Origins of the Judeo-Christian god and religion

Exodus 20:4, anyone?

I maintain also that God is an uncreated Being. Allthat you are stating is that human wisdom "created/imagined" God. That is also Faith...although based on empirical data of various sources.I respect scholarly opinions, but there IS a belief system which many DO share that has God creating humans long before we even had the wisdom to drool...much less conceive of religion.

But Allah is a generic word for God, not some particular diety.The parallels between Islam Judaism are remarkably deep. Both show a reverence for the actual name of GOD and so do not utter it. They instead use generic terms, to indicate that being that is above all and encompasses all. Allah = GOD = YWH.Throughout almost all of the Old Testament, the idea that there are other Gods and that those Gods are real Gods and not just some demons is central. YWH is the God of the Hebrews, their personal and territorial God. As late in the Bible as Kings, the idea that YWH is tied to a particular area and peoples is indicated by the tale of Naaman found in 2 Kings where Naaman takes some of the land of Israel back with him so that he can pray to YWH and YWH will have the power to hear those prayers.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That is an interesting parallel but you gloss over the differences. Abram and Paul heard from God Himself, Mohammed heard from an "angel" and an angel who in fact contradicts what the Bible said, although it was the Bible in which we first hear of this angel, if he were in fact that same angel, so by that we know he wasn't.

It depends. Now it is, but originally it referred to any god in the pantheon. "el" has the plural "elohim" which in the Bible sometimes refers to multiple deities or multiple angels. The Bible says clearly that those who worship other gods are worshiping demons. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that suggests anything else but that all other gods are false gods. Certainly He was tied to a particular area and people, but even the heathen nations acknowledged Him as the one true God from time to time.

Again, we all know that you do not believe that Allah = YWH, but the discrepancies you mention are really trivial when it comes to defining GOD and say nothing about the nature of the GOD.Judaism and Islam do not assign Jesus a position as divine but do consider Jesus as a special prophet. That has nothing to do with either the identity or nature of Allah or YWH.The issue of which is the chosen people is also trivial. According to the Bible everyone on earth is the child of a chosen person. To say that Isaac is the Father of the Hebrews does not preclude Ishmael being the Father of the Arabs.It does bring up yet more interesting parallels, in the fact that Ishmael supposedly engendered 12 tribes.Both can and IMHO are chosen as is all mankind.But we are talking about the origins of the Judeo-Christian god and religion. In that what I mentioned is a remarkable parallel. That in one of the tales GOD chooses to send the message by Angel does not change the parallel, throughout all of the books, Jewish, Christian and Muslim we find GOD sending messages by Angels.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar said: to which Faith replied: Thank you for supporting my position. Yes, Allah and El were both used as generic terms for Gods.The message of Abram, Paul and later Mohammad was that Allah is not a generic God, or part of a Pantheon, but rather the Primary GOD (in teh case of Abram which gradually over time was changed to being the only God). Again, that is not supported by the Bible itself. there are numerous instances in the Bible of tests between YWH and other Gods, and the picture particularly from the old testament is not that these sre demons, but rather the wrong God. The significance of being tied to a region is that the Hebrews believed, as did other peoples, that outside of YWHs personal territory he was not all powerful. This is tested several times in the Bible, in most cases the report is that YWH turns out to be more powerful than the other God (but not always) but that the other God is not shown to be a demon, but just not as powerful as YWH. This is the reason that Naaman takes some of the soil from Israel back with him. Whithout the soil, YWH would be powerless in Naamans homeland. In addition, Naaman is given saanction to go with his master when the master prays to his own God. Naaman is told, "No harm, no foul."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You couldn't be more wrong. If Jesus is not God incarnate Yahweh's nature is utterly changed and there is no Christianity at all. Ishmael IS the father of the Arabs. Nobody denies that. The point of Isaac's being the father of the Jews is that the Jews were God's Chosen People -- and ONLY Chosen People, the people through whom the Messiah, the Savior of the World, God Himself With Us, was to come -- and did come, whose people, those who believe in Him, are His own people. Islam doesn't just say that Ishmael was the father of the Arabs, they say he was the chosen heir of Abraham, thus falsifying the entire claim of the Jews -- and ultimately the Christians. God never sent an angel to inaugurate a great move of the Spirit. He He did it Himself. "Gabriel" isn't even presented as "sent by Allah" in anything I've read, and since "Gabriel" contradicts the Bible, in which he originally plays a part, Mohammed's "Gabriel" is simply not the Bible's Gabriel.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2006 11:53 AM

Just getting up and having my coffee and realizing I don't have an adequate technical vocabulary for the distinction I want to make.This is Brian's field and perhaps he can funish me with the words I need. What I want to get at is that there is the historicalness of the books themselves and then there is the story they tell.The historical records of this period are few and fragmentary but they offer clues in terms of language among other things.We have the stories written down by the compilers of the Torah and we have other information about Israel and Judaism. The story told in the Bible and this other information are frequently not in agreement.Arach is often looking at the sources of Jewish religion in extra Bibical history, linguistics, archeology etc.You and Buz were attempting to do that in examining the sources Mohammed might have used for the Koran. When it comes to the Bible you revert to allowing it to be the only witness to the religion.The double standard that Arach is quite fairly objecting to is that you need to choose one methodology and apply it in all cases for the sake of argument. To use one methodology for Islam and another for Judaism is the double standard.Either rule in history, etymology, linguistics or rule them out. But don't allow them in one case and disallow them in the other. You keep switching on Arach. You use linguistic argument for the word Allah in Islam but then deny the same approach when Arach applies it to Judaim and Christianity.If, Brian reads this and cares to comment I'm wondering what tha academic language is for the history IN the text versus the history OF the text.Arach is looking at the history OF the Bible, not the history IN the Bible. Which is what you were doing with Islam. It perfectly fine to address both issue but we have to keep them clear.lfen

And, Phat, saying "God is an uncreated Being" is you creating and imagining God as "an uncreated Being" and since you are a human, your definition of God is an example of human wisdom.lfen

The Bible itself is the only historical record there is of the events it recounts. Extra-Biblical sources do not relate to these events. Much is made of this or that archaeological find to refute the Bible AS history, but there is nothing that directly refutes anything in it. There is in fact NO other information about Israel and Judaism from the ancient time period. There is archaeological evidence of various other peoples that is sometimes used either for or against the Bible, just as often for, but there is nothing at all directly about the Biblical events. Yes, and I've answered a great deal of his claims already. They are circumstantial and indirect and to use them as he does directly contradicts the actual written account without any warrant whatever, just imaginative reconstruction. There is no valid parallel. The fact is that there ARE plenty of actual historical records about Mohammed and the early years of Islam. There simply are not any about the time period of Abraham and Moses. There are bits and pieces of stuff that fanciful interpretations may cling to, but nothing direct. There is plenty of direct historical knowlege of Mohammed and his times.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-02-2006 12:29 PM

It doesn't matter what anyone believes. The Bible presents God as the uncreated Creator.Allah is also presented the same way by Islam.

Not exactly. Allah is still YWH. What is different is that the Christian belief that Jesus is divine is wrong.As Christians you and I belive that Jesus is the divine Son of GOD, of Allah, but that is just a belief. but guess what, neither the Jews or Muslims agree. No one agues that and it has nothing to do with Allah, but rather only of Christianity's views on Allah.Allah is still YWH. It is one thing to believe you are a Chosen People, yet another to believe you are the ONLY chosen people. According to the Bible GOD chose all mankind as his people. That is the meaning of one GOD. He changed his mind and then wiped out almost everybody and everything. All that was left was one family, one chosen family.Later Allah made a covenent with one of the children of that chosen family, Abram. Abram had a bunch of wives and lots of kids. Two of those kids were Isaac and Ishmael, but from different mothers. One of the wives, Sara, was jealous of Hagar and had Hagar and her baby son abandoned in the wilderness. That child was Ishmael while Sara's child was Isaac. Ishmael was the half brother of Isaac and the Father-in-law to Esau.But again, nothing in your quote has anything to do with the Nature or Origin of YWH/Allah. If you read the Qur'an and the Old Testament, the stories are remarkably consistent. The story of Abram's family is told from the decendents of Isaac in one book, the decendents of Ishmael in the other, but it is the same story.By the way, the deceit and preferential treatment of children continues to be shown in the Bible. Isaac marries a woman, Rebbeca, much like his mother, who then conspires to see one son cheated out of his inheritance similar to how Isaacs mother Sara had Hagar and her son abandoned to the desert.In Islam, Ismael is considered a prophet as is Isaac.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

and according to historical religion of islam, and all the documents of islam, muslims objectively claim the bery same thing.see, i can throw around words like "historical" and "objective" too. the problem is that word "religion." it kind of voids the "objectivity" of the situation. religion is faith, faith.whether or not YOU believe in islam is irrelevant. they make the very same claims you make regarding your religion. and the objective fact of the situation is that both claim to be the truth, delivered to prophets by god himself, with instructions to spread the good news to the surrounding polytheists.you can't say "islam comes from a polytheistic context, so it's wrong. but christianity comes from a polytheistic context -- and it was the truth all along." you're reading the same context two different ways, based solely on your own belief and nothing more.why not actually look at the situation objectively, instead of just throwing the word around?

---

because you have lost sight of the objective fact that your belief in the historical precision and divine accuracy of the bible is a tenet of your faith -- and that muslims believe the same way about the qu'ran. you seem to think that because you believe you it, it's absolute fact.but it's belief. it's faith.

---