God or gods?

[DKleinecke]

I believe that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. It seems as
though many Christians feel that Allah is not the same god as the God
they worship. I am curious as to how they reach this conclusion.

Is there perhaps an extensive treatment of this question to which
somebody will refer me?

The difficulty I see here is that most of the things I have seen
offered as reasons to believe Allah is a different god (such as not
acknowledging a trinity) also apply to the god worshiped by the Jews.

There once was a Christian heresy (that of Marcion) which asserted
that the god of the Jews was a different (and inferior) deity than the
god of the Christians. But I believe that today Christians everywhere
accept the idea that the Jews worship the same god - perhaps they do
it incorrectly, but it is the same god.

How then is it possible to maintain that the god of the Jews is the
same god as the god of the Christians but the god of the Muslims is a
different god?

[d***@aol.com]

Post by DKleinecke
How then is it possible to maintain that the god of the Jews is the
same god as the god of the Christians but the god of the Muslims is a
different god?

I guess it depends on what you consider God's nature to be. Actually I
don't think I worship the same God as some other Christians, so the
question you pose would depend on what the person's relationship with
God was, more than what he called himself.

Daryl

[S***@comcast.net]

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by DKleinecke
How then is it possible to maintain that the god of the Jews is the
same god as the god of the Christians but the god of the Muslims is a
different god?

I guess it depends on what you consider God's nature to be. Actually I
don't think I worship the same God as some other Christians, so the
question you pose would depend on what the person's relationship with
God was, more than what he called himself.
Daryl

The difference is, The Christian God was born of a virgin and
crucified for payment of sins.

[DKleinecke]

Post by S***@comcast.net
The Christian God was born of a virgin and
crucified for payment of sins.

You say that as though it were both obvious and true. There are
Christians who deny both statements - although I think all Christian
agree that his mother's name was Mary and that he was crucified.

Whence such overwhelming confidence that your opinion is the truth?

[d***@aol.com]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by S***@comcast.net
The Christian God was born of a virgin and
crucified for payment of sins.

You say that as though it were both obvious and true. There are
Christians who deny both statements - although I think all Christian
agree that his mother's name was Mary and that he was crucified.

And nothing more? Exactly what makes them Christians then.

Post by DKleinecke
Whence such overwhelming confidence that your opinion is the truth?

If I might presume to answer -- perhaps communion with the living God?

Daryl

[B.G. Kent]

Post by S***@comcast.net
The difference is, The Christian God was born of a virgin and
crucified for payment of sins.

B - Like Mithras was as well?

Bren

---

[Mithras traditionally was born from a rock. It's presumably true that
the rock hadn't had sex. Furthermore, most of the Mithraism we know
about is from after the 1st Cent. It's primary popularity in Rome was
3rd and 4th Cent AD. Check the article in Wikipedia, and
http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html I've tracked down a few of
the stories about Christianity coming from paganism. Some responsible
scholars do see some general similarities in theme, but when you see a
long list of overlaps like the one shown at the beginning of the
Tektonics article, you can bet it's bad scholarship.

--clh]

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

I responded to a claim from "B.G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca>
that Mithras had a virgin birth with references to Wikipedia and
http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

B - I would also caution you against Wikipedia which has the unfortunate
habit of allowing anyone to put unsubstantiated claims and info up there
freely.
I would ask people to check out http://www.religioustolerance.org and find
the section on Mithraism and how it closely compares to the story of
Jesus's birth.
I trust that site and find it a fair one.

If you look carefully at the treatment on religioustolerance, the
section you're referring to,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm is "common beliefs of
many liberal theologians, skeptics, humanists, etc." That is, they're
not saying that they've investigated and they think these things are
true. Giving viewpoints on both sides without giving people the data
they need to assess them is in some sense fair, but I don't find it
all that useful. (It's all too common these days in journalism.)

I've used their site at times. But where I know something about the
subject I don't find it as reliable as Wikipedia. Wikipedia's primary
problem tends to be with people who are currently in the news, and try
to doctor sites about them. But those problems are normally found
quickly. The advantage of the Wikipedia treatment is that there is
also a discussion page. That lets you assess where the disagreements
are and what issues there are. It doesn't look from the discussion
page, or any other treatment I've seen, like the Mithras virgin birth
has much to be said for it.

I haven't found any serious scholarship online. The most detailed
reference I have found, which at least cites major scholars, is
http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/mith/index.htm The big advantage of this
site, and Tektonics, is that both try to track down the source of
information. The religioustolerance site includes a mishmash of
quotations that are impossible to evaluate. Tektonics has tried to
track some of them down. Now Tektonics has its own axe to grind, but
they're at least careful in their investigations.

There are certainly similarities between some Christian and some Roman
ideas. In particular, there are similarities in iconography. This is
not a surprise. Just as Matthew and other writers with a Jewish
background used everything they could find in the OT to show that
Christ fulfilled Jewish religion, as Christians began trying to
attract Romans, they presented Jesus as fulfilling at least some Roman
ideals. You'll see pictures of Jesus as Hercules, etc. While there are
other possible interpretations, I'm willing to accept the idea that
Christmas was put on Dec 25 in order to provide an alternative to a
pagan holiday. (Note however that Christmas is a fairly late
development. Epiphany was the original celebration.) This doesn't
prove, however, that the pagan ideas were the source of Christianity.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
that Mithras had a virgin birth with references to Wikipedia and
http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

B - I would also caution you against Wikipedia which has the unfortunate
habit of allowing anyone to put unsubstantiated claims and info up there
freely.
I would ask people to check out http://www.religioustolerance.org and find
the section on Mithraism and how it closely compares to the story of
Jesus's birth.
I trust that site and find it a fair one.

If you look carefully at the treatment on religioustolerance, the
section you're referring to,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm is "common beliefs of

B - I am saying respectfully that I agree with the treatment on
religioustolerance.org...not that I go into the scholarship and
exactnes of it all. Let's face it..we are all going on the "idea" that the
Jesus we think we know..is the actual person. We have to combine
scholarship with meditation and inner knowing as well as respect for
others views and to be humble in sincereity. To many people invest in
being "correct" ..in not looking bad infront of others..this is ego (and
what I perceive of as "the devil") and not love. I am not this way.
I am about finding truth and allowing each of us to find our own way and
to not bang Christ against anyone's head as the only way out of fear of
the afterdeath. I cannot HIDE my heart or mind or soul away from God. God
sees what I am ...how my sincereity is and what is fear and what is a
truth I cling to out of love. My religion and spirituality is not for
others to ooh and ahh over or Ick and sick over..it is for God and to grow
as a better more loving human spirit. I am being as honest as is possible.
My being here is because I love Christ, I love the Jesus story and the
many interps on it...and I love learning and teaching in HONESTY.I am not
into the politics of religion..the liberal and conservative or it
all..just against subjectivity trying to go masked as objectivity.I will
always be against bigotry and intolerance as I try and be as much like
what I consider Christ to be, as possible. I am constantly learning.

Blessings
Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Like Mithras was as well?
Bren
---
3rd and 4th Cent AD. Check the article in Wikipedia, and
http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html I've tracked down a few of
the stories about Christianity coming from paganism. Some responsible
scholars do see some general similarities in theme, but when you see a
long list of overlaps like the one shown at the beginning of the
Tektonics article, you can bet it's bad scholarship.
--clh]

B - I would also caution you against Wikipedia which has the unfortunate
habit of allowing anyone to put unsubstantiated claims and info up there
freely.
I would ask people to check out http://www.religioustolerance.org and find
the section on Mithraism and how it closely compares to the story of
Jesus's birth.
I trust that site and find it a fair one.


Bren

[Steve Hayes]

B - I would also caution you against Wikipedia which has the unfortunate
habit of allowing anyone to put unsubstantiated claims and info up there
freely.
I would ask people to check out http://www.religioustolerance.org and find
the section on Mithraism and how it closely compares to the story of
Jesus's birth.
I trust that site and find it a fair one.

I don't trust that site, and have found it to be unfair in some respects.

Wikipedia is a useful reference, though, like any other source, it should not
be used uncritically.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Steve Hayes
I don't trust that site, and have found it to be unfair in some respects.

B - How so do you find religioustolerance.org unfair in some respects?
I'm curious.

Bren

[Steve Hayes]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes
I don't trust that site, and have found it to be unfair in some respects.

B - How so do you find religioustolerance.org unfair in some respects?
I'm curious.

It is biased against Fundamentalist Christians, for one thing (there may be
others, but that is one that I know about).

[**Rowland Croucher**]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes
I don't trust that site, and have found it to be unfair in some respects.

B - How so do you find religioustolerance.org unfair in some respects?
I'm curious.

It is biased against Fundamentalist Christians, for one thing (there may be
others, but that is one that I know about).

As someone who has been a regular writer/editor on Wikipedia I would
deny that this is a common experience. People who feel persecuted etc
may have to find another reason (not difficult if you try...)

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:05:55 GMT, **Rowland Croucher**

Post by **Rowland Croucher**

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes
I don't trust that site, and have found it to be unfair in some respects.

B - How so do you find religioustolerance.org unfair in some respects?
I'm curious.

It is biased against Fundamentalist Christians, for one thing (there may be
others, but that is one that I know about).

As someone who has been a regular writer/editor on Wikipedia I would
deny that this is a common experience. People who feel persecuted etc
may have to find another reason (not difficult if you try...)

I was not referring to Wikipedia, but to religioustolerance.org, which can be
quite intolerant at times.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Steve Hayes
I was not referring to Wikipedia, but to religioustolerance.org, which can be
quite intolerant at times.

B - I don't know how. They are quite open to all faiths. They state they
don't have all the answers. Everything is run by an ecumenical staff and
the only thing they have anything against is people who are intolerant
against other faiths.

Bren

********************
my homepage: http://www.victoria.tc.ca/~ravynw
my blog: http://ravy-trickster.blogspot.com/

********************

[Steve Hayes]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes
I was not referring to Wikipedia, but to religioustolerance.org, which can be
quite intolerant at times.

B - I don't know how. They are quite open to all faiths. They state they
don't have all the answers. Everything is run by an ecumenical staff and
the only thing they have anything against is people who are intolerant
against other faiths.

About 10 years ago one of the prime movers of that site, Bruce Robinson, was
propagating his belief that "fundamentalist" Christians were planning a
campaign of terrorist bombings in the USA if the world did not end on 31
December 1999.

He did not name the groups that were alleged to be planning this and so warned
people to be on their guard against all "fundamentalist" Christian groups.

His reports were alarmist, and were calculated to spread suspicion, fear and
hatred on the basis of nothing more than rumour.

In the event, the kind of incidents he predicted never occurred, but since he
was promoting INtolerance, I've never trusted religioustolerance.org since
then, I rarely use it and never recommend it.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Steve Hayes
I don't trust that site, and have found it to be unfair in some respects.

B - How so do you find religioustolerance.org unfair in some respects?
I'm curious.

It is biased against Fundamentalist Christians, for one thing (there may be
others, but that is one that I know about).

B - how so? I've only seen it as against bigotry inherent in any faith.
Where exactly is the bias against fundies?

Bren

[Warren Steel]

Post by S***@comcast.net

Post by DKleinecke
How then is it possible to maintain that the god of the Jews is the
same god as the god of the Christians but the god of the Muslims is a
different god?

The difference is, The Christian God was born of a virgin and
crucified for payment of sins.

Muslims certainly believe, and the Quran states, that
Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin, though most Muslims
deny or at least doubt the crucifixion.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Warren Steel

Post by S***@comcast.net

Post by DKleinecke
How then is it possible to maintain that the god of the Jews is the
same god as the god of the Christians but the god of the Muslims is a
different god?

The difference is, The Christian God was born of a virgin and
crucified for payment of sins.

Muslims certainly believe, and the Quran states, that
Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin, though most Muslims
deny or at least doubt the crucifixion.

B - since in the ancient Hebrew way a married woman was considered a
"virgin" until the second marriage ceremony that was had a year after the
first, a woman who had sexual intercourse would still be considered
"virgin" until then.
Mary being a virgin did not in the least bit mean that she had not had
sexual relations before Jesus was born.
If one reads up on Jesus in his Hebrew context..one would see this. Every
birth is a miracle in my opinion.
I also doubt the "dieing" part of the crucifixion but that Jesus had to
fake his death and then left to live out the rest of his life with Mary
Magdelene, his wife, in the south of france. I am Gnostic Christian and
not Muslim.

in my opinion,
Bren

[Steve Hayes]

Post by DKleinecke
I believe that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. It seems as
though many Christians feel that Allah is not the same god as the God
they worship. I am curious as to how they reach this conclusion.

It is mainly racist and ethnocentric English-speaking Christians who reach
this conclusion, because they believe that God is an Englishman who shares all
their racial prejudices, and wants to be worshipped in English rather than
Arabic. So they say things like "Allah is not the God of the Bible".

But of course Allah IS the God of the Bible -- the Arabic Bible, that is. But
the people who say things like that believe that the English Bible is the only
true Bible and many of them believe that the King James Bible is the only true
and inspired version, far more so, in any case, than the Hebrew and Greek and
Aramaic originals.

Muslims do have a different theology from Christians, of course. The Allah
that Muslims worship is different from the Allah that Christians worship,
because Christians believe that Allah is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and
Muslims believe that that is blasphemous.

But the Christians who say that "Allah is not the God of the Bible" don't go
into such theological detail. They live in societies where it is politically
correct to hate Arabs and Arabic-speaking people, and so can't stand the idea
of Arabic-speaking people worshipping the same God that they do, and in a
different language.

Bozhe moi!
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/

---

[This view isn't helped by the current movement in Malaysia to
prohibit Christians from using the term Allah to refer to the
Christian God. --clh]

[DKleinecke]

Post by Steve Hayes
But of course Allah IS the God of the Bible -- the Arabic Bible, that is.
[This view isn't helped by the current movement in Malaysia to
prohibit Christians from using the term Allah to refer to the
Christian God. --clh]

The situation in Malaysia is complicated by the fact that the Malays
do not speak Arabic or anything like it. I don't know anything about
any of the Far Eastern languages involved (I believe Malaysia has
several) but I don't think it possible that there is NO other suitable
term for God. Hence it would seem to me that whoever among the
Malaysian Christians wants to use Allah is making a mistake. However
using Allah would emphasize the idea that both parties are talking
about the same God.

Personally, being basically a libertarian, I think they should be
allowed to use Allah if that's what they want to do.

[B.G. Kent]

I tend to see all gods as just faces of "ONE" God. I see it as if God is
a blank template that we all paste our ideas and views upon ...and that
if we could see God as separate from all that is...it would appear to be
multifaced and a unity of diversity.


Is God an actual being? yes and no...at least to me. God is everything
that is and also transcends that.

Hard to explain but well I've tried.


Bren


On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, DKleinecke

Post by DKleinecke
I believe that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. It seems as
though many Christians feel that Allah is not the same god as the God
they worship. I am curious as to how they reach this conclusion.

[d***@aol.com]

Post by B.G. Kent
I tend to see all gods as just faces of "ONE" God. I see it as if God is
a blank template that we all paste our ideas and views upon ...and that
if we could see God as separate from all that is...it would appear to be
multifaced and a unity of diversity.
Is God an actual being? yes and no...at least to me. God is everything
that is and also transcends that.
Hard to explain but well I've tried.
Bren

It is rather easy to see why Dorothy Sayers wrote "Creed or Chaos." If
you wipe all the identity from God, if you make Him nothing more than
the repository for your own predjudices about what He should be like,
in other words, if he has no nature at all, you come pretty close to
arriving at the sort of diffuse, non-entity expounded in this thread.
The only thing that puzzles me is why people with a bias against the
overwhelming majority of Christianity continue posting on a Christian
site. Aren't there a lot of new-agey sites where you could rail
against people who actually believe that there is a God, with a
particular nature, who has a particular purpose for His creation; and
do so without fear of contradiction.
You can prostitute the word 'Christian' until it has no meaning, but
I wonder (though I suspect why) what profit you expect to gain by
doing so.

Daryl

[Bren]

Post by d***@aol.com

I tend to see all gods as just faces of "ONE" God. I see it as if God i=

s

Post by d***@aol.com

a blank template that we all paste our ideas and views upon ...and that
if we could see God as separate from all that is...it would appear to b=

e

Post by d***@aol.com

multifaced and a unity of diversity.
Is God an actual being? yes and no...at least to me. God is everything
that is and also transcends that.
Hard to explain but well I've tried.
Bren

It is rather easy to see why Dorothy Sayers wrote "Creed or Chaos." If
you wipe all the identity from God, if you make Him nothing more than
the repository for your own predjudices about what He should be like,
in other words, if he has no nature at all, you come pretty close to
arriving at the sort of diffuse, non-entity expounded in this thread.
The only thing that puzzles me is why people with a bias against the
overwhelming majority of Christianity continue posting on a Christian
site.

B - I wrote a reply to this but can't see it here. I am a Christian
because I believe in Christ. I prostitute nothing. I gain nothing. I
am here because this is a Christian newsgroup and I am a Christian.
Why are you here and why are you so afraid of a dissenting view?
please hop over my posts if you are threatened. I don't read Isenders
or Matthews because I find them disrespectful to others so I skip
their posts. I ask that you do that to mine. I am here for any other
Gnostic Christian such as myself to share with and or to learn and or
to teach. I actually believe that there is a God who is perfect..and
that this God is ONE God of many many facets..a Unity of diversity
which multiplies daily. You don't know me yet you assume to know my
nature. I ask that you have a little respect for each person's way to
Christ and concentrate on the log in your own eye.

Blessings
Bren

[d***@aol.com]

Post by Bren
B - I wrote a reply to this but can't see it here. I am a Christian
because I believe in Christ.

What do you believe about him? Evidently not what is included in
scripture, which is the only account we have.

I prostitute nothing. I gain nothing. I

Post by Bren
am here because this is a Christian newsgroup and I am a Christian.
Why are you here and why are you so afraid of a dissenting view?

I think afraid is hardly applicable, I think you are wrong, I would
not deny your right to post, I was just wondering why you do. What do
you make of Christ? Do you think his death reconciled us to God? Do
you believe he was the only begotten son of God? If not, what part of
your belief makes you a Christian? Simply believing there was a
carpenter's son killed by the Romans surely isn't enough. I used
"prostitute" because if you take away Christ's uniqueness, His
divinity, and His authority you are left with nothing but a rather
foolish set of sayings by some inconsequential rabbi around the first
century.

Post by Bren
please hop over my posts if you are threatened.

Do you honestly think I am? I just wonder how a person could come to
the set of beliefs you seem to have acquired, they certainly do not
mesh with what I have experienced with the God I have come to know and
love.

I don't read Isenders

Post by Bren
or Matthews because I find them disrespectful to others so I skip
their posts. I ask that you do that to mine. I am here for any other
Gnostic Christian such as myself to share with and or to learn and or
to teach. I actually believe that there is a God who is perfect..and
that this God is ONE God of many many facets..a Unity of diversity
which multiplies daily.

Even in the small studies I have done, a few classes back in college
in Hinduism, and Japanese Buddhism, some contact with Sikhism and, of
course, all the current emphasis on Islam; It is pretty clear to me
that the content of these faiths are not reconcilable. You would have
to denature God to the point that He is just, as atheists believe,
where we posit our wishes and desires and has no real existence at
all.


You don't know me yet you assume to know my

Post by Bren
nature. I ask that you have a little respect for each person's way to
Christ and concentrate on the log in your own eye.

I do not presume to know your "nature" nor your state of grace, but
isn't that exactly what you are guilty of when it comes to condemning,
with a rather broad brush, the Fundamentalists and Evangelicals you
rail against?

Post by Bren
Blessings
Bren-

Daryl

[B.G. Kent]

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by Bren
B - I wrote a reply to this but can't see it here. I am a Christian
because I believe in Christ.

What do you believe about him? Evidently not what is included in
scripture, which is the only account we have.

B - No there is also the Nag Hammadi and our own inner knowing which God
gives to all (in my opinion) and takes accessing it to know. What do I
think About Jesus? that he came here as a mystical traveller, a
teacher-rabbi etc. that was near fully enlightenment to show us that we
are the microcosm (Christ in our highest self state or "Son")of the
macrocosm (God or "Father"). To show us that we are all ONE in God and
that no one is better or worse than anyone else because we all contained
and were surrounded by God and that there is nothing that can be without
God because we are all a part of God. We may not be cognizant of our inner
light or highest self because we are so invested in the ego or "devil" if
you will, but our lesson in the school on earth is to learn to love. Jesus
is the example of what we should strive to be. Jesus is the symbol, the
man and the aspect of God. I love Jesus.

Post by d***@aol.com
not deny your right to post, I was just wondering why you do. What do
you make of Christ?

B- I've said above.


Do you think his death reconciled us to God? Do

B - I think he was there to teach us. I believe he died a natural death in
the south of France. If you go to the south of France you will find a
strong Magdelene influence and many people who believe that he faked his
crucifixation and "resurrection" to be able to flee to a place of safety.
I believe his being here has given us so much to enlighten to.

Post by d***@aol.com
you believe he was the only begotten son of God? If not, what part of
your belief makes you a Christian? Simply believing there was a
carpenter's son killed by the Romans surely isn't enough.

B - the wealthy family of David would not be doing manuel labor such as
carpentry. I don't believe that Jesus was a carpenter at all. I believe
he was and is a great teacher and unfortunately people focused more on him
in his god-self than on his teachings. Jesus never did want people to
worship "him" but to live his message. Again..in my opinion of what I
consider spiritual discernment on my part.




I used

Post by d***@aol.com
"prostitute" because if you take away Christ's uniqueness, His
divinity, and His authority you are left with nothing but a rather
foolish set of sayings by some inconsequential rabbi around the first
century.

B -Not at all. You don't get it. Jesus was here to tell us that we are all
divine, that we are all a part of God and that if we all had the faith as
small as the reality of a mustard seed we can move mountains. That we are
all perfect in God but that we have forgotten that and believed the lie of
ego.
Many people long ago who were competeing in religions felt they needed to
make Jesus beyond human to make the story "stick" to convince others of
his divinity. Since people then and even now sadly think of human beings
as so lowly...even though we are part of God ...Jesus had to be made
superhuman when all he was doing was teaching us what we ARE.

Post by d***@aol.com
the set of beliefs you seem to have acquired,

B - Meditation and growth and learning to not follow the crowd or believe
out of fear. We are all not finished learning...both of us.

Post by d***@aol.com
that the content of these faiths are not reconcilable. You would have
to denature God to the point that He is just, as atheists believe,
where we posit our wishes and desires and has no real existence at
all.

B - I don't agree. If you seek God in all faiths you will find God. If you
think in terms of a unity of diversity and what really matters "love" and
not the cultural emphasis that we put on the God "story"...you will see
that God exists in all faiths and that it is just a different face of the
same God. Like a different path up the same mountain we all get there..we
just have a different take on the journey.

Post by d***@aol.com
You don't know me yet you assume to know my

Post by Bren
nature. I ask that you have a little respect for each person's way to
Christ and concentrate on the log in your own eye.

with a rather broad brush, the Fundamentalists and Evangelicals you
rail against?

B - I don't rail against them at all. I rail against only those that feel
that they are closer to Christ..exclusionary..and that deem to curtail
freedoms to other faiths. I am not at all against different views unless
they deem to speak for all Christians. So you see...it is not against any
other way but against bigotry. I have always been against bigotry..in
other words the concept of "I am right because I say I am".

Post by d***@aol.com
Daryl

Blessings
Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by B.G. Kent
I tend to see all gods as just faces of "ONE" God. I see it as if God is
a blank template that we all paste our ideas and views upon ...and that
if we could see God as separate from all that is...it would appear to be
multifaced and a unity of diversity.
Is God an actual being? yes and no...at least to me. God is everything
that is and also transcends that.
Hard to explain but well I've tried.
Bren

It is rather easy to see why Dorothy Sayers wrote "Creed or Chaos." If
you wipe all the identity from God, if you make Him nothing more than
the repository for your own predjudices about what He should be like,
in other words, if he has no nature at all, you come pretty close to
arriving at the sort of diffuse, non-entity expounded in this thread.

B - but you are assuming that I am saying God has no identity....I believe
that God does but that it is multifold.

Post by d***@aol.com
The only thing that puzzles me is why people with a bias against the
overwhelming majority of Christianity continue posting on a Christian
site.

B - I have no bias at all towards the majority of "Christians" here. I
only have a problem with someone telling me how I am supposed to worship
Christ. I post here because as a Gnostic CHRISTIAN...I share the word
"Christian" as does the site. Now if the site was called Biblicist or
literalist Christianity then I would not bother coming here.


Aren't there a lot of new-agey sites where you could rail

Post by d***@aol.com
against people who actually believe that there is a God, with a
particular nature, who has a particular purpose for His creation; and
do so without fear of contradiction.

B - Yes there are new-agey site as well as old-agey sites. I don't post on
any new agey sites personally. I post on pagan sites and a few Wiccan
sites and Christian sites but no new agey ones as of yet. I haven't railed
against anyone save some bigots who wish for me to go "their way or go
home"...I've been fair with my words and others beliefs as long as they
don't purport to talk for all Christians as would be presumptuous. I have
no fear of contradiction ..that's the basis of human discussion and debate
I figure. I often wonder why you have such a hard time accepting that not
everyone thinks like you and still calls themself a Christian. Surely you
are not the prototype for what a Christian is I hope?

Post by d***@aol.com
You can prostitute the word 'Christian' until it has no meaning, but
I wonder (though I suspect why) what profit you expect to gain by
doing so.

B - How do I prostitute a word? What profit? I don't do this for profit. I
do this because I am a spiritual person and I like to talk about God,
Christ and share with others. Why do you do it?
As far as you "suspect"...please don't assume.
If you don't want to read my posts then please do jump over them as I do
with Isenders, and a few others...this way everyone can have their say. I
believe in fairness.

Post by d***@aol.com
Daryl

Bren

[Dave]

Post by DKleinecke
I believe that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. It seems as
though many Christians feel that Allah is not the same god as the God
they worship. I am curious as to how they reach this conclusion.

It is simple enough to explain. I point to Jesus and say, "This is my
God." Does the Muslim say Jesus is his god? If not, then Allah is not
the same god.

Dave

[Antares 531]

Post by Dave

Post by DKleinecke
I believe that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. It seems as
though many Christians feel that Allah is not the same god as the God
they worship. I am curious as to how they reach this conclusion.

It is simple enough to explain. I point to Jesus and say, "This is my
God." Does the Muslim say Jesus is his god? If not, then Allah is not
the same god.
Dave

The Muslims say that Jesus was a liar and a deceiver in that he was
not crucified but had a likeness crucified instead, then appeared
three days later, pretending to have been raised from the dead. Yet,
the Muslims call Jesus an honorable prophet.

Gordon

[DKleinecke]

Post by Antares 531
The Muslims say that Jesus was a liar and a deceiver in that he was
not crucified but had a likeness crucified instead, then appeared
three days later, pretending to have been raised from the dead. Yet,
the Muslims call Jesus an honorable prophet.

There are Muslims and there are Muslims. Some Muslims are so far gone
in hatred of the Christians that they call Jesus a liar and a
deceiver. But this is not the mainline of Muslim theology nor the
message of the Qur'an. The Qur'an says he was not killed by the Jews -
it gives no details. You could even read the Qur'an to allow that he
was killed by the Romans (which, in fact, is what happened) but most
Muslim theologians have held that he was taken up to heaven. The idea
that he escaped, went to India and died there many years later is a
minority opinion - but not one that contradicts the Qur'an.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Antares 531

Post by Dave

Post by DKleinecke
I believe that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. It seems as
though many Christians feel that Allah is not the same god as the God
they worship. I am curious as to how they reach this conclusion.

It is simple enough to explain. I point to Jesus and say, "This is my
God." Does the Muslim say Jesus is his god? If not, then Allah is not
the same god.
Dave

The Muslims say that Jesus was a liar and a deceiver in that he was
not crucified but had a likeness crucified instead, then appeared
three days later, pretending to have been raised from the dead. Yet,
the Muslims call Jesus an honorable prophet.
Gordon

B - where do they say that Jesus was a liar and deceiver? can you show me
where and who?
thanks.

Bren

[Antares 531]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Antares 531

Post by Dave

Post by DKleinecke
I believe that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. It seems as
though many Christians feel that Allah is not the same god as the God
they worship. I am curious as to how they reach this conclusion.

It is simple enough to explain. I point to Jesus and say, "This is my
God." Does the Muslim say Jesus is his god? If not, then Allah is not
the same god.
Dave

The Muslims say that Jesus was a liar and a deceiver in that he was
not crucified but had a likeness crucified instead, then appeared
three days later, pretending to have been raised from the dead. Yet,
the Muslims call Jesus an honorable prophet.
Gordon

B - where do they say that Jesus was a liar and deceiver? can you show me
where and who?
thanks.
Bren
From my copy of J.M. Rodwell's translation of the Koran;

Sura 4:156 And for their saying 'Verily we have slain the Messiah,
Jesus the son of Mary, and Apostle of God.' Yet they slew him not, and
they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.

By implication, the Koran teaches that Jesus was a liar and a deceiver
in that he went along with this deception and showed himself before
the people later, claiming to have been crucified then raised from the
dead.

Gordon

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Antares 531

Post by B.G. Kent
B - where do they say that Jesus was a liar and deceiver? can you show me
where and who?
thanks.
Bren
From my copy of J.M. Rodwell's translation of the Koran;

Sura 4:156 And for their saying 'Verily we have slain the Messiah,
Jesus the son of Mary, and Apostle of God.' Yet they slew him not, and
they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.
By implication, the Koran teaches that Jesus was a liar and a deceiver
in that he went along with this deception and showed himself before
the people later, claiming to have been crucified then raised from the
dead.
Gordon

B - I don't see that as the translation or implication at all. As a
Gnostic I see Jesus as having faked his own death (helped by those close
to him) to escape the murderous crowds...and asking others to not touch
him in the so-called resurrection because he was indeed still solid. I
don't see it as a lie but as a way to leave a bad situation and have
others think he dead so he could have some peace and go on to live out the
rest of his life with his wife Mary Magdelene in the south of France.

You are going on what you infer from a book re-translated. This in itself
does not mean that the Koran teaches that Jesus was a lier.

I.M.O
Bren

[Antares 531]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Antares 531

Post by B.G. Kent
B - where do they say that Jesus was a liar and deceiver? can you show me
where and who?
thanks.
Bren
From my copy of J.M. Rodwell's translation of the Koran;

Sura 4:156 And for their saying 'Verily we have slain the Messiah,
Jesus the son of Mary, and Apostle of God.' Yet they slew him not, and
they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.
By implication, the Koran teaches that Jesus was a liar and a deceiver
in that he went along with this deception and showed himself before
the people later, claiming to have been crucified then raised from the
dead.
Gordon

B - I don't see that as the translation or implication at all. As a
Gnostic I see Jesus as having faked his own death (helped by those close
to him) to escape the murderous crowds...and asking others to not touch
him in the so-called resurrection because he was indeed still solid. I
don't see it as a lie but as a way to leave a bad situation and have
others think he dead so he could have some peace and go on to live out the
rest of his life with his wife Mary Magdelene in the south of France.

Wouldn't this be a lie and a deception on Jesus' part? Had this really
happened in Jesus' case, He would indeed have been lying and deceiving
his way to safety. Gordon

Post by B.G. Kent
You are going on what you infer from a book re-translated. This in itself
does not mean that the Koran teaches that Jesus was a lier.

The J.M. Rodwell translation is over 100 years old, and has been well
accepted by the English speaking Islamic people as an accurate and
reliable translation. Had there been any disagreement on this
particular passage concerning Jesus' death and resurrection I'm sure
this would have been protested, long ago. Gordon

Post by B.G. Kent
I.M.O
Bren

[DKleinecke]

Post by Antares 531

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Antares 531

Post by B.G. Kent
B - where do they say that Jesus was a liar and deceiver? can you show me
where and who?
thanks.
Bren
From my copy of J.M. Rodwell's translation of the Koran;

Sura 4:156 And for their saying 'Verily we have slain the Messiah,
Jesus the son of Mary, and Apostle of God.' Yet they slew him not, and
they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.
By implication, the Koran teaches that Jesus was a liar and a deceiver
in that he went along with this deception and showed himself before
the people later, claiming to have been crucified then raised from the
dead.
Gordon

B - I don't see that as the translation or implication at all. As a
Gnostic I see Jesus as having faked his own death (helped by those close
to him) to escape the murderous crowds...and asking others to not touch
him in the so-called resurrection because he was indeed still solid. I
don't see it as a lie but as a way to leave a bad situation and have
others think he dead so he could have some peace and go on to live out the
rest of his life with his wife Mary Magdelene in the south of France.

Wouldn't this be a lie and a deception on Jesus' part? Had this really
happened in Jesus' case, He would indeed have been lying and deceiving
his way to safety. Gordon

Post by B.G. Kent
You are going on what you infer from a book re-translated. This in itself
does not mean that the Koran teaches that Jesus was a lier.

The J.M. Rodwell translation is over 100 years old, and has been well
accepted by the English speaking Islamic people as an accurate and
reliable translation. Had there been any disagreement on this
particular passage concerning Jesus' death and resurrection I'm sure
this would have been protested, long ago. Gordon

Post by B.G. Kent
I.M.O
Bren

I can read Arabic and I assure you that Rodwell's translation of that
passage, while not exactly what I would have written, is not
misleading. There is some difference of opinion about how the last
phrase is to be understood and Rodwell followed the classical Arabic
commentators more closely than many people think he should have.

Maulana Muhammad Ali translates "... nor did they cause his death on
the cross, but he was made to appear to them as such" and adds a
footnote that it should not be read that someone else (Simon of Cyrene
in the Christian version, but I don't think the Muslims ever picked
this detail up) was crucified instead.

The Qur'an makes no effort to clarify the confusion, but it also makes
no mention of Jesus having any contact with his followers after the
event of the cross. He is with Allah and no longer on earth. He is not
the party to any claims or deceptions. I haven't seen any Muslim
statement about the matter of what the disciples in particular
thought, but I would guess that an Islamic reading would be that all
of the resurrection narrative was a mistake by the confused disciples
- or perhaps later Christians when they were distorting Jesus'
teaching also distorted the narrative about his "death".

Your difficulty is that you are reading the Qur'an's account as though
the Qur'an presupposed the gospels. There is every reason to believe
that the authors of the Qur'an had no knowledge of the gospels (apart
from some vulgar infancy stories).

[DKleinecke]

Post by Antares 531

Post by B.G. Kent
From my copy of J.M. Rodwell's translation of the Koran;

Sura 4:156 And for their saying 'Verily we have slain the Messiah,
Jesus the son of Mary, and Apostle of God.' Yet they slew him not, and
they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.
By implication, the Koran teaches that Jesus was a liar and a deceiver
in that he went along with this deception and showed himself before
the people later, claiming to have been crucified then raised from the
dead.

You are mixing up two different accounts about the crucifixion. So it
not too surprising you get the wrong conclusion. The Qur'an does not
say he showed himself later and claimed to have been raised from the
dead. Immediately following the ayat you quote it says Allah glorified
him and that he will be a witness against the Jews on Doomsday.

The Qur'an also says that what actually happened was subject to
considerable guesswork and it does not try to make matters clear. The
Islamic commentators usually conclude that Allah took Jesus up while
he was still living and that he will return to fight Anti-Christ (the
Dajjal) in the last days. It seems to me that they must have been
reading Revelation - but, of course, they will never admit it.

The Qur'an (as opposed to the commentators) is not very well-informed
about Christ or Christianity. It appears the the authors of the Qur'an
were not aware of the resurrection (if they were they would have
denounced it as a fraud). Nevertheless Islam gives Jesus a position
second only to their own prophet in honor.

[Emma Pease]

Post by Dave

Post by DKleinecke
I believe that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. It seems as
though many Christians feel that Allah is not the same god as the God
they worship. I am curious as to how they reach this conclusion.

It is simple enough to explain. I point to Jesus and say, "This is my
God." Does the Muslim say Jesus is his god? If not, then Allah is not
the same god.

That would also mean Jews and Christians don't worship the same god. Some
Jews might agree but I don't think most Christians would.

All three groups would agree that they worship the same god as Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob.

I should also point out that Allah is simply God in Arabic. Arabic
speaking Christians use 'Allah' where English speaking Christians use
'God'.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Emma Pease
Isaac, and Jacob.
I should also point out that Allah is simply God in Arabic. Arabic
speaking Christians use 'Allah' where English speaking Christians use
'God'.

B - and Many Christians would point at the Father,Son and Holy Spirit and
say this is my God. A diversity of One.

Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Dave

Post by DKleinecke
I believe that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. It seems as
though many Christians feel that Allah is not the same god as the God
they worship. I am curious as to how they reach this conclusion.

It is simple enough to explain. I point to Jesus and say, "This is my
God." Does the Muslim say Jesus is his god? If not, then Allah is not
the same god.
Dave

B - if you are going on the outer "look" maybe..but I see all gods as
facets of one God.
All are the same at the center.

I.M.O
Bren

[Charles Hedrick]

(2) I don't think a thoughtful Trinitarian would point at Jesus and
say "This is my God" (assuming we agree on some method to point at a
person who surely is not any particular place in the physical
universe). The Trinitarian God has three persons and all are equally
salient. Your statement, understood literally, means that you are not
a Trinitarian and you deny any godhood to the Father and the Holy
Spirit. I don't think you meant that - but that is what you said. Or
did you mean what you said?

One of the reactions to Jesus that we see in the NT is the idea that
in and through him we see God.

Col. 1:17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold
together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the
beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have
first place in everything. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was
pleased to dwell, 20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to
himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace
through the blood of his cross.

Full Trinitarian theology would point out that in him we see God from
the point of view of the Son, but I believe that we still see "all of
God" through him.

I've commented before that the Trinity comes from this: If Jesus shows
us God, what kind of God is it that he shows us?

Pointing to Jesus and saying "this is my God" lacks a bit in subtlety.
But fundamentally I think it's right.

So does that mean that non-Christians worship a different God? First,
I'm not sure exactly what this means. I don't think there's more than
one. So to the extent that they worship God at all, it's the same one.
So the real question is whether God is willing to accept worship based
on either incorrect or at least limited concepts of what he is. I
suspect that depends upon the person.

[DKleinecke]

Full Trinitarian theology would point out that in him we see God from =A0
the point of view of the Son, but I believe that we still see "all of =A0
God" through him.

This is a matter of determining what "person" means. If, as I do, you
take "person" to be no more than alternative names for the same deity
then you are stigmatized as a modal monarchist (or patripassian)
heretic. Therefore, to a true Trinitarian, some thing more than a mere
name is involved.

But I have never encountered a serious attempt to explicate what,
apart from a name, a person entails. Tertullian mostly offers abuse as
a substitute for argument, but he does mention that it seems odd that
God might simultaneously be "in heaven" and walking the roads of
Judea. But, of course, there is no real problem here - God is not
subject to time and, in fact, is always everywhere.

When I say "names" I mean "Father" is what we call God when we think
of God as the Creator, "Son" is what we call God as intervening in
Judea two thousand years ago and "Holy Spirit" is what we call God in
everyday current life.

When you see all of God through Christ what are you seeing that you
would not see if you were not seeing "through"?

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Dave

Post by DKleinecke
I believe that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. It seems as
though many Christians feel that Allah is not the same god as the God
they worship. I am curious as to how they reach this conclusion.

It is simple enough to explain. I point to Jesus and say, "This is my
God." Does the Muslim say Jesus is his god? If not, then Allah is not
the same god.

Not at all simple.

For Christians Allah is Sather, Son and Holy Spirit.

The Father is Allah, the Son is Allah and the Holy Spirit is Allah
Nevertheless, they are not three Allahs but one Allah.

And if the son is Allah, then Jesus is Allah.

Though Muslims in Malaysia might claim to have a monopoly on the name "Allah",
they don't.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Dave
"This is my
God." Does the Muslim say Jesus is his god? If not, then Allah is not
the same god.

Two points:

(1) Not all people who consider themselves Christians and are
generally recognized as Christians are Trinitarians. They would not
call Jesus "God". Do they therefore worship a different God?

(2) I don't think a thoughtful Trinitarian would point at Jesus and
say "This is my God" (assuming we agree on some method to point at a
person who surely is not any particular place in the physical
universe). The Trinitarian God has three persons and all are equally
salient. Your statement, understood literally, means that you are not
a Trinitarian and you deny any godhood to the Father and the Holy
Spirit. I don't think you meant that - but that is what you said. Or
did you mean what you said?

But there is no reason be hesitant about the original question. Islam
denies that Jesus is any part (or person) of God. Islam honors Jesus
as a great prophet - but he remains a man. Those of us believe that
God is characterized by the Trinity will, of course, feel that any
Unitarian God is a different God. Those of us who believe the Trinity
is a minor theological quibble will feel all the "Gods" are the same.

In terms of my original question yours is the only concrete
explanation offered for why Allah is not the same as your Personal
Christian God. I don't think you have the right to declare your dogma
to be identical to Christianity - but you do have a right to your
opinion.

That is one down. Some Trinitarian Christians feel that a God who is
not a Trinity must be a different God. Are there any more reasons for
supposing that Allah is not the same god Christians worship?

[Eric417]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Dave
"This is my
God." Does the Muslim say Jesus is his god? If not, then Allah is not
the same god.

(1) Not all people who consider themselves Christians and are
generally recognized as Christians are Trinitarians. They would not
call Jesus "God". Do they therefore worship a different God?

Yes and they are not even Christians even if they may call themselves
Christian.

Post by DKleinecke
(2) I don't think a thoughtful Trinitarian would point at Jesus and
say "This is my God" (assuming we agree on some method to point at a
person who surely is not any particular place in the physical
universe). The Trinitarian God has three persons and all are equally
salient. Your statement, understood literally, means that you are not
a Trinitarian and you deny any godhood to the Father and the Holy
Spirit. I don't think you meant that - but that is what you said. Or
did you mean what you said?

It is not clear that you understand what Christians believe concerning
the trinitarian nature of God. The best and most complete explanation is
the ancient, universal creed of the Christian Church called the
Athanasian Creed...

(http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=582 - among many others)
(Note: catholic here does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church, but to
the entire Christian Church.)

Whoever desires to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith.
Whoever does not keep it whole and undefiled will without doubt perish
eternally.

And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and
Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the
substance. For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the
Holy Spirit is another. But the Godhead of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit is one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit: the
Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Spirit uncreated; the
Father infinite, the Son infinite, the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father
eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet there are
not three Eternals, but one Eternal, just as there are not three
Uncreated or three Infinites, but one Uncreated and one Infinite. In
the same way, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, the Holy Spirit
almighty; and yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So
the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God; and yet there
are not three Gods, but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son is
Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord; and yet there are not three Lords, but
one Lord. Just as we are compelled by the Christian truth to
acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so also are we
prohibited by the catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or
Lords.

The Father is not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is
neither made nor created, but begotten of the Father alone. The Holy
Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor
begotten, but proceeding. Thus, there is one Father, not three Fathers;
one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in
this Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less
than another; but the whole three persons are coeternal with each other
and coequal, so that in all things, as has been stated above, the
Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity is to be worshiped. Therefore,
whoever desires to be saved must think thus about the Trinity.

But it is also necessary for everlasting salvation that one faithfully
believe the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is the
right faith that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, is at the same time both God and man. He is God, begotten
from the substance of the Father before all ages; and He is man, born
from the substance of His mother in this age: perfect God and perfect
man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father
with respect to His divinity, less than the Father with respect to His
humanity. Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ:
one, however, not by the conversion of the divinity into flesh, but by
the assumption of the humanity into God; one altogether, not by
confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational
soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ, who suffered
for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from
the dead, ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the
Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the living and
the dead. At His coming all people will rise again with their bodies
and give an account concerning their own deeds. And those who have done
good will enter into eternal life, and those who have done evil into
eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith; whoever does not believe it faithfully and
firmly cannot be saved.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Eric417
It is not clear that you understand what Christians believe concerning
the trinitarian nature of God. The best and most complete explanation is
the ancient, universal creed of the Christian Church called the
Athanasian Creed...

I have snipped actual creed.

Post by Eric417
This is the catholic faith; whoever does not believe it faithfully and
firmly cannot be saved.

On the whole I would say that if you can believe that you can believe
anything. Tertullian once again - "I believe it because it is
incredible" (Yes, I know that that is probably not the best way to
translate what Tertullian actually wrote - but it fills my needs
better).

The Athanasian Creed has probably been dissected phrase by phrase by
serious scholars. I wouldn't try it here. I will limit myself to
saying that the passage about the Trinity is nonsense. If there is any
positive content in it please point it out to me. All I can find is a
long series of statements about what the Trinity is not.

And, moreover, why should I take something as late as the Athanasian
Creed as having any relevance to defining Christianity?

[Eric417]

Post by DKleinecke
And, moreover, why should I take something as late as the Athanasian
Creed as having any relevance to defining Christianity?

Because the entire Christian Church accepts the Creed and because it is
in full agreement with Scripture.

---

[At least the entire Western Church, except of course non-credal
Protestants. --clh]

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Eric417

Post by DKleinecke
And, moreover, why should I take something as late as the Athanasian
Creed as having any relevance to defining Christianity?

Because the entire Christian Church accepts the Creed and because it is
in full agreement with Scripture.
=A0 ---
[At least the entire Western Church, except of course non-credal
Protestants. --clh]

"And this I suppose to be that blessed Trinity that we read of in the
Holy Scriptures-
The Father is the deity subsisting in the prime, unoriginated and most
absolute manner, or the deity in its direct existence. The Son is the
deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself
and subsisting in that Idea. The Holy Ghost is the deity subsisting
in act, or the divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's
infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole
divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine
Idea and the the Divine Love and that each of them are properly
distinct persons. . . . In other words, the Holy Spirit is the delight
of the Father and the Son in each other and He carries in HImself so
fully all the essence of the Father and the Son that He Himself stands
forth as a third person in His own right."

Taken from, "Treatise on Grace." Jonathan Edwards

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Eric417

Post by DKleinecke
And, moreover, why should I take something as late as the Athanasian
Creed as having any relevance to defining Christianity?

Because the entire Christian Church accepts the Creed and because it is
in full agreement with Scripture.

Not true.

It is a purely Western statement, and was not composed by Athanasius. It is
properly called the "Quicunque vult".

[Eric417]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Eric417

Post by DKleinecke
And, moreover, why should I take something as late as the Athanasian
Creed as having any relevance to defining Christianity?

Because the entire Christian Church accepts the Creed and because it is
in full agreement with Scripture.

Not true.
It is a purely Western statement, and was not composed by Athanasius. It is
properly called the "Quicunque vult".

The Eastern Orthodox do not deny the Trinity.

I should have said that that the conclusion of the creed is
universal...i.e. all Christians share the same belief in the trinity.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Eric417

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Eric417

Post by DKleinecke
And, moreover, why should I take something as late as the Athanasian
Creed as having any relevance to defining Christianity?

Because the entire Christian Church accepts the Creed and because it is
in full agreement with Scripture.

Not true.
It is a purely Western statement, and was not composed by Athanasius. It is
properly called the "Quicunque vult".

The Eastern Orthodox do not deny the Trinity.

Of course not.

They do, however, deny the Western innovation of the double-procession of the
Holy Spirit, which is propagated by the "Quicunque vult".

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Eric417
It is not clear that you understand what Christians believe concerning
the trinitarian nature of God. The best and most complete explanation is
the ancient, universal creed of the Christian Church called the
Athanasian Creed...

It is nether universal nor Athanasian, and it's a moot point whether it's a
creed.

Post by Eric417
The Father is not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is
neither made nor created, but begotten of the Father alone. The Holy
Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor
begotten, but proceeding. Thus, there is one Father, not three Fathers;

That, for example, makes it unacceptable in the Christian East.

[Eric417]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Eric417
It is not clear that you understand what Christians believe concerning
the trinitarian nature of God. The best and most complete explanation is
the ancient, universal creed of the Christian Church called the
Athanasian Creed...

It is nether universal nor Athanasian, and it's a moot point whether it's a
creed.

Post by Eric417
The Father is not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is
neither made nor created, but begotten of the Father alone. The Holy
Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor
begotten, but proceeding. Thus, there is one Father, not three Fathers;

That, for example, makes it unacceptable in the Christian East.

The Eastern Orthodox do not deny the Trinity.

I should have said that that the conclusion of the creed is
universal...i.e. all Christians share the same belief in the trinity.

[Warren Steel]

Post by Eric417

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Eric417
The Father is not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is
neither made nor created, but begotten of the Father alone. The Holy
Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor
begotten, but proceeding. Thus, there is one Father, not three Fathers;

That, for example, makes it unacceptable in the Christian East.

The Eastern Orthodox do not deny the Trinity.

Of course not, but they deny the procession of the Holy
Ghost from the Father *and the Son* as implied by *this*
text of the so-called Athanasian creed, which probably
originated in the Latin-speaking Gaul of the 6th century.

[Eric417]

Post by Warren Steel

Post by Eric417

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Eric417
The Father is not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is
neither made nor created, but begotten of the Father alone. The Holy
Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor
begotten, but proceeding. Thus, there is one Father, not three Fathers;

That, for example, makes it unacceptable in the Christian East.

The Eastern Orthodox do not deny the Trinity.

Of course not, but they deny the procession of the Holy
Ghost from the Father *and the Son* as implied by *this*
text

It is not implied. It is clearly stated by The Athanasian creed.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Eric417

Post by Warren Steel
Of course not, but they deny the procession of the Holy
Ghost from the Father *and the Son* as implied by *this*
text

It is not implied. It is clearly stated by The Athanasian creed.

Which is why the Orthodox Church does not accept the so-called "Athanasian
Creed".

[Eric417]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Eric417

Post by Warren Steel
Of course not, but they deny the procession of the Holy
Ghost from the Father *and the Son* as implied by *this*
text

It is not implied. It is clearly stated by The Athanasian creed.

Which is why the Orthodox Church does not accept the so-called "Athanasian
Creed".

And if people are interested in reason more on this fascinating topic,
here are some excellent resources:

http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1232
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/FerchFilioque.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/seia/filoque.shtml
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.filioque.html

[Eric417]

Post by DKleinecke
I believe that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. It seems as
though many Christians feel that Allah is not the same god as the God
they worship. I am curious as to how they reach this conclusion.

See John 8:42-47.

While Muslims say they accept Jesus, it is not the same Jesus described
by Scripture. They deny his Divinity, etc.

Because they deny Jesus is God, because they reject what Jesus had to
say, they deny God Himself.

Post by DKleinecke
The difficulty I see here is that most of the things I have seen
offered as reasons to believe Allah is a different god (such as not
acknowledging a trinity) also apply to the god worshiped by the Jews.

This is true.

It is sad to day that Jews do not worship the same God as
Christians...again see John 8:42-47. The Jews today reject that Jesus is
who He said He was and in doing so reject the God of their ancestors and
the God of Christians.