Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?

a reply to: Seede
I'd be curious if dollukka would have the same response as you. And if so, why not just say what you said from the outset?

originally posted by: Seede
Christianity was not a religion till after the death of the Christ Jesus so that question cannot be answered. When you ask if the Christian God is the same as the Jewish God then you would have to ask which Jew.

The jew according to the jewish scriptures. The same scriptures that exist today, that existed then, that (the traditional view being) were written by the Prophets. I'm not sure what belief in the afterlife has to do with anything, considering that according to views of Christianity that explain the lack of an afterlife in Jewish scripture, heaven didn't appear to exist for any human until Jesus got their first.

originally posted by: Seede
But after the death of Jesus and His church was established, then the question can be solidified. Why? Because then He sealed His covenant for all people whereas there was no covenant before Him except that of Moses. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were voided by Moses and Moses was voided by the Christ. That is why the crucifixion must be the article of faith to Christianity. Is the God of the present day Jew the same as the Christian God? NO, if a Jew rejects the Son of God Jesus as being the Christ he/she is not of Christ Jesus. John 3:16 --

I'm not sure I follow your logic at all. You're applying a difference of laws being followed to the lawgiver being different. According to you, the same God that provided the old covenant provided the new covenant. Simply continuing to follow the old covenant doesn't mean that somehow it is now from a different God.

The Acts verse I quoted early in this thread, that speaks of the God of Abraham, or Isaac, of Jacob, who sent his Servant Jesus, is specifically referred thus as the same God.

A change in the ruleset doesn't make a change in the being.
Or are you saying it does?

To speak in analogies, lets say there was this kingdom where the king had made a deal with his subjects that they would give him taxes every year, and in exchange, he would send soldiers to protect their borders from barbarians. Then one day the king made a proclamation that in remembrance of his son who committed suicide, his subjects would no longer have to pay taxes, and their borders would be protected anyhow.
Some of his subjects didn't believe this, and sent in taxes regardless, despite proclaimers, messengers and signs all over.
Now these subjects might be foolish, they might be wasteful and ungrateful, they might even possibly be criminals, but you can't say that they're changed their allegiance to a different king than before. The king is the same.

a reply to: babloyi

So let me get this straight....


YHWH Elohim somehow forgot his damned name or the angel Gabriel somehow forgot YHWH Elohim's name and Gabriel told Mohammad that it is now Allah, a pagan term for the highest of the 360 gods worshipped in the Kabah at Mecca ?

Do I have to go back to all of these former posts in this chain to show you how ridiculous it is to associate YHWH of Israel with the Moongod of the Kabah?

And the only reason for this is Mohammad claimed "all that was written before me I am claiming but editing for my own purposes? By the way, I am changing the name of God?" No not really, Moon-god was not YHWH.

a reply to: infolurker
And do I have to go back to all the former posts where I pointed out the incredible absurdity that an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being being restricted to only being referred to by a single name from the beginnings of pre-eternity to the end of time, in a single language that has barely existed for a hairs-breadth of existence?

Did the Hebrew language exist before the Hebrews? Is it God's first language? Is everyone else a foreigner? What did everyone else call him before the Hebrew language existed? Nobody knew God then?

Do you have anything useful to add to this discussion?

originally posted by: dollukka
a reply to: John333

LOL so why don´t you just answer. I think question was valid to see differences between two religions and maybe finding why they do not blend. Question still remains. Is Jesus divine in islamic view after his resurrection ?

why should i answer a rhetorical question that i answered posts earlier... just because ur now asking it?

the islamic view as i said is a matter of interpretation. they have interpretted that jesus was switched on the cross and thus did not die.. THIS IS NOT WHAT ALLAH IS SAYING.

ALLAH said Jesus did die on the cross.. physically. but his spirit did not endure the second death which is the true death. but they who crucified him.. will! and instead of rejoicing in killing christ, if they only knew what Allah had in store for them they would cry. for Allah is the greatest of Deceivers.

yes i did some paraphrasing. however.. this is the Jist of what Allah says. thus, he loved his son Born of a virgin. and regardless of whether or not a sect sees the correct interpretation of the scripture.. incorrect interpretation is an attribution of a corrupt or sinful heart.

there are multiple sects in islam. do not assume because one sect believes he switched on the cross means they all do. some believe he lived to 120 years but cant say when and where and have no documentation of where he died and his body lay. ppl say all kinds of crap. just like in the christian denomination.. they conjecturize too much. and over look the simple basics of english. looking too deeply where no depth need be attributed. and looking too shallow where depth is present.

as a matter of fact they are facing the same confusion as you. unable to tell the difference between physicality and spirituality in the scripture. so it seems you and the muslims have something in common. not knowing where to attribute spiritual answers. the only DEATH.. the ONLY TRUE DEATH... is the death of the spirit. the death of the flesh is not DEATH in God's eyes and it shoudnt be in yours either. this life is nothing to cling to. are we not to hate the world and the things of the world. yet still.. i look around.. and i see a whole set of christians afraid to die. tell me.. are you afraid of death? do u feel fear? because i dont. for me, fear is an increase in spiritual power and i feel no"escapance" when it arises, in fact the power of God with me any situation that aims to induce fear i find quite amusing. since i know God is going to deal with it and remove the threat of any sort. but further, when it is my time to die and go to God, why would i fear this? why would i be sad? think about that.

so according to BOTH SCRIPTURES. JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS A SINLESS MAN FROM BIRTH TO PHYSICAL DEATH. AND ALLAH/GOD TOOK HIM UP INTO HEAVEN(HE ASCENDED)

thus by my interpretation.. there are no differences in ideology.

So you agree on everything in New Testament?

a reply to: babloyi

The jew according to the jewish scriptures. The same scriptures that exist today, that existed then, that (the traditional view being) were written by the Prophets. I'm not sure what belief in the afterlife has to do with anything, considering that according to views of Christianity that explain the lack of an afterlife in Jewish scripture, heaven didn't appear to exist for any human until Jesus got their first.

The belief in an afterlife is one of the keys to understanding Christianity and the Hebrew concept of eternity. Naturally you and I are discussing theology and that should be regarded from the onset. Starting with Abram. Abram had no concept of a celestial realm of afterlife. His concept of an afterlife was taught to him by Shem and Noah and that concept was that all dead souls perish and their spirits are contained in Sheol. It was a collective operational belief system taught by their antediluvian ancestors.

There were seven laws of humanity given to Adam by his Creator and these laws were taught to Noah. Now the administrations of those laws were at the discretion of the cultures that developed. In other words the law of adultery was always a law from the onset but the punishment of that law differed from time to time by the cultures that developed. Moses had a death penalty while Jesus taught by grace and forgiveness. Both Moses and Jesus taught the same Noahic law but different administrations of that law.

Why should this be? Because of covenants by the same Creator. The God of Abram gave a blood covenant of circumcision to Abram and renewed this covenant with Abram's son Isaac. From Abram to Jesus (about 1800 years) the belief of spirits being contained by the Creator in Sheol was the common accepted belief of this linage. This did not apply to the entire human race but only to this particular linage. Jesus confirmed this belief of afterlife among the Jews in the gospel of Luke. As was said this did not apply to the rest of the world about them and it did not apply to any Jew that did not believe this. It was a belief system only.

You ask where did heaven first come into a belief system? Actually it has always been there except that it was never a prime thought in Hebrew tradition. The Hebrews did believe that the world would one day be destroyed and before that happened those spirits contained in Sheol would be released and be re united with the terrestrial body in the grave. These people would then stand in a judgment and and if found righteous would die again and then enter the bundle of life in the heaven of God - but that they would be bodiless spirits once more. This was their afterlife.

I find that it is necessary to show this same God then sent His only Begotten Son to offer a different afterlife. Jesus acknowledged (in Luke) that indeed this was the afterlife of these people at this time but that the same God was now offering those contained righteous spirits a celestial existence with a new body. This was offered by the blood covenant of Jesus. Jesus preached that he came to offer the kingdom of heaven and that when one dies that one does not have to go to Sheol but that one can enter the paradise of His kingdom which is the celestial city of New Jerusalem. In the city of New Jerusalem is the tree and water of life. The Creator offers a new celestial body to cover that bodiless spirit, eat and drink from the trees and water of life and live forever.

Now you see two distinct covenants by the same Creator within one life span of His Begotten Son Jesus. Why two distinct contracts or covenants? Because of the human heart and behavior. Moses took sacrifice away from the individual because of one important thing. The Hebrews were heathens and blood drinkers the same as their Egyptian brothers. They were barbaric in every sense of the word. The sacrifice was then put into the Levitical authority and the blood was then destroyed on the burning alter. This was a necessary cultural law till it could be bred out of their minds. But remember it was the same God.

I'm not sure I follow your logic at all. You're applying a difference of laws being followed to the lawgiver being different. According to you, the same God that provided the old covenant provided the new covenant. Simply continuing to follow the old covenant doesn't mean that somehow it is now from a different God.

It is the same God but not to all people. The same God of Abram is the same God of Moses and is the same God of Jesus' day but that does not mean that the same God is understood as the same God in all three covenants. Jesus had the same God as the entire world but the entire world did not have the same God as Jesus did. The same applies today. The Muslim and Jew have the same Creator but the Creator does not have the same people. Laws are either cultural or religious. Your cultural laws are different than my laws and your religious laws are different than my laws. As I said before the seven Noahic laws given from Adam are still universal laws today. Most civilized cultures today still recognize most of the seven laws of humanity.

Covenants are agreements. No, you do not have to agree and when you refuse to agree then that covenant does not apply to you. That is our understanding of the permissive will of God. There is a permissive will and a perfect will of God. The permissive will of God is that He gave all people the right to do as they will do. Not that it is without repercussions but only that you have a free mind to act as you will. A covenant is an agreement between one and God. Even though that covenant differs in cultures it is still the same God with the same laws who is in power. The punishments can vary but those ordinances are given by God to the governors of the cultures. As Jesus says that anyone that believes upon Him shall not perish, what He is saying is that if you wish to accept that premise then you are under His covenant.

Regardless, a god or a God requires belief in that god or God. The Muslim belief is the same. If I were not to believe that Muhammad was a prophet signifies that I reject his premise and his god. If Muhammad says that his god told him that Jesus did not die by crucifixion then Muhammad has a different god then does Christianity. It would impossible that the God of Jesus could be the god of Muhammad.

a reply to: Seede

Great reply and right to the point ! Appreciated

a reply to: Seede
Wow. That is indeed a long and detailed response. But you misunderstand. I didn't ask where heaven first came into the belief system, in fact I dismissed the whole thing as irrelevant, as it was focusing on the theological interpretations of the descriptions of the different belief systems in the respective books, rather than the fundamental question of whether the deity is the same.

originally posted by: Seede
It is the same God but not to all people. The same God of Abram is the same God of Moses and is the same God of Jesus' day but that does not mean that the same God is understood as the same God in all three covenants. Jesus had the same God as the entire world but the entire world did not have the same God as Jesus did. The same applies today. The Muslim and Jew have the same Creator but the Creator does not have the same people.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. To me it seems to be just playing with words without assigning them meaning.
You follow that with much discussion on covenants, but since you acknowledge in the end that God would exist whether or not you accept the covenant, I'll skip that and get to the end of your post:

originally posted by: Seede
Regardless, a god or a God requires belief in that god or God. The Muslim belief is the same. If I were not to believe that Muhammad was a prophet signifies that I reject his premise and his god. If Muhammad says that his god told him that Jesus did not die by crucifixion then Muhammad has a different god then does Christianity. It would impossible that the God of Jesus could be the god of Muhammad.

So what you're essentially saying is that since a jew would, following their interpretation of their scripture (which is also followed by christians, with the same stories but different interpretations) reject any claims to the godhoodness of any man (in the sense the NT pushes it, not in the sense of chosen/holy person which it exists in the OT) and non-unity of God, you reject his premise and his god, thus you do not worship the same god? And yet, if this was a jew who lived over 2000 years ago and held the exact same belief, he'd be worshiping the same god as you?
You see how that doesn't make sense, right?

Or to put it another way, (paraphrasing your words and making them much more cumbersome because the Bible doesn't just have 1 author) "if (parts of) the NT say (or imply) that Jesus is God, and that God is truine in nature, (something that the OT strongly and explicitly denies), then the NT (or those writers of those portions of the NT) have a different god than does Judaism. It would be impossible that the God of Abraham could be the God of the NT.

Now of course, you could bring up discussion about how no, those OT passages have been interpreted by traditional judaism in the wrong way, and the correct way always held the implication of Jesus, but in that case you're creating excuses and explanations, so your God of Jesus/God of Muhammad comparison could be just as faulty as well.

a reply to: babloyi

Or to put it another way, (paraphrasing your words and making them much more cumbersome because the Bible doesn't just have 1 author) "if (parts of) the NT say (or imply) that Jesus is God, and that God is truine in nature, (something that the OT strongly and explicitly denies), then the NT (or those writers of those portions of the NT) have a different god than does Judaism. It would be impossible that the God of Abraham could be the God of the NT.

But you see that premise is all totally wrong. The NT does not teach that Jesus is God. Jesus was begotten of God but was not God. He was not tried on that charge at all. The charge against Jesus was that He declared Himself as being the Son of God and was acquitted from that charge by the Sanhedrin. The NT also does not teach of a triune God Head.

As Jesus died, His church was then founded in the synagogue of His brother James. James the Just was the High Priest for well over three decades and for those three decades the church encouraged no other than the Hebrew and Aramaic liturgy. The Apostles John and Peter were respectively the officers of this organization. These Messianic Jews had no teaching in the first congregation of a triune God. That was adopted by the Roman Church some years after the Jewish revolts against the Romans. That premise is still not accepted by many Christian denominations of today. There is only one Holy Spirit and that is the Creator God who is also called the heavenly Father. The extension of the Holy Spirit is called the comforter which replaced Jesus but is not an entity such as Jesus. The comforter is the Holy Spirit God which was promised by the prophet Joel who would pour out His spirit upon all people. This was fulfilled in the the book of Acts.

Now of course, you could bring up discussion about how no, those OT passages have been interpreted by traditional judaism in the wrong way, and the correct way always held the implication of Jesus, but in that case you're creating excuses and explanations, so your God of Jesus/God of Muhammad comparison could be just as faulty as well.

Yes you are correct. I do believe that the rabbinic Judaism (of Jesus' day) was vastly different than the prophets of the Hebrew scriptures. Rabbinic Judaism of Jesus day was a corrupt system of theft and murder by the house of Annas who was appointed by Rome as High Priest. If you recall, I said from the onset that we are in a theological discussion and with that fact I do admit that I could be at fault. In that sense you are absolutely correct but also you could be at fault. That works both ways in theology.

Common sense tells me that if a religion will splinter into factions of discord then some one is not interpreting the original authors correctly. The first Christians were murdered and their religion high jacked and reinvented. Rabbinic theology then took charge as well as the Gentile denominations. From those splinters we now see many more splinter groups including Islam as well as Judaism.

Very interesting NPR story regarding the topic... (you can either click to listen by following source link, or read on NPR)

Do Christians And Muslims Worship The Same God?

Larycia Hawkins, a professor at Wheaton College in Illinois, decided to wear a headscarf during the Advent season as a gesture of solidarity with Muslims. In doing so, Hawkins quoted Pope Francis, saying that Christians and Muslims "worship the same God."

But some evangelical Christians disagree — and Wheaton, a Christian school, responded by putting the political science professor on paid administrative leave. The college says it needs time to review whether her statement puts her at odds with the faith perspective required of those who work there.

The case also raises some big questions of theology.

Most mainstream Muslims would generally agree they worship the same God that Christians — or Jews — worship. Zeki Saritoprak, a professor of Islamic studies at John Carroll University in Cleveland, points out that in the Quran there's the Biblical story of Jacob asking his sons whom they'll worship after his death.

"Jacob's sons replied, 'We will worship the God of your fathers' — Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac. He is the God," Saritoprak says. "So this God that Jacob worshipped, this God that Abraham, Isaac worshipped, is the same God that Muslims worship today."

Christians, however, believe in a triune God: God the father, God the son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit. And many evangelicals will say that means Muslims and Jews do not worship the same god as Christians.

Source: NPR

For me is very interesting that different sects differently read the same religious books, which just itself shows insecurity and wide interpretation of the same texts...

But still no news on Hawkins and if she will be back to work. At the moment she is on paid leave until they decide what they will do. Wearing head scarf and quoting pope seems not to be all christian thingy...

a reply to: SuperFrog

I will stick with the founders views for reference as well since I just looked them up for another thread:

John Adams (1735-1826) - John Adams did indeed own a Quran -- the copy he owned contained the following in the preface:

This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented; sometimes he introduceth God, who speaketh to him, and teacheth him his law, then an angel, among the prophets, and frequently maketh God to speak in the plural. … Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible … - John Adams

John Adams Library (Boston Public Library) BRL; Du Ryer, André, ca. 1580-ca. 1660, tr; Adams, John, 1735-1826, former owner, "The Koran : commonly called the Alcoran of Mahomet (1806)," Springfield [Mass.] : Printed by Henry Brewer, for Isaiah Thomas, Jun.


John Quincy Adams (1767-1848)

…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. - John Quincy Adams “Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece, written while JQA was in retirement, before his election to Congress in 1830” [Chapters X-XIV (pp. 267-402) in The American Annual Register for 1827-28-29. New York, 1830.]

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle.

Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.

THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [Adam's capital letters]….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. - John Quincy Adams “Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece, written while JQA was in retirement, before his election to Congress in 1830” [Chapters X-XIV (pp. 267-402) in The American Annual Register for 1827-28-29. New York, 1830.] p. 269

a reply to: SuperFrog

This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels, is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. The document does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them—the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions.

The fundamental doctrine of the christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations ; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them.

Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war – it has softened the features of slavery – it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties.

No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse - John Quincy Adams “Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece, written while JQA was in retirement, before his election to Congress in 1830” [Chapters X-XIV (pp. 267-402) in The American Annual Register for 1827-28-29. New York, 1830.] p. 299-300

a reply to: infolurker

Seems that history does not quite agree with your perception of Christianity.

Nothing good can come from quoting someone from 200 years ago, as there would be very little left for tolerance and peace...

I believe our changing world is FAR away from thoughts founding father could offer...