Were The Prophets/Messiahs Jesus and Mohammed Inspired By The Same God?

not according to genesis 32. i blaspheme that name too cause IT'S WRONG.

It's a confusion between meaning and reference, as Ben tried to explain in Message 251, and as I previously tried to explain in Message 50.Let me see if I can explain.
I talk about the evening star, and I describe how it shines brightly just after sunset for part of the year.You talk about the morning star, and you describe it as in the eastern horizon just before dawn (for part of the year).It seems that we are talking about two different things. However, we are actually both talking about the planet venus.The word "reference" (or sometimes called "extension") is the actual thing we are talking about.The word "meaning" (or sometimes called "intension") is what we know and think about it.My meaning or intension is very different from yours. I mean something that I see in the western sky after sunset. You mean something you see before sunrise in the eastern sky. That's about as different as possible. Nevertheless our reference is to the planet venus. We are both making reference to the same thing.In this thread, the wording of the OP implies that it is a question about reference, not a question about meaning. The arguments you and buzsaw have been giving have all been about meaning, and not about reference.Sorry to get technical with terminology. I'm just trying to explain why there is so much talking past one another. That I use the name "evening star" and that you use the name "morning star" does not alter the fact that we are both making reference to the planet venus. The name issue is another part of the OP. But on the main point of the OP, whether the reference is the same, it simply is not relevant.

These men both claimed to be prophets and messiahs, if you will, inspired by their respective gods. It is totally impossible, imo, that the same god would inspire each in opposite ideological directions. When theologians say that the prophets and other writers of the Bible were inspired, they mean they wrote by inspiration what the Holy Spirit of God inpired them to write. The harmonious gospels of Jesus all were written by men inspired to write them. Yes, they were written from somewhat different perspectives, but they all pretty much agreed on the kind of person Jesus was, who he was and what he taught. Then comes along Muhammed with his Quran six centuries later in the Christian era contradicting what Jesus and all his desciples and apostles taught about Jesus being the son of God and contradicting his policy of nonviolence. How in the world can the same god be inspiring both Jesus and Muhammed diametrically?Even if one claims his former pagan god has become one and the same as the Biblical god, how can he so claim, when in fact he insists the god be called "Allah/God" and to call him any other name, including his Biblical proper name, YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah is unacceptable? Knowledge does matter. Why should they be inspired with totally incompatible knowledge? Knowledge is part and parcel of inspiration, especially when one claims to be a prophet of God.Btw, thanks, Ben for answering my moderation request. I'll respond in that thread.

---

From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

Consider we don't even know if Jesus really existed or not and we have no first hand accounts of his existence how can we even argue about whether he was inspired or not?It's obvious the jewish and christian god are one and the same (maybe they worship him differently, but its the same god)...... not sure about the muslim.

It's obvious where you're trying to go with this. Whether the gods of each are real gods is not the question. If one or both of the prophets merely had a perceived god one or both of the gods could be false gods, but nevertheless perceived by the respective prophets and their adherants as a god. For this reason I see your questions regarding how many gods I or Faith believes to be existing as moot for the purpose of the thread.

---

From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

I KNOW what you are saying. I GET it already. I KNOW that THE ONE GOD is what all parties THINK they are worshiping / addressing etc. That is merely the common false notion that everybody has --"Oh, the three great monotheisms, all different ways to the same God." If that is REFERENCE as opposed to MEANING, then that is exactly what Buz and I are objecting to. It is the vacuous obvious answer and utterly meaningless. It is in fact FALSE. They are NOT three differnt ways to the same God and that is exactly what this argument is about.There would be no reason to have this thread at all if that's all Buz had in mind: "Duh, of course it's all the same God, there's only one God isn't there?" Hey, pack up the thread and go home. That is all jar has been saying for the whole thread, via his irritating method of rhetorical questioning to boot.Obviously there is more to the question than that, and if MEANING or INTENTION as opposed to REFERENCE says it, fine, use whatever term makes it clear I guess. The point of the thread is obviously to CHALLENGE this inanity, to illuminate the fact that the three religions could not be farther away in their conceptions of God and His attributes.The comparison between morning star/evening star and Allah/Jehovah is at the very least inadequate. It is not a matter of a different angle of vision, it is a matter of a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING of the nature of God. DIFFERENT natures, different attributes, different commands (dying to self versus killing the infidel for instance), different motives (salvation by grace and the impartation of the Holy Spirit or salvation by works, sometimes including murdering the infidel)("Allah does not have a son"). This is not an apt analogy; it does not apply to the case in hand. Well, it was buzsaw's thread, which might clue you that HE didn't have that in mind; and while he may possibly not be happy with my role on this thread for one reason or another, it isn't going to be because I've misunderstood his objective. The two of us have agreed all along, which ought to have been a clue to those who keep battering us with their irrelevant objections. Yes, I appreciate your tone, and wish I didn't get so furious at this kind of nonsense. You are absolutely completely wrong. This analogy is inanely irrelevant. TRY to get what I'm saying.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-29-2005 01:33 AM

i'm sorry, where's the name of god in the new testament again? i can;t find it.remember -- we're limited to new testament arguments here. if it's not in the nt, it's out, as buz reminded me.

---

אָרַח

Hey Faith. I said so earlier in the thread, in case you missed it and will say it again, that you've been a great contributor to this thread and your hard work is greatly appreciated. May God bless you for it. We don't have to agree on everything in order to share common ideology as creationists. That we don't always agree as Christians shows we're seeking and sorting out the truth, even when debating the same side of an issue. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-29-2005 02:15 AM

---

From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

I was referring to the Old Testament, Arach, obviously.However, Jesus calls Himself by the Name of God, I AM, in the New Testament too:

Thanks, I just thought I got a bit rambunctious as I'm wont to do, and prolonged the argument when you just wanted it to come to an end. But so did I.

mmhmm. buzsaw says:

quote:

---

Please note the item in my OP where I asked that the discussion be limited to the books of the prophets and their apostles

---

quote:

---

The NT books of the Bible are those I would appreciate that the thread discussion be limited relative to the fundamentals of the books and writings of the prophets and their apostles

---

sorry faith. no old testament. ya-hueh is hebrew for "he that exists." "i am" would be ahayah, as in ahayah asher ahayah (i am that i am). god's name is third person, jesus invokes a first person (probably aramaic) rendering of it, which has then be re-rendered in greek as egw eimi (ego eimi).tell me, does "ego eimi" sound like yahweh? or jehovah? or allah for that matter? it's not a translation of god's name, becuase it's in the wrong person -- the very same reason they picked up stones. they took it as meaning that he was claiming to be god, not that he was referring to god. certainly, it's very easy to take it that way in english:"Before Abraham was, I am"would you agree then that god of the new testament is not named "jehovah" but "iesous?"

---

אָרַח

His name is I AM in all languages. This is His name in Greek. In Greek it's Ego eimi. In Hebrew it's YHWH. In English it's Jehovah. Etc.The MEANING is the point, the SPIRIT NOT THE LETTER.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-29-2005 03:39 PM

just because I did bring up this point, and people continue to use the whole allah was a pagun god and not the "real" god i decided to post this for evidence 404 Not Found The Skeptical Review » Internet Infidels

Did you read my Message 229 where I address that very point? It might answer your question Could it be that they have all been inspired by the one true God, but only one of them has got it right? I don't think they ridicule Jehovah nor do they ridicule God the Son. They do think the idea that Allah the great can be so divided is crazy, to them there is ONE God, not three aspects of God who talk to one another as seperate entities. They do say they are worshipping the same God, they also say that the Jews and the Christians simply have it all wrong.I cannot understand how they are not the same God. They both created the world in 6 days, destroyed it in a flood but saved Noah et al and so on. Its just that there is disagreement on exactly what He says about some things, and who some people were in relation to Him.This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 29-December-2005 08:21 AM

That is pretty much what I would take to be the theist position. You are inspired by that one true God. You worship that one true God. And that is pretty close to the atheist position. The atheists argue that your God is something that you have constructed mentally out of your own ideas about God (i.e. out of your understanding of the nature of God). Your inspiration comes from your own ideas (your own understanding of the nature of God), and you worship what you have constructed out of those ideas.I have found it quite surprising to see how fervently you and buzsaw have been arguing the atheist position, and arguing against the theist position. Who knows - maybe some atheist web sites will start linking to this thread as evidence in support of atheism. The evening and morning stars are a rather standard example used to illustrate the distinction between meaning and reference.