Torah.

[quoteWell I agree I am not a student of the Talmud, but I know enough to knoew that parts of it were so antiChristian that it had to be censored in 521 and during the medieval period. It usurps the Torah in the same way as Jesus accused the Pharisees of usurping the law.

So the bad news is that it's the NT that usurps the Torah. Of course it is anti-Christian. It's anti all false religions.

Again I am not a student but I will agree that some so-termed "Christian" bible commentaries are no better than midrash. Gibberish is not exclusive to Jews.

You misunderstand. I didn't say that the "commentaries" rely on Midrashic interpretation. Your religion is based on midrashic-type readings of passages in the Torah. Without it, you would have no religion.

I am a radical prostestant. I am neither a unitarian nor a classical trinitarian, but I agree to a trinity of revelation. The doctrine of the "Trinity" is clearly based in Greek philosophy. To impute it to the first Christians would be a mistake, and they are the only authorities on Christianity.

Well, so long as you believe that Jesus is a god incarnate, I guess it makes no difference as it will still be pagan.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Probably because Christianity succeeded Judaism, and Islam came after Christianity.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Christians and Jews share the same Old Testament.

The Koran is in tune with the Bible but more so with the Tanakh. The Bible foretold of Muhammad and Ali as the Two Witnesses of Revelation. This Faith that would last to the Muslim year of 1260 clothed in Sackcloth. Sackcloth is old cloths or we can say that the Muslim Faith is a Law based Faith such as is the Jewish Faith. They also confirm there is only One God.

Regards Tony

 

[wizanda]

So the bad news is that it's the NT that usurps the Torah.

Yeshua established the Torah, and Christianity fulfills the prophesied deception.

Your religion is based on midrashic-type readings of passages in the Torah.

In the fake texts made up by the Pharisees of John, Paul and Simon they do use Midrash; which shows where they have no clue how the Tanakh functions properly.

Well, so long as you believe that Jesus is a god incarnate, I guess it makes no difference as it will still be pagan.

It is not Pagan to accept 'YHVH Elohim shall become Yeshua Elohim' (H3444 + H1961 = Exodus 15:2-3, Psalms 118:14-21, Isaiah 12:2); this is what Moses meant in Deuteronomy 32:7-9 (The Divine Council with YHVH at its head, and one God Most High).

A Canaanite is someone who only had demi-gods, and no God Most High, unlike the Israelites.

In my opinion.

 

[outlawState]

That is not deducible from the verse. The verse doesn't tell us whether faith is the only requirement for being righteous. It just tells us that it is a requirement. When we look at all the rest of the Torah, we see that there are many other requirements as well.

I agree to an extent that the Torah does also say that "he who does these things will live by them (Leviticus 18:5)." And so one could make a distinction between faith righteousness and works righteousness, but that that distinction is only academic per the message of Christ. That is to say, if you tried to fulfil the Torah without faith, you would always fail. So faith is the essential ingregient for observing the Torah and it is the essential ingredient for Christianity, which also observes the moral law of the Torah, so no radical departure from the Torah on these points, but a more profound understanding and progression; and also of the futility of animal sacrifices, so as to extend faith in Christ to include full justification that used to be only partial and by the blood of animals endlessly repeated,

That's just a stupid Christian argument. The Laws that require a Temple or Tabernacle are conditional to having a Temple or Tabernacle. Just like the Laws requiring to not eat from a tree during it's first three years is conditional to having a tree and keeping the Sabbatical year is conditional to it being the seventh year.

Christians have a new temple - the body of Christ. The Jews have none.

You misunderstand. I didn't say that the "commentaries" rely on Midrashic interpretation. Your religion is based on midrashic-type readings of passages in the Torah. Without it, you would have no religion.

I think not. The proof was that Christ was raised from the dead. If he had been a charlatan, it would not have been so.

Well, so long as you believe that Jesus is a god incarnate, I guess it makes no difference as it will still be pagan.

Did I say that "God was incarnate?" You don't even know what a radical protestant is. It is someone who believes that "Christ came from God" but that as constituted as a human being, he was not God as not in the "form of God." The gospels affirm it, for he called his Father, his "God" and Jesus referred to himself as a "son" i.e. a human being. He did not ask for the worship due to God. He did not call himself "God the son" per Trinitarians.

So again, you're constantly and quite falsely trying to impute idolatry to Christians, whereas the bible only knows Jesus "the man" as a "man" i.e. Acts 2:22, Acts 3;16, Acts 17;31 etc.

 

[Apologes]

This alone doesn't seem like a reason since Judaism considers Christianity guilty of the same.

In my post I described some reasons why Christianity doesn't accept Islamic theology. I didn't really mean to address the issue of why it accepts Judaic theology because I don't think it does, at least not in it's entirety. Christianity will always have a connection to Judaism for the mere fact that it started as a sect within Judaism and therefore inherits Judaic traditions. It obviously does not agree with Judaism on the non-trinitarian nature of God or the Judaic rejection of Christ as a false messiah.

It does, however, recognize the Old Testament in it's entirety and simply aims to add more to it (hence a more transcendent meaning of the messiah which is really the stumbling rock for most Jews when it comes to their attitude towards Christian doctrines). In contrast to this, Islam rejects a lot more ideas of both Judaism and Christianity and goes as far as to say that they are perversions of the true word of God which was once again revealed to it's prophet. Sure, Islam inherits some figures from the two religions but it rewrites their history and with it both their tradition and theology.

So yes, you're right that it's not something that Christianity would turn a blind eye for to Judaism, hence why it didn't and why it eventually broke off and became and independent religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually Christians only conditionally accept Jewish Theology, because of the Trinitarian belief is not in common with Jewish monotheism, but in general Christianity accepts the Jewish scriptures as the heritage of Christianity, Despite the same basic theology of monotheism of Judaism and Islam, Christianity does not accept Islamic scripture and other beliefs as Divinely inspired as they do Jewish scriptures regardless of how they are translated. In fact despite intial translation differences between Jewish Torah and Tanakh, and the Old Testament in recent history translations have become more similar, and many Christians will read contemporary Jewish translations.

On the other hand the Bah'i Faith accepts Jewish and Islamic basic theology and monotheism in the theme of progressive Revelation. The Baha'i Faith accepts the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the theme of progressive Revelation, but does not accept the Trinitarian belief of traditional Christianity.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I am no expert in the NT, but have read it and remember that Jesus often refers to the Hebrew scriptures.
So, the Christians have to somehow include it.
I am of the opinion that if Jesus had never mentioned the previous scriptures, there would be no mention of it in Christianity.

(When I was a practising Jew, I would regularly pray/meditate on the Temple Mount; there was no problem for me that it is a mosque.)

That is debatable.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Christians and Jews share the same Old Testament.

But the Rabbi says Jews and Muslims have the same God.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

1): IMHO. I know little about Koran.

Anything past this is but conjecture based on your admitted limitation of what you know about Islamic theology.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Because on numerous points the Quran is opposed to the fundamental core of Christianity, which was created by the Pharisees John, Paul, and Simon, whom all contradict Christ.

Thus a Christian by their definition is someone who accepts that: jesus the son of God is their Lord and savoir, who was crucified for the sins of the world.

In the Quran: 'isa was not crucified, yet it was made to appear like it', is not the son of God, and isn't their lord and savoir.


Both Christianity and Islam have been set up to fight each other, and neither are right.


Yeshua fits with Hebraic prophecy in the Tanakh, and was YHVH the son of EL Elyon (God Most High)...

Rabbinic Judaism has been blinded to comprehending this (Zechariah 12:4, Deuteronomy 28:28), unless they accept the Marvelous Work put before them (Psalms 118), and only the wise will ever comprehend it.


Christianity within the false texts have been purposely manipulated to accept Judaism as still a chosen people, that they're grafted on to; when the Quran is quite right they lost their Covenant for a small price (Zechariah 11:12-13, Matthew 27:3-10).

So basically all of this has been purposely created, that only those who read all the texts, and not look through only one eye might see this.

In my opinion.

Interesting...What say you about the Arab Christians who reference God by referring to him as Allah? BTW I appreciate the break down!

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

Thoughts?

While we Jews have much in common with Muslims, the Bible testaments, both written by Jews, speak of a Messiah who will redeem the world, who is Jewish, who is divine. The Noble Qu'ran, in contrast, specifically says Jesus Christ is not the Messiah and is not divine. The Bible says the Messiah will be God/the Son of God, the Qu'ran has this as shirk, the absolute worst sin in Islam.

There can be some harmony between Jews and Muslims, but the Qu'ran and Bible cannot both be God's Word, since they contradict each other directly on these and other points, including salvation (hope Allah will save, trust Jesus Christ to be assured now of salvation).

 

[Epic Beard Man]

One of the reasons why Christianity doesn't align itself with Islam is the fact that Islam considers Christianity guilty of "shirk" and rejects it's central tenets. Islam also considers both Judaism and Christianity to be corruptions of the original word of God.

False. The Qur'an talks about the corruption of the original texts of People of the Book(s). So in your opinion is the rabbi wrong to say Jews and Muslims have the same God theologically? Also, what say you about the Arab Christians who refer to God as Allah, while referring to Jesus as Yasu?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The Noble Qu'ran, in contrast, specifically says Jesus Christ is not the Messiah and is not divine.

It is astounding how many Christians are ignorant of Islam....

Jesus in Islam is referred to as the Al-Masih or "The Christ, also, Jesus in Islam has divine qualities that are so because according to Islam Jesus was instilled with divinity from God (as all prophets were). In Islam Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and made a living bird out of clay. If these are not divinely inspired actions I don't know what is.

 

[Estro Felino]

Actually Christians only conditionally accept Jewish Theology, because of the Trinitarian belief is not in common with Jewish monotheism, but in general Christianity accepts the Jewish scriptures as the heritage of Christianity, Despite the same basic theology of monotheism of Judaism and Islam, Christianity does not accept Islamic scripture and other beliefs as Divinely inspired as they do Jewish scriptures regardless of how they are translated. In fact despite intial translation differences between Jewish Torah and Tanakh, and the Old Testament in recent history translations have become more similar, and many Christians will read contemporary Jewish translations.

On the other hand the Bah'i Faith accepts Jewish and Islamic basic theology and monotheism in the theme of progressive Revelation. The Baha'i Faith accepts the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the theme of progressive Revelation, but does not accept the Trinitarian belief of traditional Christianity.

Maybe you don't understand that we Christians have a more metaphysical concept of God (think of Plato's demiurge)...so we consider the God of the OT something purely allegorical.
Also because God's history and man's history are the same thing.

I understand fully the claims of Christianity, but your response is bypassing key issues of the differences in the monotheistic theology of Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith versus Christian Trinitarianism.

The Trinity is an allegory too.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I agree to an extent that the Torah does also say that "he who does these things will live by them (Leviticus 18:5)." And so one could make a distinction between faith righteousness and works righteousness, but that that distinction is only academic per the message of Christ. That is to say, if you tried to fulfil the Torah without faith, you would always fail. So faith is the essential ingregient for observing the Torah and it is the essential ingredient for Christianity, which also observes the moral law of the Torah, so no radical departure from the Torah on these points, but a more profound understanding and progression; and also of the futility of animal sacrifices, so as to extend faith in Christ to include full justification that used to be only partial and by the blood of animals endlessly repeated,




Christians have a new temple - the body of Christ. The Jews have none.


I think not. The proof was that Christ was raised from the dead. If he had been a charlatan, it would not have been so.


Did I say that "God was incarnate?" You don't even know what a radical protestant is. It is someone who believes that "Christ came from God" but that as constituted as a human being, he was not God as not in the "form of God." The gospels affirm it, for he called his Father, his "God" and Jesus referred to himself as a "son" i.e. a human being. He did not ask for the worship due to God. He did not call himself "God the son" per Trinitarians.

So again, you're constantly and quite falsely trying to impute idolatry to Christians, whereas the bible only knows Jesus "the man" as a "man" i.e. Acts 2:22, Acts 3;16, Acts 17;31 etc.

Um, @Tumah is actually quite right on this one.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Maybe you don't understand that we Christians have a more metaphysical concept of God (think of Plato's demiurge)...so we consider the God of the OT something purely allegorical.
Also because God's history and man's history are the same thing.

Strange, while Allah is Lord of the universe the Christian perception of God as "Platonic" is based on the concept f the demiurge, the creator deity? Strange....

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Probably because Christianity succeeded Judaism, and Islam came after Christianity.

What an astute observation, now, let us expound on that and look at the theology based on the video.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Could it be because Christians have a closer connection to Jews of Israel, seeing that the first Christians were Jews of Israel.
And seeing the founding fathers of Christianity were Jews of Israel. This being the 12 disciples of Christ Jesus. That bought about Christianity into the world.

And seeing how the Muslims prophet Muhammad took things from the old testament and the new testament and came up with the q'uran. Could this be why upon reading the q'uran there are things taken from the bible, that are found in the Q'uran ?

Seeing the old testament scriptures are about 3000 years older than the q'uran but yet Muslims will try to say, that the bible took from the q'uran. Which is impossible, when you see the bible out dates the q'uran.the old testament scriptures alone out dates the Q'uran by 3000 years, and the new testament scriptures alone out dates the q'uran about 600 years.
Seeing that Muhammed wasnt born until the year 600 A.D. and seeing the Q'uran didn't come about until around the year 625.

Seeing Muhammed couldn't read or write, that someone else had to read and write for Muhammed. And seeing the Q'uran didn't come about until
around the year 625,
Which means the old testament scriptures were way before Muhammed and the Q'uran came about.
And seeing the new testament scriptures were written way before Muhammed was born and the Q'uran came about.

So the question arises who taken from Who?

 

[Estro Felino]

Strange, while Allah is Lord of the universe the Christian perception of God as "Platonic" is based on the concept f the demiurge, the creator deity? Strange....

It's a more complex concept. John and Philo of Alexandria are both philosophers who explain what Plato meant by demiurge : that is the Logos is not something distinct from matter, but one cannot exist without the other. That is, Mary's womb is not a means, by which Jesus came to being, but Jesus would have never existed without Mary. Without's Mary's Love, which allowed that (the Logos became flesh).