Does God = Allah

And did you know that each one of those was a different god in the Urgartic bible, which predatexs the written genesis by 800 years?The ancient hebrews used names that were familar to them, and declared all these various different gods were actually one god. Yawheh of the borg.. they have been assimulated.In the original urgartic pantheon, Yahweh was the son of god (el).

Is it? I happen to think you are trying to make a distinction that isn't there.Doesn't an ideal father love all his children equally?

You are thinking very either/or black/white here. People have always functioned with maps that contained errors. Some of the errors didn't matter to their lives much such as the earth centric model of the universe. Other errors could be accomodated. Some were fatal. Those mushrooms that looked so like the mushrooms we had last week turn out to be a poisonous variety that closely resemble them. We didn't notice the difference. If we survive or somehow pass along that knowledge then our map is improved. Have more faith! Maps can have errors and you still arrive. You discover a bridge is washed out or a river has changed course. You make corrections. Sometimes we do throw maps out as we did with the geo centric model of the universe. Other times we modify the map as Einstein did with some of Newtons equations about motion.Map making is an ongoing activity. At this moment I understand the literalist fundamentalist mentality to be one that feels so insecure that it demands absolute maps as reassurance. But in fact there is no evidence of absolute maps. What humans do is mapping, it's ongoing correcting developing activity.There is a faith rooted in being that is able to accept a degree of mystery and unknowness. This faith is not in positive assertions and assurances of authority or maps but in the actual experience of being itself.It just struck me that skeptics have more faith than believers. And it is perhaps the different levels of faith that makes it so difficult for them to communicate. Yes, and by the evidence all three are wrong. No surprise there. Abraham, Isaac, and Jesus may never have existed as actual human beings. This appears to be more a fight over concretized ideas about legitimacy. This was typical of the thinking of that time and is still appealing to many people to this day.lfen

They certainly are about the identity and character of God. The different holy books present God as being or saying different things. God can't be or say all of those things without contradicting Himself. At least two of the holy books must be MISrepresenting HIM -- not just "the religion" but GOD HIMSELF. It certainly concerns His identity whether or not He chose the Jews or the Muslims, and all the more so whether or not He has a Son, who is equally God with Himself. It would be entirely different Gods who have different views on this point.Is it a "trivial" thing whether God chose Isaac or Ishmael with whom to establish an EVERLASTING COVENANT?? Does it bear on the character of God to call all this a "corruption of the text" and insist that it's all wrong, that God "really" chose Ishmael despite such strikingly clear language? it certainly does. Judaism and Christianity's claim to the validity of the covenant with Israel and in fact the whole history of Israel and its calling to be the people from whom the Savior of the World was to come, depends upon the choice of Isaac. What a silly comparison to the everlasting covenant with Israel represented by the choice of Isaac!! And it is merely a trivial thing to contradict this by claiming that God *really* chose Ishmael, that the Biblical texts were corrupted (anyone can see by the language and the context that there is no corruption, it's clear as a bell) etc.??? And you say this doesn't reflect on the character of God the different religions represent? These are entirely different GODS as well as religions. Believing or not believing in Jesus' divinity sure drastically affects one's prospects of KNOWING Jesus, His true character, knowing God being the whole point of religion -- not to mention one's prospects of being saved at all. Absolutely. He is claimed to BE God by Christianity and to be the ONLY way to God. You cannot find God if you deny this fact. Certainly. We have preachers and theologians to help us read the map. The "errors" in question are of the magnitude of amounting to maps to entirely different territories as I have demonstrated on this thread.You assume one could get to the territory at all without the map. No way. We have no way of knowing God except through the conceptualizations given to us by the various religions. Since they all contradict each other, at least two of the maps of the three major religions are false and will not get you to God.

faith, do you know any hebrew?because chances are that if you do, you also know a little arabic. i can't even begin to describe to you how many common israeli colloqualisms and slang expressions (and curse words!) are in arabic.the two are both semitic languages, and share many, many cognates. for instance, i'm sure you've heard a jewish person say "shalom" and i'm sure you've heard an arabic person say "salaam." oh this is a load of hogwash and you know it.

quote:

---

Jehovah Nissi
Jehovah-Raah
Jehovah Rapha
Jehovah Shammah
Jehovah Tsidkenu
Jehovah Mekoddishkem
Jehovah Jireh
Jehovah Shalom
Jehovah Sabaoth

---

these are all modified names, with adjectives or verbs. saving god, god of peace, etc. they're not names, they are qualities of the name. same with these:

quote:

---

El Shaddai
El Elyon
El Olam

---

except they're using the TITLE "el" instead of the NAME "yahueh"

quote:

---

Adonai

---

means "lord." also a title.

quote:

---

Elohim

---

god or gods, depending on the usage, and not strictly applies to ha-shem.

quote:

---

Qanna

---

adjective. god is jealous. granted, it's only used to describe god, but it's still a description.

quote:

---

Yahweh or Jehovah

---

and "jehovah" is a mangled transliteration. god has ONE name, and his name is:say it with me:
-- yah
-- hu
-- eh.
ya-hu-eh. yahweh. no, that has to be -YAH, or -YAHU (like netanyahu?) so isaiah (yeshayahu) is a good example, as well as zedeki-yah and jeremi-yah.but sarah is not. sarah is a really bad example, actually. because sarah is just the female form of sar which is someone who rules . sarah's original name was saray which is the possessive. meaning "MY princess." her name was changed to just "princess." it's relatively basic hebrew conjugation.i happen to know this because i looked it up recently, when tom-kat gave birth, and they named their child "suri" which they claimed meant "princess" in hebrew. (it means "syrian")This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 04-29-2006 03:27 PM

---

In Hebrew titles, attributes are names, names are titles and attributes. That's all I'm going to say because this is really a side issue on this thread.

Derivation of terms is a red herring. What matters is how the Bible uses the terms and they do not use them as the heathen religions do, to designate separate gods, but to describe characteristics of the one true God. He is the God of the wind and the rain and fertility and all of it.Yahweh did not exist in any pantheon. His name was unknown until He revealed it to Moses in the burning bush.

I've supported my point logically and with facts and your accusation that I've somehow made it all up is false.

no, they are adjectives, and used as adjective grammatically. names and titles often reflect certain qualities, but not all adjectives are nouns -- they just form phrases with nouns that make them look like compound nouns. ALL adjectives in hebrew look this way. that's just what an adjective IS in hebrew. it's appended to the noun, and takes the same gender and plurality as the noun.trust me on this one.

---

They are facts. They are what is written in the different holy books. You haven't a clue what you are talking about. Read the thread, and try thinking.

The three major religions which represent most of the population of the world absolutely disagree. They take the maps as THE way to God. This is a popular modern fiction. The majority of the believers of the three major religions absolutely disagree with you on this. They are considered to have been inspired by the one true God who does not change, and that being the case any supposed "stage of knowledge" is absolutely irrelevant. Another bit of modern myth to entertain the masses with. A bunch of hogwash. The religions claim to lead to the true God. They claim their inspiration comes from God Himself. They must be taken on their own terms. They contradict each other therefore they cannot all be true. What you are bringing up here is not on the topic anyway. We are trying to determine if Allah is God, not whether or not there is a god at all. This post is basically gobbledygook Lfen. Just a bunch of hot air, unsupported assertions with a very iffy relation to the topic if any.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-29-2006 03:53 PM

Arach, I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you when it comes to Bible study. I've been through more than one study on the names of God and you couldn't add anything to them. You could use getting out of your own head for a change and taking some Bible studies yourself.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-29-2006 03:52 PM

Sure. At least two of the religions do not have God as their father.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-29-2006 03:57 PM

perhaps the problem is with bible studies. you're too busy studying the dogma and not the text. perhaps you should get out of them and take a HEBREW CLASS before you make ridiculous assertions about a language you know absolutely nothing about.

---

You do keep claiming that but you never offer ANY evidence. Well, that's about half right. The different holy books Do Not present GOD as being different. They do depict GOD saying different things, but that can be errors in the folk that wrote the stories or they can actually both be right. Or GOD could have chosen both, as well as the Satanists, the Hindus, the Atheists, the Agnostics, the Wiccans, the Buddhists, the Taoists; which I believe She did.Whether She has a Son or not also has NOTHING to do with GOD. If GOD does not have a Son, She is still GOD. Yup. GOD could well have chosen both, and I cannot imagine a REAL GOD that would not. Yup, trivial. Yes, different religions, but NO, one GOD, Allah. Nonsense, but has nothing to do with what I asked anyway. Just incase you missed reading it (I know you quoted it but did you read it?) I know that you believe someone has to believe in Jesus to be saved, but that's not what the Bible says and it also has NOTHING to do with the question. So you claim. But Jesus is not the GOD of the Old Testament or of the Qur'an. Jesus constantly calls on GOD throughout the New Testament. And Christianity does not claim that Jesus is the only way to GOD; only a few of you exclusionary Christians make that claim and try to limit what GOD can do. Yet another assertion not borne out by the Facts. For example, many of the guides you mentioned, many preachers and theologians have no better idea of the Territory than then an Aethist. They never bother to even look at the Territory, and live only by what is on the Map. This includes all the YECs and all the End Timers. They are just plain lost, wandering around whining because the Map they have doesn't match the Territory.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion