Jews, Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,177
edited March 11 in News & Current Events
  1. What about the differences? Do they matter? Does God care what we call Him? Do Jews, Muslims and Christians worship the same God? If yes, who is this God?
  2. If no, to claim that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the Same God:
  • Is this heresy?
  • Is this blasphemy?
  • Is this syncretism?
  • Is this the truth?
  • Or is this foolishness from the catechism of fool-ology?

Please share your thoughts. Your response may be original thoughts, quotes, passages from the Bible, scholars, notes or recalls. The amount you share is up to you. References are always welcome, but not required. Your silence on this matter, speaks as well. Responses, to me, that coincide with the Bible is most persuasive. CM

«1

Comments

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,529

    No they do not worship the same God.


    Yes it is heresy, blasphemy, it is not the truth.


    The god that is called Allah is polar opposite to the God that is YHWH.


    Jews don't worship the same God because they fail to know Him just like the Pharisees.

  • MitchellMitchell Posts: 478

    Today Messianic Jews know and trust in Yeshua(Jesus) as their Mashiach(Messiah/Christ) and LORD/YHWH and savior. Yeshua, his disciples, and many of the earliest Christians were Jewish and that trend continues today with Messianic Judaism.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,177

    Do "Messianic Jews know and trust in Yeshua (Jesus) as their Mashiach (Messiah/Christ) and LORD/YHWH and savior", Christians, and Muslims Worship the Same God? The question remains, not just for you Mitchell but for all to respond, if inclined to do so. CM

  • MitchellMitchell Posts: 478
    edited March 14

    CM,

    Just to let you know My point was to was basically some Jews just like some Arabs or individuals any other ethnicity have accepted and worship the God of Israel and the one we find in the Bible (see: Revelation 7:9).

    So, CM please keep in mind the term Jews and the term Arabs are examples of ethnicities but the term Muslim is not as it refers strictly a member of Islam. For example A Jew and/or an Arab can be a Christian(Messianic) but a Muslim can not be so. A Jew and/or an Arab could become a Buddhist but a Muslim could not.


    Now, look at John chapter four where Jesus a Jew speaks to a Samaritan. The Jews and the Samaritan have basically the same first five books of the Bible in common so one could argue that they worship the same God. In fact Jesus seems to say that they are worshiping the same God, but there is a problem for:

    "22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

    So, in the real question isn't are they worshiping the right God, for even the Demons know God and fear (James 2:19) the question is are they worshiping in spirit and in truth. We, can find that even those with the Christian label are not exempt from this (see Matthew 7:21-23).

    Are groups of people with Jewish ethnicity and those with an Arab ethnicity worshipping in spirit and in truth? Yes, and I believe that Revelation 7:9 claims this as well.

    Now, are those who have embraced Islam and become a Muslim worshiping in spirit and in truth as defined by the Biblical Text? I would answer absolutely not, for Muslim reject the Bible as being God inspired word and/or use the Quran to read into the Biblical text what was never there. The what is written about Jesus in the Quran contradicts what is written about Jesus in the New Testament.


    Grace and Peace

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    I think we need to define Jesus Christ in historic Christian terms, that is, as the Trinity, before we can say any follow the true God. If the triune God did not come in the flesh, the worshiper of any other construct has the spirit of Antichrist according to John. In essence, the contents must match the name or it is a counterfeit.

    I'm not here to debate the trinity, I'm defining who God is.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Dave_L said:

    I think we need to define Jesus Christ in historic Christian terms, that is, as the Trinity, before we can say any follow the true God. If the triune God did not come in the flesh, the worshiper of any other construct has the spirit of Antichrist according to John. In essence, the contents must match the name or it is a counterfeit.

    I'm not here to debate the trinity, I'm defining who God is.

    You may not seek to "debate the trinity," Dave, but in my view, by the content of your "definition" of God in your post, and especially by your claim that people have "the spirit of Antichrist according to John" if they don't consent to the trinity, you certainly draw debatable conclusions.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    If you define Jesus apart from your denominational framework, he is OT YAHWEH = Jesus Christ in the NT. And that being the trinity according to the Ecumenical Creed standards. John says those who deny that Jesus (and all that he is) came in the flesh have the spirit of Antichrist.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Dave_L said:

    If you define Jesus apart from your denominational framework, he is OT YAHWEH = Jesus Christ in the NT. And that being the trinity according to the Ecumenical Creed standards. John says those who deny that Jesus (and all that he is) came in the flesh have the spirit of Antichrist.

    And here you draw more debatable conclusions, Dave. You're welcome to draw the conclusions of your choice!! But in my view - and my only point in this current exchange - the conclusions you draw about the Trinity are debatable.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    That's fine. But I'm just presenting the truth as far as I see it.

  • MitchellMitchell Posts: 478



    Dave in the above quoted statements of yours when you stated that "we need to define Jesus Christ ... as the Trinity" do you mean to say that Jesus Christ is the Trinity? Rather than being a member or a person of the Trinity?

    None-the-less You do make a point Dave. Orthodox and Catholic Christians continue to define Jesus Christ in the historic Christian terms that you champion and that their fellowships helped to create and define in their medieval creeds. So, 'if' a protestant and/or Anabaptist follows what 'you wrote' above they would logically conclude that Orthodox and Catholic Christian follows the true God. They could do so since Catholics/Orthodox define God as a triune God and use Historical ecclesiastical terms as your criteria in the above statement suggested. And, actually a number of western protestants evangelical individuals holding have concluded the above and have subsequently converted to the Orthodox faith or even the Catholic Church .

    A few random examples of that:

    In 1987 Metropolitan Philip welcomed 2000 former Evangelicals converted to Orthodox


    On the other hand if a if a protestant, an Anabaptist, or other individual holds to a criteria different from that found in your statement Dave they will in all likelihood come to a very different conclusion .

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328
    edited March 16

    Jesus Christ = YAHWEH. So the trinity is Jesus Christ eternally present as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Becoming incarnate in the Man also called by that name, Jesus Christ.

    Unlike us, being body, soul/mind, and spirit according to Paul, Jesus Christ the man is body, soul, and God without a human spirit. His spirit is instead the triune God, speaking in the person of the eternal Son.

    Sometimes he spoke as the Son of God and sometimes as the Son of Man through human limitations and passions.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    @Dave_L wrote

    Jesus Christ = YAHWEH.

    Any Scripture proof for this idea? Is Scripture not rather clear that YHWH is actually Jesus' FATHER ?? And, normally, a Father is NOT his own Son.

    So the trinity is Jesus Christ eternally present as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Becoming incarnate in the Man also called by that name, Jesus Christ.

    Sweet sounding words which really do not say anything of any Biblical substance, rather this statement is a mix of various claims and assumptions on your part.

    Unlike us, being body, soul/mind, and spirit according to Paul, Jesus Christ the man is body, soul, and God without a human spirit. His spirit is instead the triune God, speaking in the person of the eternal Son.

    So, according to you, Jesus WAS NOT a human being like humans are who are born of women? Your claim contradicts the numerous scripture reference in which Jesus is said to have been a human being, a man.

    Sometimes he spoke as the Son of God and sometimes as the Son of Man through human limitations and passions.

    See above ...

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    Forget it Wolfgang, it's over your head and will only wind up it senseless debate.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    @Dave_L wrote

    Forget it Wolfgang, it's over your head and will only wind up it senseless debate.

    wow ... and I thought I was able to think quite logically, reasonably and soundly ... 😪

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Dave_L said:

    Forget it Wolfgang, it's over your head and will only wind up it senseless debate.

    Your post taught me something, Dave. I've long known that if you can't beat the message, you can beat the messenger. Thanks to your post, I now know HOW to beat messengers: Tell 'em the "truth" is over their heads!

    Granted, that's not an intellectually sophisticated approach. And it's certainly not particularly welcoming or friendly. But there must be quiet confidence in the fact that most every messenger has a "head" over which you can assert the truth resides. Well done. (Were I you, I'd be praying that Wolfgang doesn't experience a later-in-life growth spurt. If that happens, he might get so tall that no "truth" could get over his head! Then how would you beat him?)

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    Why beat a dead horse? You and WS have your set views that scripture IF accepted refutes. And I have my position that time and again has been proven correct throughout Church history. I choose to present my views on a take it or leave it basis. BK asked a simple question and I responded with the historic doctrine of the Trinity supported by all the early creeds.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    @Dave_L wrote

    ... I choose to present my views on a take it or leave it basis. ...

    And as such you really are in the wrong place, seeing that you have no interest in an exchange, discourse or debate. You are misusing this forum platform to solely propagate your own opinion without the least bit of interest in what others contriibute

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Dave_L said:

    Why beat a dead horse? You and WS have your set views that scripture IF accepted refutes. And I have my position that time and again has been proven correct throughout Church history. I choose to present my views on a take it or leave it basis. BK asked a simple question and I responded with the historic doctrine of the Trinity supported by all the early creeds....

    Why beat the same dead horse? Once is enough.

    In my view, your assessment that the right answer is "over (Wolfgang's) head" is NOT a "dead horse," Dave. Since I think that was the first time you've issued such a criticism of another CD poster, it seems to me said "horse" is very much still up on all fours and trotting.

    Now our debate about the Trinity itself? Now THAT might qualify as a dead horse! (Though given the history of CD exchanges on the subject, apparently even dead horses can fun to ride! 🙂) But your put down of Wolfgang - that the truth about the Jesus and God is "over (his) head" - that horse just escaped the birth canal.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068
    edited March 18

    But your put down of Wolfgang - that the truth about the Jesus and God is "over (his) head" - that horse just escaped the birth canal.

    Actually, since it is generally claimed by proponents of and believers in the Trinity dogma that it really is a mystery that can NOT be understood but "just must be believed", one could safely conclude that this Trinity dogma is above all Trinity believers' head ... all, except one Dave_L ??

    Also, one should note that the Trinity dogma is NOT the Biblical revelation of who the true God and who His only begotten Son Jesus ...

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    You have your antitrinitarian framework that will not allow you to read scripture in any other way. So all I care to do is present the historic trinitarian framework that has withstood centuries of attack and remains true to the scriptures.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    The Scriptures say "God is ONE" ... Trinity dogma says "THREE are each God" ...

    When one's head is above reason and logic, one might say that Trinity dogma remains true to the Scriptures ??

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    You are not able to grasp that God has nothing we can compare him to. You are thinking materialistically, not spiritually.

  • MitchellMitchell Posts: 478

    In other words you saying that YHWH is one while working through three different "manifestations": Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I think I have hear that some groups of Pentecostals to similar beliefs concerning the Godhead.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Dave_L said:

    You have your antitrinitarian framework that will not allow you to read scripture in any other way. So all I care to do is present the historic trinitarian framework that has withstood centuries of attack and remains true to the scriptures.

    No. I have my views, forged from and that affect my interpretation of Scripture, very much, I assume, the way you have your views that are forged from and that affect your interpretation of Scripture.

    "All" you may care to do is to present a historic theological framework, but in the case to which I am drawing your attention, what you cared to do was to post a put-down of another CD participant [that the truth about the Trinity is "over (Wolfgang's) head]." My objection to your post, Dave, has NOTHING to do with your Trinitarian views or the historical framework you believe supports them. My objection has SOLELY to do with what I consider to have been your gratuitous put-down of Wolfgang, when you asserted that the truth about the Trinity is "over (his) head."

    So my question: In your view, what was the justification for that specific remark (and ONLY that specific remark)?

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    Would your church fire you if you became trinitarian and taught it?

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,737

    @Dave_L said:

    Would your church fire you if you became trinitarian and taught it?

    No. Not at all. Neither the congregation I serve nor the denomination of which our congregation is a part would even think about such a move.

    Now back to the question I asked you in my previous post: In your view, what was the justification for your posting to Wolfgang that the truth about the Trinity was "over (his) head"? As I reported in my previous post, I'm asking about the specific language you used, that the truth was "over (his) head," not about the comparative validity or accuracy of your and his views.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    You already have your mind made up and have rejected the historic Church position. So anything I say is on a take it or leave it basis.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,068

    @Dave_L why do you want to give others the impression that you are unable to read what someone else writes? Why do you answer "Vegetables grow in the garden" when someone asks you "Are you using train or plane for you travel?"

Sign In or Register to comment.