YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, adonai, lord, elohim, god, allah, Allah thread.

Tatanka Iyotake is his real name. However, this translates to 'Male buffalo sit down'. Or 'Sitting Bull'. We very rarely call him by the name of Tatanka Iyotake, but we do know that is who we are talking about. I don't think a native American is talking about a different person because they refer to him in a different language.The proper name of the Christian god is God. The proper name of the Christian messiah is Jesus. Of course, God is sometimes called YHWH, sometimes we call him Jehovah, or Yehovah. Sometimes we call him Adonai, or Yahweh. You say as much yourself. This means 'I am that I am' or something approaching it. The Muslims state that one of the names for God is 'I am that I am' - or something approaching it. They don't use English though - they use Arabic.However Jesus' name is Joshua in English. It is Yeshua in Hebrew, Iesus in Latin and Iesuous in Greek (approximately). Yeshua meaning, in simple terms, 'saviour'. In Arabic they call him Isa, or sometimes Fida, which means either 'saviour' or 'martyr' (You've seen this before in the name fida'iyeen). Despite it not being a proper name, we frequently use 'the annointed one' as a proper name, though in a different language: Christ. And likewise, if you were in a fundamentalist totalitarian Catholic nation and you go on a mission preaching Protestantism you will find yourself in serious legal trouble and likely in prison or dead. That doesn't mean they are different deities. Neither do the Sunnis worship a different deity than the Shiites.However, one thing for sure - they all worship the deity that allegedly revealed himself to Abraham, that had a prophets called Moses and Noah. That created the world 6-10k years ago, man out of clay, a flood erasing the mistakes. All that jazz. They just argue over some specific properties and characteristics (eg can God have a son? Jews and Muslims: No! That's heresy! Christians: Yes!) Alleged names? Muslims state that these are the names for the deity they believe in. Are you trying to tell Islam what it should believe?

Christian fundamentalists find no problem in the limitless power and awe of God, but do not ascribe the same concessions to Islam. According to them, their God is all powerful - and who are we to tell God how many proper names he can have? To the Jews he called himself YHWH, to the Christians he called himself Christ and to the Muslims he called himself Allah, along with 99 other names.

Well of course it doesn't. Whoever said it did? However - if I say, my imaginary friend is called 'WalksWithRainbows' and 'DancesOnStars' - are you trying to tell me that my imaginary friend doesn't have two proper names? There you go again, limiting the power and majesty of the divine. Maybe your puny god only has one proper name, but I don't think you get to dictate how many proper names other people's gods have.Incidentally - if I translate my name from Eastern European into English I get another proper name for myself. So I have at least two proper names. Yes - you think the God of the Jews can be the God of Mercy and Love.Still - both you and Islam believes their god is a god of Mercy and Love. I accept it when Christians say that, and I accept it when Muslims say it - despite the obvious paradoxes. I don't know. Islam has only one Messiah character in its plotline.

I'm not blaming anything on any god. If God is a god of mercy then he has been severely misrepresented by his representatives. However that doesn't change what he is. My point being that Christianity believes the same god as Islam - and that both have God saying things which we consider barbaric in today's world. Either Christianity isn't worshipping the Christian God (according to Buz) or the criteria for making the decision that Buz came up with is erroneous.

Assuming God is not barbaric I agree. I never said the opposite. I said the things men have written about God have God commanding barbaric acts where barbaric is compared with today's standards (genocide, slavery, rape etc). Islam and Christianity are offshoots of Judaism - and they essentially worship the same god - I've never claimed otherwise. They simply differ on some of the specifics.

Wait: Are you saying the father god of Jesus wouldn't order the death of a few hundred men? He's not the kind of guy who might say, destroy all life on earth but a select few? He's not the kind of guy that would say order an army of believers to go to war against unbelievers with assurances that he would be on their side, and would turn the battle in their favour?This father-Jesus god is an interesting god. Is there a holy book that describes him? Unfortunately there is another book, called the Holy Bible in which there is a Jesus character. He worshipped this god, who was his father - and he said that god was merciful - even though said god had personally committed genocide, commanded others to rape and pillage and developed a barbaric legal system in which minor crimes were punished in absurdly disproportionate manner.It is this latter god, who is essentially the same god as the Muslim god, though they do have some differences. Those differences are nothing compared with the change in character from the Old to the New testament.

Adam is a prophet of Islam.
Noah is a prophet of Islam.
Moses is a prophet of Islam.
Abraham is. As is Ishmael, Isaac, Lot, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Aaron, Solomon etc etc.Indeed - basically every prophet in the Old Testament is a prophet of Islam. The Old Testament was big on expansion by violence. Indeed, the two philosophies are so similar many of Mohammed's contemporaries thought he was preaching the Old Testament! They are both modifications of the god of Judaism. They are different modifications of it, but modifications nevertheless. That means they have different properties and characteristics. However, that does not mean the Jewish god is a different god to the Christian one and it does not mean that the Islamic God is different than the Jewish one. Either Christianity's god is not the God of Judaism.OrThe Islamic god is the god of Judaism.If you wish to concede the first, I'm happy to say that under those rules Allah is not the same deity as Yahweh. However, if you wish to keep Christianity as worshipping the god Yahweh, then under those same rules we have to also include Islam in Yahweh worshipping.Otherwise you are special pleading for your choice of deity. As someone who believes in none of the deities listed, I have no need to special plead.

For the purposes of debate - that doesn't matter at all. The bottom line is whether different religions can worship the same deity (though obviously one of them has got it wrong). The difference in personality that God exhibits from the OT to the NT is much larger than the difference in personality from OT to Koran. The NT is the odd one out, so if any of the books can be said to have God down wrong, the NT is the most likely candidate.The only way around this problem is to special plead. To say that the NT God is the right definition and any deviations from it must be worshipping a different deity.Yahweh as defined in the OT is jealous. He is wrathful. He encourages war against unbelievers, he destroys cities and races that are abhorent. He even wiped out most of humanity when it got too much. The NT god has changed how he wants his world to be run. Chilled and groovy, with pacifism in spades.The Koranic god combines the two. Mercy and wrath dealt out as Allah sees fit.Christianity accepts that God can change his tune - but somehow many Christians seem to reject Islam because it is a religion in which God is said to have changed his tune. Au contraire says Islam. God has never changed his tune, man has only paid attention and only recorded the revelations he personally agrees with. As such, God decides to use Muhammed to deliver the undiluted whole truth.Once again man screwed up here. The Koran has been edited, and supplemented with other works against his strict instructions. It looks like mankind is doomed really.Herein lies the problem with revelation - which revelation is fallacious? The Jews believe that everything God needs to say was said to the Jews. The Christians believe God changed the way we should live as the times change and that he did this through Christ. The Muslims believe that God talked to the Jews, but they corrupted his word and turned their back on him so often that he sent Jesus to steer them back on course which was once again corrputed so he sent the final prophet, Mohammed to get it right once and for all.Both Christianity and Islam need convoluted apologetics to justify their deviation from the original depiction of the Abrahamic god. I see Christianity has needed to do more apologetics than Islam, but that Islam is now more corrupted than Christianity. Corruption of course comes from power, and Islam holds a lot of power (theocracies) whereas Christianity holds a lot of power too, but not quite so absolutely.This doesn't mean that both religions didn't come from the Jewish deity that sprang itself upon Abraham. The only differences come from exactly what God said, what man has accurately recorded what God said and what that means.When we are analyzing these things we have to do it from various assumptions as to who is right.1. Islam is right: Allah=God
2. Christianity is right: Allah is a corrupted version of God from the mind of a lunatic/warlord etc.
3. Jusaism is right: Allah is a corrupted version of the Christian God which is a corrupted version of the true God.
4. None of them are right: There are three main descriptions of the Abrahamic God in current existence. There have been many others (eg Gnostics) which are either extinct or so rarely worshipped so as to be as good as. There is the Jewish view of God, the Christian view of God and the Muslim view of God. One day there may only be two existing views, or perhaps a fourth will (re?)emerge.I take the latter view. You take two views. One that Allah is a corrupted version of Yahweh and another that Allah isn't even a corrupted vesion of Yahweh , he's an entirely different deity altogether unrelated to Yahweh. I think you should stick with the former and discard the latter.

You don't consider Moses a prophet? Interesting. I'm fairly sure for example Isaiah and Daniel are official Biblical prophets and they have been also named prophets of Islam. the Old Testament is a peaceful text with no mass genocide called for, no enforced slavery or anything like that. Except in one little case, when they really deserved it. I'm afraid your assertion doesn't leave me convinced Buz. The point I was making, if you had forgotten - is that the God of the Bible does not advocate total non-violence. Or rather, if he does on one hand - he advocates something else on the other hand. The religions are on some issues diametrically opposed, that doesn't mean the followers worship different gods. This should be plainly obvious when we look at nations that have existed where you can be killed for being a Catholic by Protestants (and vice versa). They clearly do not worship different gods - unless you honestly believe they do? Like Catholics vs Protestants you may find yourself getting killed or tortured should you happen to worship god in the wrong way - I've never said differently. However, I have spoken with Imams - I suspect you haven't given what you think they would say. For your information they said that they worshipped the same god that the Christians and Jews do.Indeed - it doesn't matter what religion has power in a theocratic system, there tends to be justification for terrible acts to non-believers and Islam and Christianity share yet another similarity here. It is the secular states that threw off this legacy of violence. False false false false false false. Some sects (the majority) ask for a declaration of "[I testify that] there is no god (ilah) but Allah, and [I testify that] Muhammad is the messenger of Allah." - but not all of them.It does not say that Jesus is not a prophet of Allah in that declaration, only that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah. Indeed - looking at the Qur'an we find Jesus is in Islam - which screws your point. Also - since "No true Christian would be violent" type reasoning is permitted. Allow me to "No true Muslim" you for a moment. The phrase "...and Mohammed is His messenger" is not something a true Muslims should say since their book does not say that (just "There is no God but Allah"), and it also says that "...the believers; they all believe in Allah and His angels and His books and His apostles; We make no difference between any of His apostles; and they say: We hear and obey, our Lord!" Thus putting Mohammed forward as special or different goes against Allah's word. They are not anti-Jesus - as the text clearly shows.
They are not anti-Messiah (like the Jews they just don't believe Jesus was the Messiah). Messianic concepts, as far as I can tell are neither put forward as true, nor thrown down as false. Right - theocratic nations ban books under pain of death or flogging. Islam is not unique in this regard. If you think theocracies are the perfect representation of religions, should we examine Christian theocracies for their tolerance and benevolence? We could even compare with a Buddhist theocracy just for fun.Theocracies don't hold up well. What's the lesson here? I'd say that fundamentalists are violent and dangerous zealots who should be shown for what they are.Now, let's forget about theocracies and look at the books that claim to contain the tenets of the religion. And horror of horrors, the Qur'an points to biblical scripture as containing truths. Who'd have thought that tyrants could cynically manipulate a religion for temporal power.

Hi SAMBEE,
Another interesting thread, that deals with many of the same sources you have presented might be worth a read. Does Allah = Moon God?Like with Christianity, pagan practices were coopted to help convert other pagans. That is about all the evidence really shows. If a person worships a deity called Allah, and engages in rituals that have pagan origin - does that mean they are worshipping a pagan deity?If so, Arabic Christians are also worshipping a pagan deity.Indeed, just look at those things which God is referred to as in other languages. In Finnish they call him Jumala - a sky god, the Japanese call him Kami, a shinto word for spirit. In the Philippines Christians worship, Bathala - a pagan god. All around us we see the Abrahamic god be given names coopted from pagan origins.There was another pagan God, called Sin. He, like the others above, was something of a supreme god and was given the title 'the god'. Or, in their language, 'Allah'. When Mohammed wanted to convert them to his variant of the Abrahamic faiths, he kept the word everyone was familiar with to refer to 'the god'. It worked with the Finns, it worked with the Chinese too. And, as we can see, it worked with the Arabs. To be honest, what else could they say to refer to the monotheistic deity but 'the god'?Check out the other thread, you might pick up something you think is worth exploring further.

Did you mean to reply to Message 262?

Yahweh - Yahweh is clearly influenced by Marduk. The ancient deity who rose to prominence in the Middle East and became the patron deity of Babylon. The Israelites clearly modified him in such a way as to differentiate him from Marduk - but the tell-tale signs are all there. Marduk creates the world by splitting the waters and creating the firmament to hold them back.
Yahweh seems to have been a later invention as far as names go, but he clearly has associations with el (god of the wind (and the wind was upon the face of Tiamat/the waters Genesis 1)). El is a beardy guy who lives upon high (on a mountain) in a tabernacle/tent who protects patriarchs (he is the god of the father) and promises them descendants (sound familiar?)
We know that Ba'al (semitic storm god) wrestled with a giant many headed sea-serpent, a feat attributed to Yahweh in the Psalms (Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces: Psalms 74:14). Ba'al defeated el. Ba'al sits atop the clouds (Psalm 97?).Yahwism - Yahweh seems to have been introduced as a 'name' in Exodus 3 to Moses, but whether the writer intended it to be thought of as a name is somewhat disputable, it could just be dismissiveness on the part of elohim. It seems this dispute became something of a concern to the Israelites, while the folks on the ground seemed to be worshipping their modified Canaanite deities and other Israelites, the Yahwists trying to differentiate their religious practices from Canaan as much as possible.Christianity was spread throughout Europe in a similar fashion oftentimes as Islam. It encouraged the new converts to see local customs, ideas, spirits or deities through the lens of God to see the True Meaning of them. If that failed, the sword was employed (see Lithuania) - eventually in the end political expediency seems to do the trick in Christianizing (see again Lithuania).Allah - well we've had plenty of attention to Allah's associations with the main deity in the area at the time, Sin. Early Muslims definitely saw the wisdom in talking in terms of Sin who was known as Allah, but like the Israelites they clearly went out of their way to differentiate themselves from polytheistic deities. As for the crescent moon connection? Nonsense. The same symbol can be found on the Epicurean emperor Hadrian's coins and it was also adopted by the Ottoman Empire after their defeat of Constantinople. The flag of Constantinople was very similar to the one we see in use in Turkey today, and I believe was adopted some 600years before Christ was said to be born by the city of Byzantium.In short, no near-eastern religion seems to be free of being influenced by the religion of the first converts. Anybody who has changed religions is sure to recognize the phenomenon of seeing the new beliefs as superior answers to the same questions you asked in the earlier religion. Of course tales of elohim would follow some of the same paths as that of el or Ba'al and no doubt other Canaanite deities. The Israelites would almost certainly have known of these deities, so the new monotheism would have been framed in a manner that would be understandable to them.