Is the ONE GOD of Islam the same as the GOD of the Bible?

[Trumble]

The church edited and corrupted the bible and christianity. A lot changed, and not all of Jesus deciples managed to come in to the bible.One of them added out was Thomas, he was the best student of Jesus. The most devouted and the one that he was closest to.

You are presenting hypothesis and speculation as fact. As another non-muslim (and non-Christian) I'd point out that you are making some very large assumptions. The biggest is that the Gospel of Thomas was actually written by Didymus Judas Thomas. We have no more evidence of authorship than the canonical gospels, indeed, due to the later date, rather less. It is, in fact, very unlikely, although that does not rule out the possibility that some or all of the sayings attributed to Jesus were true.

In fact we have absolutely no idea why it was "added out" (?). It is possible that your speculation as to some sort of conspiracy is correct. It is also possible that it was known, or least strongly suspected, not to be genuine at the time... people then were in a rather stronger position to research that conclusively than we are today. A third, and IMVHO even more liekly possibility is that circulation of the Gospel of Thomas was so restricted (which would rather go along with dubious authorship) that the Christian 'mainstream' had simply never come across it.

I think the Gospel of Thomas is a fascinating document, not least because of some very interesting parallels with my own belief, but as with all such 'lost' material it is intellectually dishonest to present it as having equal status with the canonical gospels just because the title includes the word 'gospel'.

 

[MustafaMc]

Okay here it comes, me defendeing islam+o(

Gospel of Thomas:15
Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him. That one is your father."

Jesus was only a prophet, but the corrupted church didnt want it to their corrupted bible...

May I be forgiven for aiding islam, but I could not be quiet.

Yes, prostrate is equivalent to the Islamic "sujood". What this verse tells me is that we should not worship a human, born of a woman. The title "father" is either what Jesus (pbuh) used to refer to Allah, or it is a mis-translation into Greek from what he said. I don't see that we should get hung up on this title, because Jesus was clearly referring to the One God when he taught the disciples how to pray with the Lord's Prayer.

The reasons why only some of the multitude of writings avaivable to the Council of Nicea and Hippo were approved by them will probably never be known. It is reasonable to think that these people decided on what Christianity was to become (trinitarian - Athanasius or monotheistic - Arius) and they approved of writings that were consistent with the decided-upon-beliefs delineated by the Nicene Creed.

Wikipedia Nicene Creed
First Council of Nicea (325)

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.And in the Holy Ghost.

 

[vpb]

Yes, prostrate is equivalent to the Islamic "sujood". What this verse tells me is that we should not worship a human, born of a woman. The title "father" is either what Jesus (pbuh) used to refer to Allah, or it is a mis-translation into Greek from what he said. I don't see that we should get hung up on this title, because Jesus was clearly referring to the One God when he taught the disciples how to pray with the Lord's Prayer.

The reasons why only some of the multitude of writings avaivable to the Council of Nicea and Hippo were approved by them will probably never be known. It is reasonable to think that these people decided on what Christianity was to become (trinitarian - Athanasius or monotheistic - Arius) and they approved of writings that were consistent with the decided-upon-beliefs delineated by the Nicene Creed.

jews used to refer to themselves as sons of God. but later they changed its meaning and took it for real as son of God.

 

[- Qatada -]

No, catholics ask Mary to intercede for them before God. Mary is important only as a mother of Christ.

“And they worship besides Allaah things that harm them not, nor profit them, and they say: ‘These are our intercessors with Allaah’”

[Yoonus 10:18]


“And those who take Awliyaa’ (protectors, helpers, lords, gods) besides Him (say): ‘We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah’”
[al-Zumar 39:3]



And if you asked them, "Who created the heavens and the earth?" they would surely say, " Allah [God] ." Say, "Then have you considered what you invoke besides Allah ? If Allah intended me harm, are they removers of His harm; or if He intended me mercy, are they withholders of His mercy?" Say, "Sufficient for me is Allah ; upon Him [alone] rely the [wise] reliers."

[Qur'an Zumar 39:38]



And your Lord said: "Call upon Me, I will answer you. Verily, those who scorn My worship they will surely enter Hell in humiliation!''. [Qur'an Ghaafir 40:60]


http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-islam/42857-asking-help-other-then-allah.html

​

 

[Phil12123]

Well if someone is the "Mother of God" shouldn't she be worshipped? It seems that Christians don't properly honor Mary.

As a Protestant, I reject that title, "Mother of God," for Mary the mother of Jesus' physical body. If "God" is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no one is the Mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If anything, Mary was only the mother of the Son's physical body. His body was not God, so how can she be the "Mother of God"? Besides, that expression is nowhere found in the Bible, even the Catholic Bible.

 

[vpb]

As a Protestant, I reject that title, "Mother of God," for Mary the mother of Jesus' physical body. If "God" is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no one is the Mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If anything, Mary was only the mother of the Son's physical body. His body was not God, so how can she be the "Mother of God"? Besides, that expression is nowhere found in the Bible, even the Catholic Bible.

I strongly suggest to watch the beginning of the video, the speech from the man in white clothes, basically the first part of the video. It talks about , what you quoted. the whole "Son of God" thing.

http://www.watchislam.com/videos/embed.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.watchislam.com%2Fvideos%2Ffull_length%2Fflash2%2Fcreator_and_creation_islam_and_terrorism.flv&type=media

 

[MustafaMc]

Wikipedia: Hail Mary

The original Greek text of the prayer is as follows:

Θεοτόκε Παρθένε, χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη Μαρία, ὁ Κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. εὐλογημένη, σὺ ἐν γυναιξί, καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου, ὅτι Σωτήρα ἔτεκες τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν.

Mother of God and Virgin, hail, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou hast given birth to the Saviour of our souls.

Well if someone is the "Mother of God" shouldn't she be worshipped? It seems that Christians don't properly honor Mary. As Gomer Pyle would say, "Shame, shame, shame!"

As a Protestant, I reject that title, "Mother of God," for Mary the mother of Jesus' physical body. If "God" is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no one is the Mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If anything, Mary was only the mother of the Son's physical body. His body was not God, so how can she be the "Mother of God"? Besides, that expression is nowhere found in the Bible, even the Catholic Bible.

To start with I hope that you realize that I was being sarcastic with the last paragraph of my post to make a point. I can understand why you as a Protestant reject the title "Mother of God", but logically.....

1) Jesus is claimed by Christians to be the Son of God and at the same time fully God.

2) There is no question, but that Mary was the biological mother of Jesus.

3) Mary was a virgin at least until after Jesus was born.

4) God the Father is claimed to be the father of Jesus because Jesus is the Son of God.

Therefore, if Jesus is God (#1) and Mary was Jesus' mother (#2), then Mary must be the Mother of God. If Mary was a virgin (#3) when she "conceived" Jesus then how can God the Father inseminate Mary to become Jesus' father (#4)? Was there artificial insemination back then?

Isn't it much more logical that God just said, "Be!" and Jesus was miraculously created in the womb of a virgin, Mary, without the intervention of any natural or super-natural father?

Quran 3:59-60 In fact the example of the birth of Isa ( Jesus) in the sight of Allah is like the example of Adam who had no father and mother, whom He created out of dust, then said to him: "Be" and he was. This is the Truth from your Rabb, therefore, do not be of those who doubt it.

 

[Phil12123]

To start with I hope that you realize that I was being sarcastic with the last paragraph of my post to make a point. I can understand why you as a Protestant reject the title "Mother of God", but logically.....

1) Jesus is claimed by Christians to be the Son of God and at the same time fully God.

2) There is no question, but that Mary was the biological mother of Jesus.

3) Mary was a virgin at least until after Jesus was born.

4) God the Father is claimed to be the father of Jesus because Jesus is the Son of God.

Therefore, if Jesus is God (#1) and Mary was Jesus' mother (#2), then Mary must be the Mother of God. If Mary was a virgin (#3) when she "conceived" Jesus then how can God the Father inseminate Mary to become Jesus' father (#4)? Was there artificial insemination back then?

Isn't it much more logical that God just said, "Be!" and Jesus was miraculously created in the womb of a virgin, Mary, without the intervention of any natural or super-natural father?

Quran 3:59-60 In fact the example of the birth of Isa ( Jesus) in the sight of Allah is like the example of Adam who had no father and mother, whom He created out of dust, then said to him: "Be" and he was. This is the Truth from your Rabb, therefore, do not be of those who doubt it.

This what the Word of God says concerning Jesus' conception in Mary:

Matthew 1:
18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
19. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.
20. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21. "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.''
22. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23. "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,'' which is translated, "God with us.''
24. Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife,
25. and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

Luke 1:
26. Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
27. to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
28. And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!''
29. But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was.
30. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31. "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus.
32. "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.
33. "And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.''
34. Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?''
35. And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

I think the above speaks for itself. No mention of Mary being the "Mother of God." It really doesn't even mention God the Father, though it does say the child will be called the Son of God. Matthew only mentions the angel of the Lord telling Joseph that the child is of the Holy Spirit. Luke mentions Gabriel telling Mary the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Highest would overshadow her. Sounds like good proof texts for the teaching that the Holy Spirit is God, not that Mary is the Mother of God.

So your idea just didn't happen, or at least it is not so stated in the Word of God.

 

[MustafaMc]

I think the above speaks for itself. No mention of Mary being the "Mother of God." It really doesn't even mention God the Father, though it does say the child will be called the Son of God. Matthew only mentions the angel of the Lord telling Joseph that the child is of the Holy Spirit. Luke mentions Gabriel telling Mary the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Highest would overshadow her. Sounds like good proof texts for the teaching that the Holy Spirit is God, not that Mary is the Mother of God.

So your idea just didn't happen, or at least it is not so stated in the Word of God.

Yes, I am familiar with the Biblical story of Jesus' "conception". I noticed that you did not refute my logic though, nor did you comment on the Quranic "creation" of Jesus in Mary's womb as opposed to his Biblical "conception" by the Holy Spirit. So Jesus was conceived of God the Holy Spirit, but he calls God the Father - "father". :? However, the Bible says that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli, but then again it seems that Luke was just supposing this to be so.

As for me, I will go with the Quranic version and leave it at Jesus did not have a father - he only had a mother.

 

[doorster]

Is the ONE GOD of Islam the same as the GOD of the Bible?

Which Bible?
kjv and it's derivatives or Jewish Bible?


kjv and it's derivatives, Not a chance to a 1+1+1=1 [to me it sounds as plausible as Zeus and his family]

Jewish Bible, Yes

don't know any Coptics so cannot say if their god is an adaptation of greek mytholgy+roman sungod= a triune too or not

"We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you(Jews and Christian, I exclude Trinitarians as they remind me of similarity to pagans); Our Ilâh and Your Ilâh is One (Allâh), and to Him we have submitted".

 

[Phil12123]

Yes, I am familiar with the Biblical story of Jesus' "conception". I noticed that you did not refute my logic though,

I believe what I said before you offered your logic was enough to refute it. Let me repeat it: "Mary [was] the mother of Jesus' physical body. If "God" is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no one is the Mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If anything, Mary was only the mother of the Son's physical body. His body was not God, so [she cannot] be the "Mother of God". The fallacy of your logic is found in your premise no. 2, in that Mary was only the biological mother of Jesus' body, certainly not His Deity.

nor did you comment on the Quranic "creation" of Jesus in Mary's womb as opposed to his Biblical "conception" by the Holy Spirit.

I do not want to speculate. The child was "of the Holy Spirit" and Mary was overshadowed by the power of the Highest when the Holy Spirit came upon her. I do not know anything more than that, or even what that exactly entails. From our human perspective, it would seem like there had to be fertilization of Mary's egg in some way or fashion, but the details of how that was accomplished, or if that's how things happened, are not disclosed. So why not leave it at that?

I'm also not sure I see the need for a "Be"-sort of creation in Mary's womb. If that were done, why not create the entire adult male like Adam was created, saying "Be" and He was just there? The reason that could not BE the case (pun intended), is that there were things to be fulfilled in His being born of a virgin and being of the House of David, etc., etc.

I think the Quranic version is merely an attempt to avoid any possible situation where Allah had a son. Mary can have a son; she's human. But Allah cannot have a son, so he can only have Jesus by creation, not conception. There again you are putting a limitation on God. You have decided, or Muhammad decided, that Allah could not do something. He was made in the image of Muhammad, made not all-powerful, to avoid the excesses that Muhammad probably saw in some of the Catholics of his day (worship of Mary and the Christ child, etc.). So Allah was not able to conceive or cause the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb; Allah had to instead create the sperm that fertilized Mary's egg.

The problem with the latter version is that, where does that allow for Christ's preexistence? If Allah created the sperm and Mary produced the egg, you would have Jesus coming into existence for the first time at that time. It is true that the "flesh" part of "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) did come into existence for the first time at that point. But we know (or at least I know) from verses like John 1:1 and John 8:58, that Jesus existed before He became flesh and dwelt among us. So how does your version allow for that? I don't think it does.

So Jesus was conceived of God the Holy Spirit, but he calls God the Father - "father". :?

Yes. He also said, "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves" (John 14:11). Don't ask me to explain that either. If I could explain God, I'd be God.

However, the Bible says that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli, but then again it seems that Luke was just supposing this to be so.

No, Luke was not supposing that Joseph was Jesus' father. He doesn't say that. He merely says, Jesus was "the son (as was supposed) of Joseph..." He does not say WHO supposed He was the son of Joseph, but certainly not LUKE since He knew all about Mary's visitation by Gabriel, etc., and therefore KNEW that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father.

 

[Phil12123]

Which Bible?
kjv and it's derivatives or Jewish Bible?

kjv and it's derivatives, Not a chance to a 1+1+1=1 [to me it sounds as plausible as Zeus and his family]

Jewish Bible, Yes

Either Bible, if you think there is a difference. Do you think there is a difference between the Jewish Bible's God and the God of the KJV's Old Testament? Can you show me that difference, citing verses from each that demonstrate it?

Don't they both say, "Let us make man in our image after our likeness"?

 

[MustafaMc]

I believe what I said before you offered your logic was enough to refute it. Let me repeat it: "Mary [was] the mother of Jesus' physical body. If "God" is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no one is the Mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If anything, Mary was only the mother of the Son's physical body. His body was not God, so [she cannot] be the "Mother of God". The fallacy of your logic is found in your premise no. 2, in that Mary was only the biological mother of Jesus' body, certainly not His Deity.

Forgive me, Captain, for being so Spock-like, but this isn't logical.

I do not want to speculate. The child was "of the Holy Spirit" and Mary was overshadowed by the power of the Highest when the Holy Spirit came upon her. I do not know anything more than that, or even what that exactly entails. From our human perspective, it would seem like there had to be fertilization of Mary's egg in some way or fashion, but the details of how that was accomplished, or if that's how things happened, are not disclosed. So why not leave it at that?

Yes, since Jesus is a male, then that requires a Y-chromosome from somewhere if there was a conception. An act of miraculaous creation doesn't require it though.

I'm also not sure I see the need for a "Be"-sort of creation in Mary's womb. If that were done, why not create the entire adult male like Adam was created, saying "Be" and He was just there? The reason that could not BE the case (pun intended), is that there were things to be fulfilled in His being born of a virgin and being of the House of David, etc., etc.

Yes, God works in mysterious ways.

I think the Quranic version is merely an attempt to avoid any possible situation where Allah had a son. Mary can have a son; she's human. But Allah cannot have a son, so he can only have Jesus by creation, not conception. There again you are putting a limitation on God. You have decided, or Muhammad decided, that Allah could not do something. He was made in the image of Muhammad, made not all-powerful, to avoid the excesses that Muhammad probably saw in some of the Catholics of his day (worship of Mary and the Christ child, etc.). So Allah was not able to conceive or cause the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb; Allah had to instead create the sperm that fertilized Mary's egg.

I see this as a most serious error as Muhammad did not make Allah in his image. What comic book did you drag this one out of?

The problem with the latter version is that, where does that allow for Christ's preexistence? If Allah created the sperm and Mary produced the egg, you would have Jesus coming into existence for the first time at that time. It is true that the "flesh" part of "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) did come into existence for the first time at that point. But we know (or at least I know) from verses like John 1:1 and John 8:58, that Jesus existed before He became flesh and dwelt among us. So how does your version allow for that? I don't think it does.

The Quran does not say anything about Jesus existing prior to his birth. So, there is no conflict with creation by "Be!" in Mary's womb.

Yes. He also said, "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves" (John 14:11). Don't ask me to explain that either. If I could explain God, I'd be God.

I agree that our understanding is limited

No, Luke was not supposing that Joseph was Jesus' father. He doesn't say that. He merely says, Jesus was "the son (as was supposed) of Joseph..." He does not say WHO supposed He was the son of Joseph, but certainly not LUKE since He knew all about Mary's visitation by Gabriel, etc., and therefore KNEW that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father.

Well, it seems to me that Luke was the author of the Gospel According to Luke and that he was narrating the genealogy of Jesus. The NIV says "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph," you can twist the words how you want, but that is what the Bible says.

 

[Phil12123]

The Quran does not say anything about Jesus existing prior to his birth. So, there is no conflict with creation by "Be!" in Mary's womb.

Then you are confirming what I suspected, that the "creation" idea was to avoid Allah's having a son and to make Jesus' existence begin at that moment, denying both Biblical doctrines.

Well, it seems to me that Luke was the author of the Gospel According to Luke and that he was narrating the genealogy of Jesus. The NIV says "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph," you can twist the words how you want, but that is what the Bible says.

Yes, but he does not write, "so we thought" but merely "so it was thought" without saying by whom. His account of Gabriel's visitation with Mary conclusively shows HE did not think that. He knew otherwise.

 

[barney]

The bible is two Gods.
1) Old Testament where you have a God tearing citys apart and hammering down plauges and destruction, stoning unbeleivers and ordering human sacrifices. Very much the Old school "God". Identical to Aztec Gods , Norse & "pagan" gods & spirits, all worshipped the world over. The only thing seperating this God from the others was he was their only one and he was the God of the Jews.

2) New testament: New God..made into man...love kindness, turning the other cheek, healing the sick, brotherhood of man and Loving the children. No massacers , no fire.

It's two totally Different Gods.

 

[Phil12123]

The bible is two Gods.
1) Old Testament where you have a God tearing citys apart and hammering down plauges and destruction, stoning unbeleivers and ordering human sacrifices. Very much the Old school "God". Identical to Aztec Gods , Norse & "pagan" gods & spirits, all worshipped the world over. The only thing seperating this God from the others was he was their only one and he was the God of the Jews.

2) New testament: New God..made into man...love kindness, turning the other cheek, healing the sick, brotherhood of man and Loving the children. No massacers , no fire.

It's two totally Different Gods.

So, is the ONE GOD of Islam the same as one of those two?

I don't think so, but then you have 3 different gods, don't you?

 

[barney]

Well, I think the God of Islam is something different from these two.

The ideology is more Old testament than New, but I'm doubtful that they are the same God. (In a construct where any of them are Gods)

 

[Phil12123]

Well, I think the God of Islam is something different from these two.

The ideology is more Old testament than New, but I'm doubtful that they are the same God. (In a construct where any of them are Gods)

So, which of the three would you lean toward, in a construct where any of them are Gods?

 

[barney]

So, which of the three would you lean toward, in a construct where any of them are Gods?

Hmm, difficult.

God 1 says that he is all merciful and loveth man, but he massacerd every living thing on the planet that wasnt inside a boat the size of a frigate. He was the creator of mankind, but sought the jews out as special. He was obsessed with animal sacrifice and had a great interest in DIY as in the building of the arc of the covenent. The day after he said "thou shalt not kill" he ordered the massacer of 3000 jews who built a toy cow. He's cranky, unstable and gets things totally wrong almost all the time.

So i'm not voting for him.

God 2 says he's all merciful. He has created humans with free will, but they exercise it badly, so he copys himself into flesh and gets himself topped to placate himself from his own wrath. He condones and encourages slavery, sacrifice and misogeny, whilst preaching love and tolerance whilst knocking down temples and ordering killings.

I'll pass on him as well.

The third pretty much copies the first but out of deference to the Islamic forums that we are hosted on, i'll skip on the details.

In an attempt to find out if there was a creator a few months back, I asked the creator to show me a sign. Something that was not too obvious, not too hard. "creator, if you can interact with me , can you let me see a plastic duck in the next few days"

It's been over 60 days and i've been in a lot of shops, bathrooms and watched a lot of TV. Not a single plastic duck.
God can apparently Move Mountains with a grain of faith. well I was actually looking for him, and he couldnt show us a single duck.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all;

Regardless of what any of us choose to believe, the same God hears all our prayers.

In the spirit of praying for greater interfaith friendship

Eric