Allah is the God of the Bible -- say orthodox Jewish Rabbis.

cjab

Well-known member
Christianity piggy backed on the the Jewish scriptures. How is that better than what Muslims did?
Mahomet is a descendant of Ishmael, at the most. Ishmael was never prophesied to accomplish anything.

Jesus on the other hand could trace his descent back through Isaac and David and many notables.

He is the legitimate prophet, Mahomet the illegitimate one, who piggy backed onto Christianity.

Christianity was politicised as soon as Constantine declared it the official religion of the Roman empire.
Christianity had begun to be politicised long before then with competing bishoprics at loggerheads over the synthesis of the bible with Greek philosophy. Yet you have to realize that Greek philosophy was an external influence on Christianity and never changed the biblical message. There were always those who disagreed with the Constantine formulation, just as there are many who disagree with the Catholic church today.

Rather than being destroyers of ancient civilization Muslims actually saved and increased much of the wisdom of the Greeks that had been lost to Europe during the Dark Ages.
That's only because they inherited the lands of the Greeks that had been responsible for corrupting Christianity.

Where does the OT set out the whole plan of salvation.
Well that's a tall order on me with limited time on my hands. Why not start with these prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament:
If you search, you will discover.

Most pagans willingly converted? Really. Most pagans converted under the boot of Rome.
The only thing sustaining pagan gods was their military might. Once they stared defeat in the face, there was no reason to stick with the pagan gods. That's the way pagan gods work. Similarly with Islam. The only thing Islam understands is defeat, which is why it must be militarily defeated. The West doesn't understand that. China does.

I'm not sure Jews are as much concerned with the 'Trinity' as they are with Jesus being declared God. That was not one of their Messianic expectations.
No, Jesus didn't fulfil their idea of a God-man. It's why the nation of Israel was given to the pagans, as God's wrath against them. Frankly the Jews are a religious irrelevance. It's just that they have rather a grip on liberal thinking and certain american industries which makes them seem so very important. But in terms of religion, Judaism is irrelevant. There are however many Christian Jews today.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
Mahomet is a descendant of Ishmael, at the most. Ishmael was never prophesied to accomplish anything.

Jesus on the other hand could trace his descent back through Isaac and David and many notables.
If Jesus was from a common family, how would they know his genealogy? It was just invented to fulfil messianic expectation.

Christianity had begun to be politicised long before then with competing bishoprics at loggerheads over the synthesis of the bible with Greek philosophy. Yet you have to realize that Greek philosophy was an external influence on Christianity and never changed the biblical message. There were always those who disagreed with the Constantine formulation, just as there are many who disagree with the Catholic church today.

Greek philosophy was an internal influence on Christianity. Israel was Hellenised long before Jesus came along.
Any Greek influence was there from day one.
That's only because they inherited the lands of the Greeks that had been responsible for corrupting Christianity.
The Romans took the wisdom they had taken from the Greeks throughout Europe. That didn't stop much classical learning being lost during the Dark Ages.

Well that's a tall order on me with limited time on my hands. Why not start with these prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament:
If you search, you will discover.
I thought when you said it that maybe you had something to hand.

The only thing sustaining pagan gods was their military might. Once they stared defeat in the face, there was no reason to stick with the pagan gods. That's the way pagan gods work. Similarly with Islam. The only thing Islam understands is defeat, which is why it must be militarily defeated. The West doesn't understand that. China does.
What sustained pagan gods was belief and continuity. Just like any other religion. There was no reason to stick with the pagan gods once Rome made it bad for their health to do so. I'm sure many kept their beliefs for many years in secret before they eventually succumbed.

No, Jesus didn't fulfil their idea of a God-man. It's why the nation of Israel was given to the pagans, as God's wrath against them. Frankly the Jews are a religious irrelevance. It's just that they have rather a grip on liberal thinking and certain american industries which makes them seem so very important. But in terms of religion, Judaism is irrelevant. There are however many Christian Jews today.

The nation of Israel was taken by the pagans because they had better armies. What makes the Jews a 'religious irrelevance' ?
If it's because you think they have been superseded then the Muslims would say the same about Christianity.
 

cjab

Well-known member
If Jesus was from a common family, how would they know his genealogy? It was just invented to fulfil messianic expectation.
Why wouldn't they have records? Don't forget that Judaism as it originally existed in Israel was wiped out in the first centuries AD, when all Jews were expelled, Jerusalem descrated and destroyed, and Greek & Roman paganism established throughout Israel. Lack of modern evidence today isn't proof for inauthenticity of what went on in yesteryear.

Greek philosophy was an internal influence on Christianity. Israel was Hellenised long before Jesus came along.
Any Greek influence was there from day one.
Absolutely not. The Seleucids had been driven out by the Maccabees in 2nd century BC. The Maccabees reasserted the Jewish religion, partly by forced conversion, expanded the boundaries of Judea by conquest and reduced the influence of Hellenism and Hellenistic Judaism (per Wiki). So the Jews were left in possession of their own religion up until the time of Christ.


The Romans took the wisdom they had taken from the Greeks throughout Europe. That didn't stop much classical learning being lost during the Dark Ages.
The tribes that invaded Europe and which conquered Rome in the 4th century and beyond were not Greeks but Barbarians. May be they weren't much interested in Greek writers, or couldn't understand the lingo.

In the upheavals of conquest and war with the invading barbarians, including later war with Islam in Spain and France, esoteric teachings were not prioritized. Rome itself went into an intellectual decline for some centuries after it was conquered. The emphasis was on militaristic skills and endeavors. However I admit I'm not intimately acquainted with why the Greek authors got lost.

I thought when you said it that maybe you had something to hand.
God's plan of salvation is an endeavor for you to assess for yourself, if you're interested in it. The Old Testament is full of types of Christ and his salvation, from the temple to everything else. The whole Old testament testifies about Christ. It's not something I can dish up in a fews lines in a post. Everything pertaining to Israelite worship pointed to Christ.

Luk 24:27 "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

If you're going to make excuses for not investigating this for yourself, then you're not interested. However let's make a start with Moses himself (I cribbed this as I haven't got time to formulate in my own words):

- Jesus is, indeed, the Passover Lamb, as those who put their faith in His death and the blood He shed are rescued from the judgment that is to come. (John 3:16-18)
- Like the manna in the desert, Jesus is the Bread from Heaven (John 6:51) that satisfies our spiritual hunger and gives us life.
- Like the water that sprung from the rock, Jesus is the living water (John 7:37) that satisfies our spiritual thirst.
- Like the snake in the desert that was lifted up that those who were bitten by deadly snakes could look upon and be saved, Jesus was lifted up so that we who have been bitten by Satan in our sin can look upon Jesus and be saved from spiritual death. (John 3:14-15)
- Like the rock that was struck the first time, but should never be struck again, Jesus suffered once for all. (1 Peter 3:18)
- Jesus is the offspring of the woman spoken of in Genesis 3 that would crush the head of Satan (Genesis 3:15)
Jesus is the fulfillment of the life of Joseph, which foreshadows Him being the beloved Son, being envied by His own, begin rejected by His own, cast down into the pit, resurrected, sent to a distant country where He became lord of all, and who then provided salvation for His own.
- Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah: cf. Genesis 49:8ff as interpreted by Revelation 5:5
- Moses also said that God would raise up "a prophet like me" (Deuteronomy 18:15), and this is probably the clearest reference to the coming Messiah.

What sustained pagan gods was belief and continuity. Just like any other religion. There was no reason to stick with the pagan gods once Rome made it bad for their health to do so. I'm sure many kept their beliefs for many years in secret before they eventually succumbed.
No, it wasn't belief but superstition and delusion. Continuity was provided only by the poets and false and invented claims of continuity from older deities. Ultimately most pagan deities can be traced back to original Sumerian deities, even Ea / Enki, Anu and Enlil, individual city-state gods of a national Sumerian trinity that subsisted together as manifestations of a uni-spiritual divinity. However Sumer's quick re-descent into polytheism after the flood paved the way for polytheism throughout the whole world.

The nation of Israel was taken by the pagans because they had better armies. What makes the Jews a 'religious irrelevance' ?
There are so few Jews in the world, and they have no place or temple by which to practice Judaism as found in the OT and have had no such place for 2000 years.

If it's because you think they have been superseded then the Muslims would say the same about Christianity.
They may well say that, and I agree that in the lands where Trinitarianism originated, Islam won out politically, by the decree of God. So there was this judgement on Trinitarianism. Islam may well boast of its victory over the "Trinitarian heresy" of the ancient national state rulers as it appears today, but it was always indebted to the Papacy for allowing it its victories. Thus Constantinople only fell because Roman mercenaries had already devastated the city before hand.

There was a time in the era of Ghengis Khan and his successors where Islam was nearly wiped off the face of the earth, and only saved by the Papacy which refused to join in the then Mongolian war against Islam. So in fact Islam owes its predominance today partly to its tolerance by the Papacy, which is actually one of true Christianity's foremost opponents (not for nothing had it been called antichrist for hundreds of years).

Moreover it continues to be well nigh impossible for Islam to make coverts of real Christians, although the rabble that are found in nominally Christian countries may sometimes convert to Islam.

Islam has a very long way to go before it becames anything like a world majority religion, but even if it did, it wouldn't mean anything in terms of faith, where freedom of religion doesn't exist in many Islamic countries. Islam is as much a political ideology as a religion.
 
Last edited:

Tiburon

Well-known member
Why wouldn't they have records? Don't forget that Judaism as it originally existed in Israel was wiped out in the first centuries AD, when all Jews were expelled, Jerusalem descrated and destroyed, and Greek & Roman paganism established throughout Israel. Lack of modern evidence today isn't proof for inauthenticity of what went on in yesteryear.
You ask me why wouldn't they have records and then you give me several reason why they wouldn't.
Do you know who you great grand father and your great great grandfather were?
Absolutely not. The Seleucids had been driven out by the Maccabees in 2nd century BC. The Maccabees reasserted the Jewish religion, partly by forced conversion, expanded the boundaries of Judea by conquest and reduced the influence of Hellenism and Hellenistic Judaism (per Wiki). So the Jews were left in possession of their own religion up until the time of Christ.
The Maccabees were in power for about a hundred years after fighting against their own countrymen. That's hardly enough to undo the Hellenisation that went before. They may have rolled back religious practices but that doesn't undo the psychological and philosophical inculcation of the Greeks. Which hardly matters when Christianity was a hop step and a big jump away from Judaism.

God's plan of salvation is an endeavor for you to assess for yourself, if you're interested in it. The Old Testament is full of types of Christ and his salvation, from the temple to everything else. The whole Old testament testifies about Christ. It's not something I can dish up in a fews lines in a post. Everything pertaining to Israelite worship pointed to Christ.

Luk 24:27 "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."

If you're going to make excuses for not investigating this for yourself, then you're not interested. However let's make a start with Moses himself (I cribbed this as I haven't got time to formulate in my own words):

- Jesus is, indeed, the Passover Lamb, as those who put their faith in His death and the blood He shed are rescued from the judgment that is to come. (John 3:16-18)
- Like the manna in the desert, Jesus is the Bread from Heaven (John 6:51) that satisfies our spiritual hunger and gives us life.
- Like the water that sprung from the rock, Jesus is the living water (John 7:37) that satisfies our spiritual thirst.
- Like the snake in the desert that was lifted up that those who were bitten by deadly snakes could look upon and be saved, Jesus was lifted up so that we who have been bitten by Satan in our sin can look upon Jesus and be saved from spiritual death. (John 3:14-15)
- Like the rock that was struck the first time, but should never be struck again, Jesus suffered once for all. (1 Peter 3:18)
- Jesus is the offspring of the woman spoken of in Genesis 3 that would crush the head of Satan (Genesis 3:15)
Jesus is the fulfillment of the life of Joseph, which foreshadows Him being the beloved Son, being envied by His own, begin rejected by His own, cast down into the pit, resurrected, sent to a distant country where He became lord of all, and who then provided salvation for His own.
- Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah: cf. Genesis 49:8ff as interpreted by Revelation 5:5
- Moses also said that God would raise up "a prophet like me" (Deuteronomy 18:15), and this is probably the clearest reference to the coming Messiah.
If "The Old Testament is full of types of Christ". What makes you believe that Jesus' story isn't just a reworking of these?

No, it wasn't belief but superstition and delusion. Continuity was provided only by the poets and false and invented claims of continuity from older deities. Ultimately most pagan deities can be traced back to original Sumerian deities, even Ea / Enki, Anu and Enlil, individual city-state gods of a national Sumerian trinity that subsisted together as manifestations of a uni-spiritual divinity. However Sumer's quick re-descent into polytheism after the flood paved the way for polytheism throughout the whole world.
Superstition and delusion is belief.

There are so few Jews in the world, and they have no place or temple by which to practice Judaism as found in the OT and have had no such place for 2000 years.
So what?

They may well say that, and I agree that in the lands where Trinitarianism originated, Islam won out politically, by the decree of God. So there was this judgement on Trinitarianism. Islam may well boast of its victory over the "Trinitarian heresy" of the ancient national state rulers as it appears today, but it was always indebted to the Papacy for allowing it its victories. Thus Constantinople only fell because Roman mercenaries had already devastated the city before hand.

There was a time in the era of Ghengis Khan and his successors where Islam was nearly wiped off the face of the earth, and only saved by the Papacy which refused to join in the then Mongolian war against Islam. So in fact Islam owes its predominance today partly to its tolerance by the Papacy, which is actually one of true Christianity's foremost opponents (not for nothing had it been called antichrist for hundreds of years).

Moreover it continues to be well nigh impossible for Islam to make coverts of real Christians, although the rabble that are found in nominally Christian countries may sometimes convert to Islam.
So you don't accept Trinitarianism?

Islam has a very long way to go before it becomes anything like a world majority religion, but even if it did, it wouldn't mean anything in terms of faith, where freedom of religion doesn't exist in many Islamic countries. Islam is as much a political ideology as a religion.
Freedom of religion never used to exist in most Christian countries. There are several where it still doesn't exist.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You ask me why wouldn't they have records and then you give me several reason why they wouldn't.
Do you know who you great grand father and your great great grandfather were?
The gospels were written before the Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews booted out of Israel. So your statement makes no sense.

The Maccabees were in power for about a hundred years after fighting against their own countrymen. That's hardly enough to undo the Hellenisation that went before. They may have rolled back religious practices but that doesn't undo the psychological and philosophical inculcation of the Greeks. Which hardly matters when Christianity was a hop step and a big jump away from Judaism.
This is frankly untrue in respect of the Pharisees and other groups such as the Essenes and anonymous prophets.

Moreover it is clear that the Jersualem Jews and even Paul the apostle found no issues in reconciling Judaic practices with Christian faith, so again it seems you're making it up.

If "The Old Testament is full of types of Christ". What makes you believe that Jesus' story isn't just a reworking of these?
1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record and these three are one."

Superstition and delusion is belief.
It is not.

If a religion cannot be practiced according to its own laws for two millennia, how then can it be important? Why is it any more important than Odinism that hasn't been practised for one millennia?

So you don't accept Trinitarianism?
Clearly God found something wrong with it, as all those lands in which it originated and predominated were given to Mahomet's successors. By the standards of the Old Testament, and by the account in Revelation, it suggests a measure of wrath being poured out on unbelievers, suggesting that Trinitarianism (which was accompanied by gross appendages such as regard for Mary, "Queen of Heaven") gave rise to philosophical or cultural disciples of Christ, rather than real disciples of Christ.

Freedom of religion never used to exist in most Christian countries. There are several where it still doesn't exist.
It is true that many nominally Christian countries demanded participation in State religion and in that sense, there has also been a degree of politicization to what is perceived as the Christian religion. Both Islam and Christianity suffer from the condition of claiming far more actual disciples than is likely to be the case in practice.

However the degree of politicization of Islam remains vastly greater than for Christianity in this day and age, cf. Islamic blasphemy laws incorporated by Islamic states.
 
Last edited:

Tiburon

Well-known member
The gospels were written before the Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews booted out of Israel. So your statement makes no sense.
Most Biblical scholars see Paul's letters as the earliest being written about AD 90. That is after the destruction of the temple. The rest of the Gospels came after that. That doesn't affect the probability that only high status people would be bothered recording their ancestry.

This is frankly untrue in respect of the Pharisees and other groups such as the Essenes and anonymous prophets.

Moreover it is clear that the Jersualem Jews and even Paul the apostle found no issues in reconciling Judaic practices with Christian faith, so again it seems you're making it up.
Christian faith was Jewish faith. At least under Jesus. Paul may not have found much issue with reconciling Judaic practices but neither did he have any issue with abandoning them when he saw that he would have trouble getting Jewish converts and that Gentiles weren't keen on accepting the burden of the Law.

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record and these three are one."
I don't understand how this relates to a reworking of previous 'Christ' figures. This sounds Trinitarian.

It is not.
Yes it is.

If a religion cannot be practiced according to its own laws for two millennia, how then can it be important? Why is it any more important than Odinism that hasn't been practised for one millennia?
Ask the Jews. They believe that even without sacrifices they are still practicing Judaism.

Clearly God found something wrong with it, as all those lands in which it originated and predominated were given to Mahomet's successors. By the standards of the Old Testament, and by the account in Revelation, it suggests a measure of wrath being poured out on unbelievers, suggesting that Trinitarianism (which was accompanied by gross appendages such as regard for Mary, "Queen of Heaven") gave rise to philosophical or cultural disciples of Christ, rather than real disciples of Christ.
Trinitarians dominate Christianity.
How do you deal with that?
What is your position on who Jesus was? Was he God incarnate or just God's emissary?
 

cjab

Well-known member
Most Biblical scholars see Paul's letters as the earliest being written about AD 90. That is after the destruction of the temple. The rest of the Gospels came after that. That doesn't affect the probability that only high status people would be bothered recording their ancestry.
All conjectures as to dates of the gospels are mere conjectures. Fact is these speculators can have no idea when the gospels were first written due to theologically insignificant revisionism being known to have occured in later copies.

As for the letters of Paul: unequivocally inaccurate.

Christian faith was Jewish faith. At least under Jesus. Paul may not have found much issue with reconciling Judaic practices but neither did he have any issue with abandoning them when he saw that he would have trouble getting Jewish converts and that Gentiles weren't keen on accepting the burden of the Law.
Again wrong. It was the Jews themselves who decided what rules the Gentiles had to accept from the Jewish law.Act 15:20 etc.

I don't understand how this relates to a reworking of previous 'Christ' figures. This sounds Trinitarian.
Not trinitarian.

1Jo 5:8 "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

Spirit new spirit
Water sanctification
Blood forgiveness of sin


Ask the Jews. They believe that even without sacrifices they are still practicing Judaism.
Not per the law but per their rabbis.

Trinitarians dominate Christianity.
How do you deal with that?
What is your position on who Jesus was? Was he God incarnate or just God's emissary?
Trinitarianism is an imposition on biblical faith. You can ignore it if you wan't to. It's mainly for theologians and philosophers.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
All conjectures as to dates of the gospels are mere conjectures. Fact is these speculators can have no idea when the gospels were first written due to theologically insignificant revisionism being known to have occured in later copies.

As for the letters of Paul: unequivocally inaccurate.
There is some conjecture but the copyists retained the word usage and structure which can be used to give a ballpark for the time of authorship.
"the letters of Paul: unequivocally inaccurate." In what way inaccurate?

Again wrong. It was the Jews themselves who decided what rules the Gentiles had to accept from the Jewish law.Act 15:20 etc.
Paul had already let them off the hook. This was a compromise deal.

Not trinitarian.

1Jo 5:8 "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

Spirit new spirit
Water sanctification
Blood forgiveness of sin
OK.

Not per the law but per their rabbis.
OK

Trinitarianism is an imposition on biblical faith. You can ignore it if you wan't to. It's mainly for theologians and philosophers.
Who then do you say Jesus was? Fully and totally God? And what of the "Holy Spirit" is that a separate thing altogether?
 

cjab

Well-known member
There is some conjecture but the copyists retained the word usage and structure which can be used to give a ballpark for the time of authorship.
No, you're not versed in the sheer inaccuracy of this kind of exercise. It has proved over and again to be baseless, as it discounts the original documents being copied and the words changed to convey a better meaning, just as the words in English bible translations are forever being changed to render a more modern best-sense.

"the letters of Paul: unequivocally inaccurate." In what way inaccurate?
They are accepted as being pre-AD70 and written when Paul was still alive.

Paul had already let them off the hook. This was a compromise deal.
There was no compromise. You clearly don't grasp what Christ came for, which was to fulfill the legalistic law on our behalf to liberate humanity to live by faith.


Who then do you say Jesus was? Fully and totally God? And what of the "Holy Spirit" is that a separate thing altogether?
In Jesus' own words, he came from God, and in the apostles words, he was a man with the imprint of the hypostasis of God, but in the words of Trinitarians .... well they aren't to be found in the bible.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
No, you're not versed in the sheer inaccuracy of this kind of exercise. It has proved over and again to be baseless, as it discounts the original documents being copied and the words changed to convey a better meaning, just as the words in English bible translations are forever being changed to render a more modern best-sense.
They were called Copyists because they copied. It is true that they did sometimes interpolate. But they didn't rewrite the whole text in their own words.
English bible translations are changed because they are just that, translations.
They are accepted as being pre-AD70 and written when Paul was still alive.
My mistake. I was thinking of some other gospels.
There was no compromise. You clearly don't grasp what Christ came for, which was to fulfil the legalistic law on our behalf to liberate humanity to live by faith.
No. That is Pauls rendering of the message.
Jesus states in Mathew 5 "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law".
In Jesus' own words, he came from God, and in the apostles words, he was a man with the imprint of the hypostasis of God, but in the words of Trinitarians .... well they aren't to be found in the bible.
Do you belong to a particular church? I haven't heard of many that preach this.
 

BMS

Well-known member
There are lgb scholars that affirm the Bible does exclude and comdemn same sex relations but they arent believed by many whose main interest is lgb affirmation.
Sure there may be some Jewish scholars who say that, and of course the arabic word for God is Allah for Christians as well.
However when one reads the two testimonies, the Holy Bible and the Quran one sees two different deities

It is often claimed Christianity and Islam are fundamentally the same with superficial differences. The truth is they are fundamenatlly different with some superficial didferences
 

cjab

Well-known member
They were called Copyists because they copied. It is true that they did sometimes interpolate. But they didn't rewrite the whole text in their own words.
English bible translations are changed because they are just that, translations.
You don't really know what they did because you weren't there, especially in times of yore before the exile. For a start, the law of Moses was likely to have been originally written in the proto-Hebrew alphabet discovered written on the walls of the mines in Timna and Serabit el Khadim and then become gradually 'translated' into the modern Hebrew of today, where Hebrew is also much indebted to the Canaanite language. Over the course of 1500 years, languages and words do change, just like in English. Imagine reading English of 1500 years ago. You wouldn't understand it.

My mistake. I was thinking of some other gospels.

No. That is Pauls rendering of the message.
Jesus states in Mathew 5 "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law".
Indeed. That doesn't mean to say that every last dot "has to" be obeyed. It all depends on what the Spirit commands. Most of the time it does enforce a fairly standard conformity, especially in respect of the higher commandments. Not so much over ritual which was only a copy and shaddow of heavenly things.

Do you belong to a particular church? I haven't heard of many that preach this.
What I just said came direct from Heb 1:3. Trinitarianism is a problem not only in the way it is formulated in words that aren't found in the bible, but because it confuses concepts and muddles everything to insist on a conformity not with the bible, but with Hermetic philosophy and early Greek and Latin "fathers" who even conceded that Trinitarianism was a blend of Jewish and Greek concepts.

There are "three that are called God and reverenced as God" per 2 Thess 2:4, but that doesn't mean to say that "God is comprised of three persons" is a scripturally accurate thing to say, for none of the apostles say this. The whole subject of Trinitarianism is a minefield, but what you need to know is the scripture declares the Father to be axiomatically God, and the Logos is God because the Father dwells in the Logis, spiritually speaking. This is sensible because otherwise the Father would potentially cease being God. All it is saying is that whatever the Father dwells in must itself (or himself) be God.
 

cjab

Well-known member
There are lgb scholars that affirm the Bible does exclude and comdemn same sex relations but they arent believed by many whose main interest is lgb affirmation.
Sure there may be some Jewish scholars who say that, and of course the arabic word for God is Allah for Christians as well.
However when one reads the two testimonies, the Holy Bible and the Quran one sees two different deities

It is often claimed Christianity and Islam are fundamentally the same with superficial differences. The truth is they are fundamenatlly different with some superficial didferences
Islam is without doubt a heretical and non-viable version of Christianity. For instance it pays lip service to Jesus, but ultimately disowns him by refusing to accept him as the son of God.

The koran is now thought to incorporate one or more Christian syriac texts / hymns crudely (very roughly) translated into Arabic from where phrases like the virgins of paradise originate. See Christoph Luxenberg's book, Die Syro-Aramaische Lesart des Koran. Also

Another problem with Islam is that so much of it is in the Hadith, who integrity and historicity is unverifiable and unknowable.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
Islam is without doubt a heretical and non-viable version of Christianity. For instance it pays lip service to Jesus, but ultimately disowns him by refusing to accept him as the son of God.

What exactly do you mean by "son of God"?

Do you mean Jesus was literally the offspring/descendant of God?

Or is it just a title denoting that Jesus was beloved by God?

On a side note, Adam is also called the "son of God" (Luke 3:38). So does it mean he's divine? No? So why should you regard Jesus as divine?
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
Another problem with Islam is that so much of it is in the Hadith, who integrity and historicity is unverifiable and unknowable.

The gospels are actually the Hadiths of Jesus. It was written by people who gathered details about Jesus' life from those who witnessed him.

Luke 1 says

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

That's exactly how the Hadiths were written.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
Mahomet is a descendant of Ishmael, at the most. Ishmael was never prophesied to accomplish anything.

"And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation." (Genesis 17:20)

That's the exact blessing God gave abraham:

"I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great,and you will be a blessing" (Genesis 12:2)

So what made the nation that descended from Abraham "great"? Answer: it was "great" because it was a nation that was chosen to receive the Words of God. And it was "great" because it produced numerous prophets and many pious people who served the God of Abraham.

The same thing applies to Ishmael. The nation that descended from him (Arabs) was "great" because it was chosen to receive the Words of God (the Quran). And it was "great" because it produced the final prophet of God and many pious people who served the God of Abraham.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
In every sense Mahomet is akin to Ba'al. Why can't his image be depicted? Because he is not human, but treated as if God himself.

Islam prohibits the depiction of ALL prophets. That doesn't mean they are being treated as God.
 

cjab

Well-known member
"And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation." (Genesis 17:20)

That's the exact blessing God gave abraham:

"I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great,and you will be a blessing" (Genesis 12:2)

So what made the nation that descended from Abraham "great"? Answer: it was "great" because it was a nation that was chosen to receive the Words of God. And it was "great" because it produced numerous prophets and many pious people who served the God of Abraham.

The same thing applies to Ishmael. The nation that descended from him (Arabs) was "great" because it was chosen to receive the Words of God (the Quran). And it was "great" because it produced the final prophet of God and many pious people who served the God of Abraham.
Good points.

However it is clear that "great nation" ("gāḏôl goy" in Hebrew) doesn't mean "the greatest nation ever" nor does it even infer a "godly nation."

It is applied to the (smallish) kingdom of Israel in Deu 4:6
It is applied to the Ishmaelites in Gen 21:18, Gen 17:20
It is applied to the Babylonians in Jer 6:22
It is applied to the Medes in Jer 50:41

So it is nonsense to suggest that "The nation that descended from Ishmael was "great" because it was chosen to receive the Words of God (the Quran). And it was "great" because it produced the final prophet of God and many pious people who served the God of Abraham."

Gāḏôl goy is as capable of being applied to the wicked Babylonians as it is to Israel.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Islam prohibits the depiction of ALL prophets. That doesn't mean they are being treated as God.
I think Islam only acknowledges one prophet in reality: Mahomet, as all other prophets came after Abaham. This is why I say Islam is a ba'alist religion. Allah is ba'al son of El, the god of Abraham, and Mahomet is Allah.

Even the Jews were condemned by Christ as paying only lip-service to their own prophets. How much more Islam (excluding Mahomet).
 

cjab

Well-known member
What exactly do you mean by "son of God"?
In this context, a begotten son of God, being a human being that came down from heaven.

Do you mean Jesus was literally the offspring/descendant of God?
I mean he came down from heaven. He pre-existed in another non-human form.

Or is it just a title denoting that Jesus was beloved by God?
No.

On a side note, Adam is also called the "son of God" (Luke 3:38). So does it mean he's divine? No? So why should you regard Jesus as divine?
Because Jesus is declared a "begotten son of God" i.e. the imprint of the hypostasis of God, that Adam never was.

“I have installed My King on Zion, upon My holy mountain.” 7I will proclaim the decree spoken to Me by the LORD: “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father. Ask Me, and I will make the nations Your inheritance, the ends of the earth Your possession" Ps 2:7.
 
Top