Is Allah in the Quran the same God of the Bible?

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Burninglight
Guru
Posts: 1202
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am

Is Allah in the Quran the same God of the Bible?

Post #1

Post by Burninglight »

Allah means God in Arabic or the god as some contend. Muslims say yes he is the same god and some Christians say yes he is as well, but many Christians say "no He is not." The God in the Bible has a son, but Allah says he doesn't. Muslims say Christians associate partners unto God, but Christians say that is not true and that they are monotheistic or that God is one.

Muslims do not believe when Christians say they are not polytheistic. Christians say Muhammad isn't a confirmed Biblical prophet, but Muslims say he is. Muslims say the Bible has been corrupted, but Christians say the Quran is corrupted.

The Bible says Ishmael is no prophet. Muslims say he is. Jesus said he is "The Way, the Truth, and the Life." Muslims say he was that for his time and for the Jews he came only. Christians say that Jesus is the truth for all time and all people and that Jesus never said I show the truth or the way.

The Quran says that Jesus is not the word of God made flesh, but the Bible says he is. Muslims don't have eternal security, but Christians say we can know now from the Bible if we will be saved and know now if we have eternal life because God assures us. Christians believe that Jesus is Deity, but Muslim so no he is just a prophet or messenger.

Any of these topics on this thread are welcome and open for discussion and or debate!

Asher
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:22 am
Location: Mauritius

Post #81

Post by Asher »

"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" is not just future, but past, present and future.

Actually this is a prayer, you cannot pray for something to happen in the future.
Christianity ate up your logic.

Jer. 8:8 has nothing to do with the Bible being corrupted.
It is obvious that those who corrupt wouldn't allow a verse in the Bible to condemn themselves.
Jer. 8 had to do with writings outside of the Bible in the way they interpret Scripture against God's will.

2 Peter 3:16 He talks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in his letters are hard to understand. Ignorant people and people who aren't sure of what they

believe distort what Paul says in his letters the same way they distort the rest of the Scriptures. These people will be destroyed.
Even with today's technology people are not able to cover their track, how could they cover all their's at that time?

The Scriptures we have today is the same as it was before Muhammad was born. This is easy to prove.

So what?
The scripture was corrupted even before that:
And when a messenger from Allah came to them confirming that which was with them, a party of those who had been given the Scripture threw the Scripture of Allah behind

their backs as if they did not know [what it contained].
And they followed [instead] what the devils had recited during the reign of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but the devils disbelieved, teaching people

magic and that which was revealed to the two angels at Babylon, Harut and Marut. But the two angels do not teach anyone unless they say, "We are a trial, so do not

disbelieve [by practicing magic]." And [yet] they learn from them that by which they cause separation between a man and his wife. But they do not harm anyone through

it except by permission of Allah . And the people learn what harms them and does not benefit them. But the Children of Israel certainly knew that whoever purchased the

magic would not have in the Hereafter any share. And wretched is that for which they sold themselves, if they only knew. (Qur'an 2:101-102)
Muslims complain that Catholics worship Mary and still do. I agree with Muslims here; so it is true Mary was worshipped by the Catholics, but she was never

worshipped in Biblical Christianity or considered a god; in fact, not even Catholics considered her a god. Nowhere in the Bible will you find it.

The "Biblical Christianity" did not exist in the time of the prophet.
Nowhere in the bible it is mention that Mary is a God and nowhere it is written that God is a trinity neither.
The Quranic verse S. 5: 116 and many like it are just reactions to Catholicism and show misconceptions of true Christianity by the way Allah questions Jesus.
"Did you say take you and your mother for two gods besides me" This verse obviously alludes to three (Trinity) Son, Mother and Father with Allah implying himself as
third person of the trinity in his conception of Christianity, LOL. It is the only logical inference that can be made.

Christianity has not always been Catholics, Anglicans, Baptist... they all are results of evolution of blindness, remember
Jesus said: By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
So how can you get good sects from a religion like that.
Even today Catholic in their "salutation to Mary" says that Mary is the mother of God.
A sect of christianity in my country teaches that the holy Spirit is a female being.
Each sect and denomination have their own belief which came from the idea that Mary is divine, and those who reject it broke from the main thread to create new threads

(Protestanism).
It is sad to see Muslims equivocate on this issue as they give their explanation by throwing reason, inference and logic out the door by saying Allah didn't

explicitly say such and such about the trinity. Islam cannot deny that they believe Gabriel is the Holy Spirit so we know Allah didn't have Him in mind as part of whom

he said to desist from saying three about.

Your knowledge about christianity: I can only say its really poor.

IOW, Muhammad and Allah make or made no mention of the Holy Spirit as the third person of the trinity; therefore, Biblical Christianity is not in violation of
the trinity described by Allah. Besides, The Jews and the Christians were the first to believe in monotheism; so, what does Islam bring that is new? Christians always
believed God is one and there is no one like Him with no partners.

Huray!!! The trinity nomatter how it is, is only so much wind out of the mouth of trinitarian, they are not even able to explain it to themselves this is blind faith.
Their is absolutely no proof of the trinity in the Bible, the idea came long after Jesus "died", and still they say that Jesus preached it.
You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. (James 2:19)
Christianity was the only religion to come up with the virgin birth of Christ Jesus and the concept of heaven and hell. Where did Islam get it from?

Actually, Jesus never said he was a christian, he never said to his disciples they were Christians, he never heard this word while he was on earth. The concept of

virgin birth is not the property of Christianity, moreover many Anglican bishops (Christians) reject this idea, but a Muslim is not a muslim if he doesnot believe in

the virgin conception of Jesus.
Finally, Adam was born/created without a biological father and mother to start creation. Adam failed, Jesus is the Last Adam who was victorious. We can only

experience victory through Him.

Yes Adam was created/born whatever suits you, but Jesus had a mother no matter how he got in, but he had to get out from their:
Job 25, I have already quoted that, The only failure I can see their from among the 2 (Adam and Jesus) was the one of Jesus (according to christianity) he was killed,

but Adam resisted the death cause by God while God put forth angel to protect Jesus but they failed to their duty:
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. (Genesis 2:17)
And we all know that Adam didn't die the day he ate the apple.
It is written, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our

Lord. Romans 3: 23 Ro. 6: 23 and Ro. 10: 9,10.

Did Jesus taught that?
There is no way to earn salvation and paradise. All who have tried ended up in hell a place of fire and torment forever.

In contrast Jesus said:
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

(Matthew 5:20)
James said:
Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. (James 2:14)
Which implies that you are dead.
Hell is a Christless eternity, and it is the total absence of God. Satan is a liar and the father of lies. He is truly the best of deceivers! The art of

deception is his.

Show me from your bible that "Hell is a Christless eternity".
In short, the god of Islam who preserves the Quran and the God who preserves the Bible cannot be the same God!

If according to you God has preserved the Bible I want to know from what?

woodpen
Banned
Banned
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:34 pm

Post #82

Post by woodpen »

[Replying to post 80 by Asher]

Yeah interesting though that Allah thought the christian trinity consisted of god, jesus and mary. You would think an all knowing god would have at least got that bit right. How come this Allah fellow got that so wrong?

User avatar
Burninglight
Guru
Posts: 1202
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 am

Post #83

Post by Burninglight »

[Replying to post 81 by woodpen]

It is because Muhammad was an unread man and he couldn't properly research what Christians really believed. Muslims will argue that Allah didn't say that was the trinity but they equivocate when you say he certainly alludes to it, and the only logical and reasonable inference anyone can make is that he believed the son, mother and father made up the trinity

The Me's
Banned
Banned
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:55 pm

Re: Is Allah in the Quran the same God of the Bible?

Post #84

Post by The Me's »

[Replying to post 1 by Burninglight]

I would have to say yes. Jews, Christians and Muslims alike claim the Bible as sacred text and their own version of God as the God of Abraham.

Also, Muslims took the Hebrew word as a name for their deity. Remember that, before Islam, most Arabs were members of one idol cult or another, and the names they gave their deities were proper names, not generic words.

"Allah" means "god" (small g) in Arabic.
"Elah" means the same thing in Hebrew.

Normally, it refers to any given deity and is non-specific. But when you worship the only god in existence, you tend to give that deity a capital letter "God" or "Allah" because it feels right to do so.

hti
Student
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:54 pm
Location: Iraq

Re: Is Allah in the Quran the same God of the Bible?

Post #85

Post by hti »

[Replying to post 1 by Burninglight]

Yes actually we (Muslims, christians and Jews) worship and believe in the same God even though our dogma and belief are different, the language for example; Allah, Yahwa and Alaahaa in Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic respectively the different language not necessary mean different gods. if ask any one of them what do you worship? he definetely will say the God the creator.
the main different between Muslims and Christians is the trinity, it's a critical point in Christianity the Christians themselves different in it, so you can find unitarian universal who believe in Jesus as a Son of God and not God himself like what Trinitians believe, also there are Aruis followers who believe in Jesus as a prophet like Muslims, and all of those quote from Bible to prove their point!
regarding to Arabs; Arabs before Islam believe in God but they had idols as approach to God as they thought and Allah word didn't used before Islam as you said No this is not true and Arabs didn't have Moon god all this just claim.
I'd like to tell you the word illah is completey differ from word Allah, illah mean god we used it to refer to any god, but Allah refer to the creator and we didn't used to refer to any god.

we believe that Bible refer to OT is corrupted cause it's burned after Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jews and took them prisoners to Babel and they stayed there for 50 years after that the persian king Korsh released them after that Ezra who rewrote it depended on his memory (after 50 years) so you can find many contradicted and irrational stories!
about NT; it was attempts to rewrote the missed injeel (gospel) and it isn't from God.

hope my reply don't offend you cause I didn't mean that I just express my belief and my personal opinion.

User avatar
Man_With_A_Plan
Apprentice
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 5:20 am
Location: 'Murica

Post #86

Post by Man_With_A_Plan »

Christianity is not polytheistic. God is one in essence and three in subsistence. If it seems like a contradiction, that's because all we have in this world are vague models and representations of truth.

The problem with analogies, metaphors, models, and symbols is that they merely represent the reality they describe. And, unfortunately, the more simplistic a representation is, the less accurate it is. (For instance, a planetary model using sports balls won't accurately depict anything except that...there exist planets.)

One fallacy with representations is trying to discern new truth about the realities they represent. You can't be always be certain it will be correct.

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Post #87

Post by Haven »

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! :)
[color=brown]Man_With_A_Plan[/color] wrote:
Christianity is not polytheistic. God is one in essence and three in subsistence. If it seems like a contradiction, that's because all we have in this world are vague models and representations of truth.
This is a fallacious argument from ignorance. You're using the supposed human inability to understand (for which you've offered no evidence) as a defense for the apparently logically impossible nature of the trinity, which is a textbook appeal to ignorance.
[color=red]MWAP[/color] wrote:The problem with analogies, metaphors, models, and symbols is that they merely represent the reality they describe. And, unfortunately, the more simplistic a representation is, the less accurate it is. (For instance, a planetary model using sports balls won't accurately depict anything except that...there exist planets.)

One fallacy with representations is trying to discern new truth about the realities they represent. You can't be always be certain it will be correct.
What reason is there, other than a pre-commitment to dogma, to accept the trinity? You've stated that there is no way to rationally defend it, and the only argument you have for it is fallacious in nature. Why should a non-believer (or a Christian who rejects the concept) accept the trinity?

Also, to address the original topic of this thread, how is the orthodox Christian god not polytheistic? Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are conceived of as being three separate beings (even if "one in essence," whatever that means), making the Christian god polytheistic by any unbiased definition. In addition, many polytheistic belief systems (such as those found in Hinduism and many traditional African religions) posit the unity of their gods on some level. How is Christianity any different (other than having fewer deities)?
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5566
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 244 times
Been thanked: 205 times
Contact:

Post #88

Post by tam »

Just to answer the title of the OP,

The three "abrahamic" religions worship the God of Abraham. They do not, however, all know that God, or have an accurate knowledge/understanding of Him. They (all three) are not all looking at the Image God sent of Himself, so that we can know Him: Christ.

Know Christ, Know God.

See Christ, See God.


From a Jewish or Muslim (or anything other than Christian) perspective, that will obviously not be accepted. Not that I can blame them for rejecting many things in "Christianity". Such as rejecting the trinity as a definition of God. But Christianity is not the truth or image of God either, else we would have a polytheistic deity.

Christ - the Image and Truth of God - was not a 'trinity'; and He also did not teach it. There is no reason to accept it other than that it is a traditional teaching/doctrine that has been handed down. Christ said something about that:

"Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Why waste time searching for a proper analogy of the trinity, to define God, when God already gave us the means to know Him, in Christ? We already have our Image of God.

Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
Man_With_A_Plan
Apprentice
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 5:20 am
Location: 'Murica

Post #89

Post by Man_With_A_Plan »

Haven wrote: Thanks for sharing your thoughts! :)
[color=brown]Man_With_A_Plan[/color] wrote:
Christianity is not polytheistic. God is one in essence and three in subsistence. If it seems like a contradiction, that's because all we have in this world are vague models and representations of truth.
This is a fallacious argument from ignorance. You're using the supposed human inability to understand (for which you've offered no evidence) as a defense for the apparently logically impossible nature of the trinity, which is a textbook appeal to ignorance.
[color=red]MWAP[/color] wrote:The problem with analogies, metaphors, models, and symbols is that they merely represent the reality they describe. And, unfortunately, the more simplistic a representation is, the less accurate it is. (For instance, a planetary model using sports balls won't accurately depict anything except that...there exist planets.)

One fallacy with representations is trying to discern new truth about the realities they represent. You can't be always be certain it will be correct.
What reason is there, other than a pre-commitment to dogma, to accept the trinity? You've stated that there is no way to rationally defend it, and the only argument you have for it is fallacious in nature. Why should a non-believer (or a Christian who rejects the concept) accept the trinity?

Also, to address the original topic of this thread, how is the orthodox Christian god not polytheistic? Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are conceived of as being three separate beings (even if "one in essence," whatever that means), making the Christian god polytheistic by any unbiased definition. In addition, many polytheistic belief systems (such as those found in Hinduism and many traditional African religions) posit the unity of their gods on some level. How is Christianity any different (other than having fewer deities)?
I don't think there's anything wrong with arguing from ignorance when it comes to the nature of a God. When it comes to dogma, if an ecumenical council is protected from error by God, as the early church believed (and still does), then their dogmatic proclamations are believed to be correct and considered "worthy of belief."

The Christian faith doesn't believe that the three persons of God are separate beings. Their "difference" is understood as the nature of their relation to each other. The only reason the doctrine of the trinity needed to be proclaimed in the first place was because there was confusion among some groups. The church saw (and sees) itself as an infallible teacher of faith, so when there's a question of faith, the church is obliged to define the truth. The problem is that these things have to be defined in abstract and simple ways (because the entire point of a "dogma" is to clarify something in an abstract sense for the sake of ending confusion among people, rather than to "describe" with "scientific precision"), which might lead to more questions later on. Dogmas aren't seen as new additions, but clarifications of the Christian faith.

The Catholic Catechism in sections 250-260 describes the concept of the Trinity in better words than I can. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c1p2.htm

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Post #90

Post by Haven »

Hi MWAP. Thanks for sharing your thoughts :)!
[color=red]Man_With_A_Plan[/color] wrote:
I don't think there's anything wrong with arguing from ignorance when it comes to the nature of a God.
Arguing from ignorance is always fallacious. It's always logically invalid. When faced with a lack of information, the only honest answer is "I don't know." Anything beyond this is speculative at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Using ignorance (a lack of information) to make a case for a specific position (such as Orthodox/Catholic dogma) is both irrational and fallacious.
[color=brown]MWAP[/color] wrote:When it comes to dogma, if an ecumenical council is protected from error by God, as the early church believed (and still does), then their dogmatic proclamations are believed to be correct and considered "worthy of belief."
A few things:

1. What reason is there to believe that there is "an ecumenical council is protected from error by God?" Why should anyone believe that such a council exists (or that this state of affairs is even logically or physically possible)? If you say "because the Church teaches it," then you're committing the fallacy of begging the question (assuming the conclusion in your premises). If it's for some other reason, then what is this reason and why is it valid?

2. Why should any empirical claim be accepted simply because an authority makes it? Shouldn't the evidence be the arbiter of claims, not a statement by an authority? Science contains claims by authoritative sources, but these claims can be replicated by others through gathering evidence and analyzing it with the scientific method. Dogma has no such methodology -- it is to be believed, without evidence, without question, simply because an authority that claims to speak for God (also without any evidence) says so. I shouldn't have to explain why this is fallacious, irrational, and potentially immoral.
[color=olive]MWAP[/color] wrote:The Christian faith doesn't believe that the three persons of God are separate beings. Their "difference" is understood as the nature of their relation to each other. The only reason the doctrine of the trinity needed to be proclaimed in the first place was because there was confusion among some groups. The church saw (and sees) itself as an infallible teacher of faith, so when there's a question of faith, the church is obliged to define the truth.
Again, what reason is there to believe that the church is infallible? It's not enough to simply claim infallibility (anyone can do that!), it has to show, using evidence, that it's infallible. The church hasn't met its burden of proof. In fact, it has changed its doctrine several times, which precludes it from being permanently infallible (at the very least there was some time [either now or in the past] when it was in error).
[color=blue]MWAP[/color] wrote:The problem is that these things have to be defined in abstract and simple ways (because the entire point of a "dogma" is to clarify something in an abstract sense for the sake of ending confusion among people, rather than to "describe" with "scientific precision"), which might lead to more questions later on. Dogmas aren't seen as new additions, but clarifications of the Christian faith.
How do unsubstantiated (and, in principle, unsubstantiatable [because dogmas, by definition, can't be questioned or doubted]) claims clarify anything? What about such claims warrant belief? Shouldn't the evidence, not some authority claiming to speak for a deity which can't be shown to exist, be the arbiter of truth?
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

Post Reply