Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

^^^Well yes, i could have told you that.
Interesting reading, though. Hope you get more substantial feedback than mine.

Well, a lot of the same, if not much more arguments could then be made that the God of the New Testament is not the God of the Torah. Starting with your decision to use the translated name Jehovah, rather than the Jewish standard of Yaweh. Yaweh also is a singular God, like Allah, not a trinity like the God of the New Testament. Yaweh, like Allah, wants people to follow his rules and bases his jus mentioned on that, the God of the New Testament only has one rule, to believe in his "son" aspect, making any other rules or morals unimportant.

So, yeah, perhaps Allah is not the God of the new Testament, but he's definitely closer to that of the Old Testament. At any rate, they both claim to be "evolutions" of Yaweh, and are in that way at least historically related.

But God is all powerful. He should totally be able to be two separate entities if he wants. Or a billion different entities. Or it's the same thing just with different interpretations from different people.

Jehovah, Yahweh, I AM, Jesus Christ, etc...It doesn't matter which name you call Him, He is still the Christian God. It always puzzles me when people (especially "Christians" like DarthAnt66, who should know better) act as if the New Testament and Old testament have two seperate Gods. They're One and the same. Christ has ALWAYS existed (although in a different form and known by a different name, "The Word" just as His Father has. Just because most Jews, for now anyway, reject the idea of a triune God doesn't mean the God of the OT was not one.


Check out the article I linked to in my "Yahweh: The 3-in-1 God" for detailed info on the triune nature of God. He has always been a Triune God. He didn't just suddenly become one as many people seem to think.

You are correct people do act like the Old and New testament Gods are separate. My guess is because otherwise they would have to admit their God is bi-polar, at best.

Elohim is a plural name of God in the Old Testament. In Hebrew, plural is three or more, not two or more like in the English language. The Hewbrews did not understand fully the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is evident that they understood there was a triune nature to God, hence the use of the plural.

So is the word 'God'. God is not a word in either original language. Allah is just a translation of the word God, and not God's name any more than God is.


Here's the thing: They're both explicitly the Jewish God. You can't word-lawyer your way around that with nitpicks.

Heck, it is explicit that the Muslim God is the God that Jesus was preaching about too, and they consider him a holy figure.


You can jump through all the hoops and nitpicks you want, but it's really just two different views on what is very clearly the same being.

To go to the thread that spun this off:



The only sources one needs are the Torah, Bible, and Koran to see they're all different interpretations of what is supposed to be the same being. I mean, both later books are 100% no question referring to the God of the Torah.

Judaism doesn't believe in the 3-in-1 or such either, but if you say that the Christian God isn't the Jewish God, I will laugh at you. So hard. So very, very hard.

Heck, the title of this thread literally translates to 'God is not Jehovah,' which is I think not the intent, to say the obvious. Allah is just a translation of the word 'God'. Arabic speaking Christians and Jews use the word Allah.


You're confusing 'you have a major theological disagreement with these versions' with 'different beings,' but it's semantic games. Muslims will tell you that it's the same God, so will many Christians- and I'm not talking modern liberals here, you could ask learned Christians centuries ago and get the same answer- and so will an actual reading of the actual books.

No, what you are saying is the same as trying to pass off an orange as an apple. They are both fruits, but they are completely unrelated to each other.

Yeah, but really they are. Allah is the same God that Christians worship, i.e. it is "in-universe" the God of the Hebrews who changed his mind and now likes the Christians/Muslims the most. Both are popular Torah fan-fiction.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
No, what you are saying is the same as trying to pass off an orange as an apple. They are both fruits, but they are completely unrelated to each other.


Nope.

The God in the Koran is explicitly the Jewish God, and the God of Jesus.

They believe, just like Jews do, that Jesus was a holy prophet of the same God that's in the Torah.


You want them to be different Gods, but wanting it doesn't make it so. They both came from the same seed and trying to pretend that they're completely unrelated requires some fairly ridiculous semantic games, and ignoring all the examples where they are clearly and explicitly the same God and pointing to the different interpretations- which are clearly just that, different interpretations of what is supposed to be the same God.


All the "Ah hah, but they view this part differently..." in the world won't change that they're actually stated to be the same and literally grew from the same root. Of course there's parts they view differently, they are different interpertations, but they also clearly refer to being from the same source.

Heck, different books of the Bible are known to view stuff differently, and sometimes in overtly clashing ways (like 'how many animals were on the ark'. Two of each kind, or 7 pairs of each clean kind, 3 of each unclean?). Doesn't mean every clash between what one apostle thought and another makes for a different God, and that's the kind of argument you're making.

I don't see why unbelievers can't grasp this. Making Allah the same as Yahweh is like make a square block fit inside a triangle of similar size, you can't do it. If the cops had these two in a line up, would they say they were the same?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I don't see why unbelievers can't grasp this. Making Allah the same as Yahweh is like make a square block fit inside a triangle of similar size, you can't do it. If the cops had these two in a line up, would they say they were the same?

They wouldn't say that, cause there'd only be one god standing there.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
No, what you are saying is the same as trying to pass off an orange as an apple. They are both fruits, but they are completely unrelated to each other. Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I don't see why unbelievers can't grasp this. Making Allah the same as Yahweh is like make a square block fit inside a triangle of similar size, you can't do it. If the cops had these two in a line up, would they say they were the same?



Exactly.Originally posted by Bardock42
They wouldn't say that, cause there'd only be one god standing there.


Bullshit. No matter how many times delusional people like you or Q99 say that it doesn't make it true. You and Q are just making yourselves look foolish and ignorant. Allah and Yahweh are nothing alike. For starters, the former is not even real. Then, of course, there's the fact that without Christ, there would be no God at all or anything else, for that matter. Muslims deny those facts about Christ. So, it's clear that the Muslim god is not Yahweh... You both are trolling Christians, plain and simple.

Originally posted by Star428
Exactly.


Bullshit. No matter how many times delusional people like you or Q99 say that it doesn't make it true. You and Q are just making yourselves look foolish and ignorant. Allah and Yahweh are nothing alike. For starters, the former is not even real. Then, of course, there's the fact that without Christ, there would be no God at all or anything else, for that matter. Muslims deny those facts about Christ. So, it's clear that the Muslim god is not Yahweh... You both are trolling Christians, plain and simple.



Made a mistake above. Meant to say in the next to last sentence that it's clear that the Muslim god is not nearly the same as the Christian One.

How do you find the time for all that

Yeah, lol. That's a lot of time and effort she put into something that doesn't prove what Tatoos or I said is wrong one bit because it still doesn't change the fact that the Muslims deny the divinity of Christ. Their god Allah is singular while Yahweh is triunal and Christ is a vital person of that trinity. Bible states that without Christ nothing could've been made. Those facts alone means they're as different as night and day. End of discussion.

So I guess some "think" Allah and Jehovah are the same thing, then the Muslims are the correct religions and Christians are wrong.

Originally posted by Star428
Yeah, lol. That's a lot of time and effort she put into something that doesn't prove what Tatoos or I said is wrong one bit because it still doesn't change the fact that the Muslims deny the divinity of Christ.

Sure, but so do Jews.

They do believe in the divinity of Yahweh/Jehovah/etc.. Which is the one I'm talking about them believing in.



It means they're very different interpretations of the same being, but you're jumping through semantic hoops to 'disqualify' one when they are quite clearly talking about the same being.

Christianity views Jesus as incredibly important to the mix, Islam less so, but "viewing the same being in different ways," is not the same as them being different beings- especially when the exact same people are references in both.


And there seems to be a constant dodging of the 'the Christian God is explicitly the Jewish one, the Jewish people do not believe in the trinity,' point. If you're arguing lack of belief in the trinity automatically makes one talking about a different God than the one in Bible, then you really do have to deal with the fact that most God-worshippers in the Bible don't believe in the trinity, a post-Jesus's life development.

Moses and Joseph and so on didn't believe in the trinity, does that mean they worshipped someone else? Because that's the only argument you're presenting, the lack-of-trinity belief.




Two parts.

One, I've apparently spent a fair bit more time on theological scholarship than you lot, so I already know this stuff.

Two, I type fast.

Oh look more smart ass insults.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh look more smart ass insults.



Yeah, I figured but I stopped reading them after her last post before that one because it's clear to me now she's just trolling Christians and trying to get us riled-up. Not worth arguing with anymore.

He's so intent on getting his message out, he will respond and argue with you, even if he's on ignore..pretty sad, bardock does the same thing.

Originally posted by Q99
Sure, but so do Jews.

They do believe in the divinity of Yahweh/Jehovah/etc.. Which is the one I'm talking about them believing in.



It means they're very different interpretations of the same being, but you're jumping through semantic hoops to 'disqualify' one when they are quite clearly talking about the same being.

Christianity views Jesus as incredibly important to the mix, Islam less so, but "viewing the same being in different ways," is not the same as them being different beings- especially when the exact same people are references in both.


And there seems to be a constant dodging of the 'the Christian God is explicitly the Jewish one, the Jewish people do not believe in the trinity,' point. If you're arguing lack of belief in the trinity automatically makes one talking about a different God than the one in Bible, then you really do have to deal with the fact that most God-worshippers in the Bible don't believe in the trinity, a post-Jesus's life development.

Moses and Joseph and so on didn't believe in the trinity, does that mean they worshipped someone else? Because that's the only argument you're presenting, the lack-of-trinity belief.




Two parts.

One, I've apparently spent a fair bit more time on theological scholarship than you lot, so I already know this stuff.

Two, I type fast.

Moses is attributed to be the author of Genesis. He used Elohim as the name of the creator God. Elohim is plural in Hebrew...3 or more. Why would he use the plural to name God? Answer me that.

You said Jesus never claimed to be God. That is not true. John said that "In the beginning was the WORD. The WORD was with God and the WORD was God. The WORD became FLESH and dwelt among us. If you would have spent a lot of time in theological scholarship, you would have known that.

I'm gonna proclaim myself the Messiah and the God of the Old Testament come in the flesh, even write another book of scriptures proclaiming such. Does that make me God? According to you, anyone can write a holy book and say their god is the same as the Old Testament God, and it would be true.

I think I'm gonna change mathematics and say 1+1=3. To do that, I would have to change all the rules of math. Would you accept my interpretation of math as being just as valid as the math we know is true? Of course not. You'd think I was an idiot. True theologians think you are an idiot for equating Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Islam's Allah has never been and will never be the God of the Bible. You are spewing the same nonsense that false religion is currently doing....establishing ecumenical ties between the world's religions to establish a one world religion.

Exactly, Tatoos. In Genesis, it states "Let us create man in our image. "Ooops". Guess that shuts up Q's ridiculous argument.

Originally posted by Star428
Exactly, Tatoos. In Genesis, it states "Let us create man in our image. "Ooops". Guess that shuts up Q's ridiculous argument.

He's a 'religious scholar'. LOL. He has no spiritual discernment of the Word of God.

The WORD of God (Jesus) became flesh and dwelt among us.

Didn't the muslim's version of Jesus (Mohammed) also rape someone? I'm sure I heard that somewhere. That's something that the real Christ would never do.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
He's a 'religious scholar'. LOL. He has no spiritual discernment of the Word of God.

The WORD of God (Jesus) became flesh and dwelt among us.







"Religious scholar". LOL. Yeah, sure. I really believe that.

Originally posted by Star428
Did the muslim's version of Jesus (Mohammed) also rape someone? I'm sure I heard that somewhere. That's something that the real Christ would never do.

Nope. Islam is false religion. It's like someone stealing part of my identity and trying to be me. It doesn't make that person me ..only a pretender.

Still, not all Jews, then or now, reject Jesus. The apostles were Jewish, and it's estimated that there are a quarter-million Messianic Jews in the U.S. today. And Israel as a nation still has a role to play. In the millennial kingdom, God will once again look to Jews to be His chosen people. Jews will flock to Israel (Ezekiel 34:11-13). They will come to accept Jesus as their Messiah (Zechariah 12:10). God will restore their relationship with Him (Ezekiel 11:17). And Jesus will rule the world from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:4), bringing peace to the nations (Isaiah 11:6-9). The Jews' rejection of Jesus is only until the "fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25). May that be soon.

They're both fictional.

But it is not God's *name* to them. It is a title, a descriptor. One they believe to be proper, but still is not God's name to them.

You can't make someone else believe something by wanting it.


Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Still, not all Jews, then or now, reject Jesus.


Yet, regardless of whether or not they do, they worship the same God without question.

Same as Muslims.


Originally posted by Star428
Exactly, Tatoos. In Genesis, it states "Let us create man in our image. "Ooops". Guess that shuts up Q's ridiculous argument.

Nope

You're still insistent on 'you have to believe in the trinity, or it's something else,' but that's not how language works, let alone theology.

Really, you should be saying 'They only worship part of God,' not that they worship a different God.

Insisting that anyone who doesn't use the trinity is talking about something else fails multiple tests. One, it's widely admitted Jewish people who do not use the. Two, "I worship this part specifically," does not mean in English, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, "I am talking about something else entirely."

Three, early Christians didn't, historically, have the trinity as part of their doctrine anyway, it was not until around the 4th century that it became a major part of teaching. Before that, if you'd asked a Christian- the only Christians that existed at the time- about the Trinity, they'd scratch their head.


You're trying to use a doctrinal quibble to erase something much more basic, and it doesn't work.

If there was a group that worshipped just-the-holy-spirit, but not the Father or Son, they'd be worshipping the same God. If there was a group that worshipped just the Father, they'd be worshipping the same God. Similar a group who only worshipped Jesus-as-God. Because that's how being part of something works.



You believe that God is multi-part, they don't, but that should not prevent you from recognizing that what they worship is what you consider to be one of the parts of what you worship.

Originally posted by Q99
But it is not God's *name* to them. It is a title, a descriptor. One they believe to be proper, but still is not God's name to them.

You can't make someone else believe something by wanting it.





Yet, regardless of whether or not they do, they worship the same God without question.

Same as Muslims.




Nope

You're still insistent on 'you have to believe in the trinity, or it's something else,' but that's not how language works, let alone theology.

Really, you should be saying 'They only worship part of God,' not that they worship a different God.

Insisting that anyone who doesn't use the trinity is talking about something else fails multiple tests. One, it's widely admitted Jewish people who do not use the. Two, "I worship this part specifically," does not mean in English, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, "I am talking about something else entirely."

Three, early Christians didn't, historically, have the trinity as part of their doctrine anyway, it was not until around the 4th century that it became a major part of teaching. Before that, if you'd asked a Christian- the only Christians that existed at the time- about the Trinity, they'd scratch their head.


You're trying to use a doctrinal quibble to erase something much more basic, and it doesn't work.

If there was a group that worshipped just-the-holy-spirit, but not the Father or Son, they'd be worshipping the same God. If there was a group that worshipped just the Father, they'd be worshipping the same God. Similar a group who only worshipped Jesus-as-God. Because that's how being part of something works.



You believe that God is multi-part, they don't, but that should not prevent you from recognizing that what they worship is what you consider to be one of the parts of what you worship.

The Muslim god was a local deity that Arabs worshiped before Muhammad brought his own brand of monotheism to the table and attested that his god was the same as the Hebrew God. Anyone could have done the same with Zeus or Odin and claimed they were the same being as Yahweh. Claiming it does not make it true.