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

[Epic Beard Man]

And so did every doctor. In fact, I'd rather go to an ancient hospital than some random faith healer. The science may be primitive but it's better than just sitting around chanting until the con victim feels better.

Well, when I'm talking about healing the sick, I'm referring to the divine powers that emanate from him (Jesus).

 

[Epic Beard Man]

As an American and as a Christian I too am embarrassed at some of the things that American Christianity has produced by way of theology.

The explanation of the word for God was very interesting and it highlights the fact that in Genesis we see such plays on words...but here the very word for God can be turned to its opposite with a "seeming" minor adjustment of vowels. This makes for great poetry and dynamism of language. Thus the literary qualities of a culture shine through in its word play.

And does not love and hate originate, at some level, from the same source of passion? To turn for or against a thing sometimes seems less important than to have that passion toward it in the first place. I think that anger towards God is an often dismissed pathway to a belief (through reconciliation) with God.

Excellent point!


The Christian cannot be blamed no more than the Muslim when it comes to looking at words that believers examine and assume that what is written resonates with their religion. The following video I think you and @Tumah would appreciate when it comes to a play on words:

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Christianity is at its source a Jewish religion, of course we find worth and value in Jewish theology.

Agreed but why not Islam?

Islam has 5 facts:

1) God is one with no partners

2) God is the Creator of the universe

3) Angels exist

4) Humankind must pray and perform good duties and help the poor.

5) Believe that all of humanity will be judged on the last day.

I do not see how Christians cannot accept this. I find that the contemporary view of Islam as it relates to terrorism tends to get in the way on looking at the macro and micro levels of the theological philosophies Islam contains.

 

[Baroodi]

I liked the video and he is correct. I also very much liked the response from @Augustus

The problem is that Muslim theologians have never had much impact on non-Muslim scholars in matters of religion due to Islam being a replacement theology that never shrank from criticizing Christianity and Judaism. Like the good Rabbi said, Islam mangled many things that were held dear by the older religions to make Muslims and Islam superior. The laughable idea that an illiterate man 600 years after Christ was bold enough to proclaim, with self-anointed authority, that his version of Jesus was the real version and that Jesus just happened to teach what Muhammad was trying to teach. How convenient is that?

For the first 10 years while he was raving in Mecca he gathered very few followers. One could say that his ideas were just not getting through and the Qur'an was still just dribbles here and there with no real coherence. Eventually some reason people began to buy into what he was selling and my guess is that they were simply afraid that he might be telling the truth and so they hedged their bets and joined his little rag-tag group.

As far as I am aware, Muhammad never did enjoy strong connections with any religious leaders of his day. Nothing survives other than Muslims accounts and so if some took kindly to his thinking we will never know. Then, after his death, the Muslim armies began rampaging outside of the Arabian peninsula and that did not endear them to Christians, as the lands that were conquered were formerly Christian held lands. Is it any wonder that Islamic religious thinking has never had much impact outside the Muslim world?

if you want to hunt an elephant you need to shoot the elephant head not the its shadow.
pointless critic

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

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

Yes, nifty video. Unfortunately it doesn't relate at all to your question (Christians accepting Jewish theology and not Islamic theology), as the Rabbi in the video is really just saying that Jews and Muslims have the same god, but the Christians don't because of Jesus (completely ignoring elements of the Trinity Theology, by the way, and also the fact that Middle Eastern Christians call their god "Allah" too.)

So how about it? Rather than typically dismissing my posts, how about now expounding upon the chronological factor that Islam came after Christianity, so it's silly to expect Christians to accept Islamic theology?

 

[YmirGF]

if you want to hunt an elephant you need to shoot the elephant head not the its shadow.
pointless critic

Glad you liked it. Keep up the happy thoughts.

 

[stvdv]

So how about it? Rather than typically dismissing my posts, how about now expounding upon the chronological factor that Islam came after Christianity, so it's silly to expect Christians to accept Islamic theology?

Totally agreed. Very good point. Islam also says "Koran is final scripture + Mohammed is final Messenger". Sounds even kind of Hypocritically to me.
[Expecting Christian to accept the newer Islam theology, while Islam excludes possibility of a newer theology]

 

[rosends]

Rosends, would you be up for expanding on that?

Jews and Muslims have a simply monotheistic God, perfect and complete. However, each religion claims that that singular being performed certain actions and said certain things which contradict. So even though the idea of God is the same, the specific figure must be different because one figure cannot say two contradictory things.

Jews and Christians have the God who appears in the Hebrew and Christian bibles. He does not contradict himself, but is a singular figure who changes his mind over time. So the God figure is the same. However the Christian conception of God allows for a trinity so the entire underlying idea of God is different even though the specific God character is the same.

 

[YmirGF]

Agreed but why not Islam?

Islam has 5 facts:

1) God is one with no partners

2) God is the Creator of the universe

3) Angels exist

4) Humankind must pray and perform good duties and help the poor.

5) Believe that all of humanity will be judged on the last day.

I do not see how Christians cannot accept this. I find that the contemporary view of Islam as it relates to terrorism tends to get in the way on looking at the macro and micro levels of the theological philosophies Islam contains.

Point 1 is a bit rich, @Epic Beard Man due to the fact that the "no partners" thingy was aimed directly at Christians and was meant as a vehement criticism towards Trinitarian Christians.
Point 2 is common to a host of religions and so does not, in any way, make Islam special
Point 3 is no biggy as they also believe in Djinn.
Point 4 is also moot because most religions teach that much. It's akin to the bare minimum.
Point 5 is a shared belief but with wildly different underpinnings

I'm a bit puzzled why you think these points are even worthy of mention? So what?

 

[rosends]

Then apparently Maimonides have it wrong then. Why did he okay the prayer for a Jew to pray in a mosque and not a church if Muslims and Jews do not have the same God?


Surely there is great disagreement between you and the Rabbi in the video.

I don't know the rabbi in the video nor does he know me. But Jews can pray in a mosque (not joining in Muslim prayers) because there is no stain of idolatry there because Islam is (according to many opinions) a monotheistic religion. This has no bearing on the particular God belief. A church is affected by idolatry according to rabbinic understanding so the entire structure is suspect. Don't confuse the problems associated with a different idea of God with the question of whether a specific God is shared.

https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-bo/
for some information
and here is some more
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/26355

 

[YmirGF]

I’m sure that is great comfort to those that have, as a result of the lesser jihad, been killed.

There, fixed it for ya. Getting rid of ego is so much more important than killing infidels.

 

[YmirGF]

How does your comment differ from what I said?

Meanwhile there was never any effort to provide evidence of what was corrupted. One man's word, who was illiterate (supposedly) against literate Jews and Christians. What could possibly go wrong with that scenario, eh?

 

[Mister Emu]

Agreed but why not Islam?

Judaism is a continuation of the Hebrew faith, is true, and is given by God. Christianity is a continuation of the Hebrew faith, is true, and is given by God. Islam is none of those. Islam did not advance our knowledge of God or our relationship with Him; it only detracted from both.

I do not see how Christians cannot accept this.

There is a difference between recognizing some amount of truth or accuracy in a theology and accepting it. I can recognize that Buddhists are correct when they say we should distance ourselves from this physical world and remove attachment to it without suggesting or stating that Buddhist theology is acceptable.

I find that the contemporary view of Islam as it relates to terrorism tends to get in the way on looking at the macro and micro levels of the theological philosophies Islam contains.

I think that perhaps your grasp of the history between Christendom and the Islamic world is lacking and that seems to be reflected in this statement. It isn't just a contemporary view as tied to terrorism and extremism to the point of oppression. It is a historical continuum view that reaches back to antiquity; the interactions between Christendom and the Islamic world have largely been Islamic conquest efforts, subjugation and reclamation efforts.

I can type two words into Google and be reminded that the Islamic descendants of 15th century Islamic invaders are still preventing me from worshiping in perhaps the grandest and most beautiful Basilica ever created.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Point 1 is a bit rich, @Epic Beard Man due to the fact that the "no partners" thingy was aimed directly at Christians and was meant as a vehement criticism towards Trinitarian Christians.
Point 2 is common to a host of religions and so does not, in any way, make Islam special
Point 3 is no biggy as they also believe in Djinn.
Point 4 is also moot because most religions teach that much. It's akin to the bare minimum.
Point 5 is a shared belief but with wildly different underpinnings

I'm a bit puzzled why you think these points are even worthy of mention? So what?

Mighty mouse....gonna respond to this last day of class and classmates wanted to get drinks so lemme regroup and respond

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I don't know the rabbi in the video nor does he know me. But Jews can pray in a mosque (not joining in Muslim prayers) because there is no stain of idolatry there because Islam is (according to many opinions) a monotheistic religion. This has no bearing on the particular God belief. A church is affected by idolatry according to rabbinic understanding so the entire structure is suspect. Don't confuse the problems associated with a different idea of God with the question of whether a specific God is shared.

https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-bo/
for some information
and here is some more
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/26355

Thank you for sharing but it contradicts the idea that Islam and Judaism shares the same ideas of God but not in effect the same God. As the Rabbi and the subsequent proofs I have provided, Arabic is a Semitic language that has similarities. Both idea and effect and by effect I mean implementing the idea are the same. It is the same deity because there is only one. Now if we are going to get into particulars of attributes that is another conversation but the basic tenants are still there. Islam is pure monotheism as is Judaism. Both have to have beyond the shared ideas. It has to be the same.

 

[YmirGF]

Mighty mouse....gonna respond to this last day of class and classmates wanted to get drinks so lemme regroup and respond

Have some fun. I can wait.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Point 1 is a bit rich, @Epic Beard Man due to the fact that the "no partners" thingy was aimed directly at Christians and was meant as a vehement criticism towards Trinitarian Christians.
Point 2 is common to a host of religions and so does not, in any way, make Islam special
Point 3 is no biggy as they also believe in Djinn.
Point 4 is also moot because most religions teach that much. It's akin to the bare minimum.
Point 5 is a shared belief but with wildly different underpinnings

I'm a bit puzzled why you think these points are even worthy of mention? So what?

The points weren't meant to be distinct but to draw a close analysis and comparison to all three faiths. the idea that God has no partners had nothing to do with Christians.

 

[Sakeenah]

Thank you for the feedback. I like some understanding of Islam. You seem to know about it, so could you please tell me if the part in blue below can be called "an important part of the Islam belief?". So I might understand the difference in theology you asked about.
[When I heard "Mishary Rashed Al-Efasy" recite I thought, Islam must be good, it sounds so beautiful].

To have no confusion for myself I used the definition I found below.
Christian Theology would be the "study of God" that is found in the Bible. This study would include all aspects of God, including such things as His: deity, nature, purpose, attributes, relationship to the world and other beings, and more.

I was focussing in my previous reply on this aspect of Theology. So my thought was, that if the scripture contains violence to other believers [just because of difference of believe], I myself am not inclined to believe this scripture, because I see Love as the bridge between religion.

However as you said "theology, not doctrine" I tried another view [blue part]; is that more what you had in mind?:
If you ask me what I find from the text below, which I found about Islam, I would say "beautiful", I was very happy to read this, just wonderful. If this would be a little summary of what Islam stands for, I love that. The first 80% in blue no disagreement. Last 20% did surprise me a little though.
If there have been 100.000 prophets before, I would be surprised Mohammed would be the last one [just my common sense, and remembering Bahai]. As is written below "religion has been changed over time", I also see today different interpretation of koran [update seems needed]

This was called, an important [90%] part of the Islam belief; is this correct according to you?
"There is One Supreme Being and Creator that is entirely other than the universe, and upon which the entirety of the universe is dependent. Man was given, and we accepted, the responsibility of intellect and the ability to acquire knowledge of all things. We have the ability to know our universe, as well as to come to know God. Before this life, every human was asked by Allah, our Creator, “Am I not your Lord?” to which we all testified “Certainly.” The memory of this is not with us, but belief in Him is ingrained within our natural disposition.
Now we are placed in this world with one sole purpose, which is to worship God. And the only two things man is responsible for is his free will, and sincerity. Everything is under Allah’s control, but we are told to use this free will to do good works for His sake. And this entails believing in Him (along with His Angels, Books, and Prophets), as well as living life and regulating the Earth as He commanded."
We believe that Christianity and Judaism were also Islam, i.e. the same religion all calling to submission to God, but we believe that they have been changed by man over time. We also believe in the same prophets, though we don’t believe they were sinful as in Christianity, and also believe Jesus is a prophet and not the begotten son of God. In fact, we believe over 100,000 prophets have been sent to mankind all calling to the worship of the same One God (peace be upon them all). Finally, we believe that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the final messenger of God, and that the Qur’an is the final Word of God sent to mankind and that it will remain unchanged since it’s revelation

The blue text is mostly correct, but the Muslim scholars differed as to the number of Prophets and Messengers, according to what reached them, and their opinions on the authenticity of the hadeeths( narrations) that mentioned their numbers. Those who classed the hadeeths as saheeh(authentic) or hasan( good)gave their opinion based on those reports. Those who classed the hadeeths as da‘eef(weak) said that the number could not be known except through Revelation, so they refrained from stating a number. What is mentioned in the Quran is that God send messengers to every nation, and there is no difference of opinion on this.

“Verily! We have sent you with the truth, a bearer of glad tidings, and a warner. And there never was a nation but a warner had passed among them”
[Faatir 35:24].

Some of those Messengers are named in the Quran and their stories are told.

“Verily, We have inspired you (O Muhammad SAW) as We inspired Nooh (Noah) and the Prophets after him; We (also) inspired Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Yaqoob (Jacob), and Al-Asbat (the twelve sons of Yaqoob (Jacob)), Iesa (Jesus), Ayub (Job), Yoonus (Jonah), Haroon (Aaron), and Sulaiman (Solomon), and to Dawood (David) We gave the Zaboor (Psalms).

And Messengers We have mentioned to you before, and Messengers We have not mentioned to you, - and to Moosa (Moses) Allah spoke directly”
[an-Nisa’ 4:163-164].

" and Messengers we have not mentioned to you" means other people who are not mentioned in the Qur’an.

These are the names of the Prophets whose names are mentioned in the Quran:
Adam, Idrees, Nooh, Hood, Saalih, Ibraaheem, Loot, Ismaa‘eel, Ishaaq, Ya‘qoob, Yoosuf, Ayyoob, Shu‘ayb, Moses, Haroon, Yoonus, Dawood, Sulaymaan, Ilyaas, al-Yasa‘, Zakariya, Yahya, Dhu’l-Kifl (according to many Quran commentators),Jesus and Muhammad.

 

[Estro Felino]

Jews and Christians have the God who appears in the Hebrew and Christian bibles. He does not contradict himself, but is a singular figure who changes his mind over time. So the God figure is the same. However the Christian conception of God allows for a trinity so the entire underlying idea of God is different even though the specific God character is the same.

That's absolutely true... we Christians use the OT as source of knowledge, wisdom and basically as "book of truth", also because it is much richer in theological reflections, if we think of Sirach, Qohelet, Isaiah, etc...than the NT.

The Trinity is an allegory , we believe in one God, not in three, because we just used the term Ruach which is the dynamic power of God, to explain how Creation took place. It's not another deity.
We do underline that the term Ruach is feminine, and this shows how God is both mother and father. I think Jews agree on the fact that God's creative force is Love.
Of course it is perfectly understandable that Jews cannot accept Jesus as God, that is how mankind can become divine, but it's because we Christians believe that man actively participates to the creative process.

. A church is affected by idolatry according to rabbinic understanding so the entire structure is suspect. Don't confuse the problems associated with a different idea of God with the question of whether a specific God is shared.

With all due respect, if I think of the Great Synagogue of Rome, it does look like a Church, both on the outside and on the inside. So I don't understand what you mean by suspect structure.

sinagoga di roma - Google Search

 

[Augustus]

the idea that God has no partners had nothing to do with Christians.

It is made clear that many Christians are judged to be in contravention of this though.

You have a couple of very significant problems for Christians re Islamic theology:

1. Trinitarianism is an affront to god.
2. Paul, the core figure in much of Christian theology, is a blasphemous and mendacious perverter of God's true message.
( not to mention smaller issues like: No alcohol = no communion, reverence of saints is idolatry, etc)