Jews/Muslims and Pork Eating [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Phil153

02-26-2006, 10:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone know about the cultural history of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

From the bible, Deuteronomy:

14:3 Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
14:4 These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,
14:5 The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.
14:6 And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat.
14:7 Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.
14:8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.
14:9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
14:10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
To the bilical god, bats are just unclean birds.
14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
14:14 And every raven after his kind,
14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
14:19 And every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten.
14:20 But of all clean fowls ye may eat.
14:21 Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

So this holds true for Jews, Muslims and true Christians. Note oysters, shrimps and other seafood are specifically prohibited in 14:10.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/14.html

bunny

02-26-2006, 04:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Okay - for all you SMP god-botherers, let's assume this is a cultural whimsy, and we're just speculating on the ridiculous assumption this particular rule was set by some guy in a hut for a cultural reason, rather than the obvious truth that God sez so.

Okay?

[/ QUOTE ]
Within these constraints - perhaps it could have arisen as a response to some tribal plague. Two people died, theyd both eaten pig, shaman wise-guy says this is the cause, we all have to stop?

oneeye13

02-26-2006, 07:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And idea why, culturally at least, this is a rule?

I remember reading once that the Jews had an altercation with some pig-worshipping tribe, and that's where the 'no pork' thing came from, but really don't know more than that. Before that, I thought it was a hygiene issue from old times that had transmuted into religious law.

I've assumed moslems have taken their lead from Jews.

Anyone know about the cultural history of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe to [censored] them over?

PastorDavidDD

02-26-2006, 07:43 PM

I would think that well advertised pig mascots housed in airplanes, tall buildings, and other likely targets could be a good deterrent. (I believe I remember reading in a trusted source once that most suicide bombers strongly dislike the idea of dying with a pig.)

PoBoy321

02-26-2006, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused as to why Christians eat pork. Didn't Jesus banish a Legion of demons into a herd of pigs? And then didn't the pigs immediately drown themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was one of several Jewish regulations that Christians did away with in order to encourage non-Jews to convert. It's somewhere in Acts, IIRC, but I don't know the specific chapter and verse off the top of my head.

It's also why Christians don't need to be circumsized (could you imagine telling a 30-something Greek that he could become Christian, but they had to do a little snip-snip first? Christianity would be a VERY small religion).

BCPVP

02-26-2006, 08:34 PM

http://www.abcog.org/food.htm
A Christian perspective (not sure which branch).

Borodog

02-26-2006, 08:37 PM

As near as I can tell, Christians get to eat pork because God changed his mind after Jesus "established a new covenant".

mroels

02-26-2006, 09:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like most religions have something like that. Like a token of belonging to that religion. I mean pork, no meat on friday or lent, no cow for hindus etc... Just taboos.

[/ QUOTE ]

there's a big difference between hindus not eating cow and muslims (i'm not sure about jews)not eating pork. the hindus don't eat cow because it is considered a sacred animal since one of their gods was reincarnated as a cow. so for a hindu to hurt/kill/eat a cow is doing those things to their god.

Muslims don't eat pork because the Koran advises Muslims not to each certain foods e.g. pork, crustaceans etc. These suggestions about what foods not to eat are largely due to hygiene/food processing environments at the time the Koran was written. Pork tends to be dirty meat that gives people worms when not a)properly treated b)properly refigerated. Since they didn't have refrigerators back then Pork was unsanitary to consume and often lead to disease..hence the advise in the Koran to not eat pork.

Essentialy the Koran has a large section that pretty much serves as a lifestyle guide to Muslims, which they are advised to follow. Muslims are not forbidden to eat pork or drink alcohol or anything like that. It is simply advised not to do it and you may never influence others to do so.

MidGe

02-26-2006, 10:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Muslims don't eat pork because the Koran advises Muslims not to each certain foods e.g. pork, crustaceans etc. These suggestions about what foods not to eat are largely due to hygiene/food processing environments at the time the Koran was written. Pork tends to be dirty meat that gives people worms when not a)properly treated b)properly refigerated. Since they didn't have refrigerators back then Pork was unsanitary to consume and often lead to disease..hence the advise in the Koran to not eat pork.

Essentialy the Koran has a large section that pretty much serves as a lifestyle guide to Muslims, which they are advised to follow. Muslims are not forbidden to eat pork or drink alcohol or anything like that. It is simply advised not to do it and you may never influence others to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure it is advice only? Most muslims don't seem to think so. Also since the hygiene issues are not present today, why does the advice stay in place?

Hasidim

02-27-2006, 01:30 AM

swine is considered an unclean animal

MelchyBeau

02-27-2006, 03:09 AM

swine is considered an unclean animal because evil spirits were cast out of humans and put into swines. Thus the meat is tainted.

Melch

mroels

02-27-2006, 04:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Muslims don't eat pork because the Koran advises Muslims not to each certain foods e.g. pork, crustaceans etc. These suggestions about what foods not to eat are largely due to hygiene/food processing environments at the time the Koran was written. Pork tends to be dirty meat that gives people worms when not a)properly treated b)properly refigerated. Since they didn't have refrigerators back then Pork was unsanitary to consume and often lead to disease..hence the advise in the Koran to not eat pork.

Essentialy the Koran has a large section that pretty much serves as a lifestyle guide to Muslims, which they are advised to follow. Muslims are not forbidden to eat pork or drink alcohol or anything like that. It is simply advised not to do it and you may never influence others to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure it is advice only? Most muslims don't seem to think so. Also since the hygiene issues are not present today, why does the advice stay in place?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the sligh thread hijack (no pun intended) to explain this you have kind of understand the different between Sharia, Figh, Ulema and Hadith.

Sharia is basically Islamic Law set forth by the Koran as a decreed by God/Allah. These laws are applicable to religious and secular life, such as dietary issues.
Figh is essentially the Islamic jurisprudence; a collection of rulings made by Ulema or Islamic jurists.
Ulema are Muslim scholars who specialize in Islamic Law.
Hadith (a supplement to the Koran) are the guiding principles (advise) to the Muslim way of life. Hadith are essentially storing about how the Prophet Muhammad lived and thus Muslims should try to adhere. And Muhammad didn't eat pork due to hygiene reasons which has been written as Hadith.

Now the problem with Islam throughout history is that it isn't very organized like Christianity/Catholocism where the Church has a rank and order with Pope on top, the ArchBishops etc etc.

In Islam there are a lot of people who will claim to be scholars or Ulema such as Osama Bin Laden. OBL essentially is like the lowest order of scholarly figures who isn't qualified to pass rulings regarding Islamic law, yet he does when he declares Jihads. People who really understand Islam know that OBL is really in no position to order a Jihad.

Anyway there's tons of guys like OBL who will take some of the Hadith out of context, misinterpret them and present them as Islamic law. For example the wearing of headscarfs by women comes from a Hadith that essentially advises women to protect the face from the sun and sand during sand storms. But some "Ulema" has taken it out of context and mixed it in with Sharia which states that women should dress modestly, cover their private parts in order not to be viewed as mere sex objects.

And considering that a lot of the Muslim world is poor and uneducated they have a tendency to be easily influence by these "scholars"

As far as the pork goes: There are diatary Islamic Laws. However, these do not have anything to do with pork. Dietary laws mostly talk about how food has to be halal, which is exactly the same as kosher (except that its blessed by a mullah instead of a rabbi). Halal mostly relates to how animals are slaughtered by slicing open the jugular veins at the neck, resulting in quick blood loss; a state of shock and unconsciousness is induced, and death soon follows through cardiac arrest. Then the meat is blessed by a Mullah.

The Hadith does mention that the Prohpet would never eat the meat of swine as it was considered dirty.

But people don't see the difference between the Hadith and Sharia so they still refuse to eat pork.

note: i'm not muslim but i've spent most of the last 5yrs in the Arab world as well as South & Central Asia. So i've tried to learn as much as i could by reading and talking to Muslims.

MidGe

02-27-2006, 04:36 AM

Thanks for the information. Seems like muslims and christians are much alike. They all decide to interpret and then claim that their interpretation is the correct one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

BCPVP

02-27-2006, 04:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the information. Seems like muslims and christians are much alike. They all decide to interpret and then claim that their interpretation is the correct one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now the problem with Islam throughout history is that it isn't very organized like Christianity/Catholocism where the Church has a rank and order with Pope on top, the ArchBishops etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Musta skipped that paragraph, huh MidGe? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

mroels

02-27-2006, 04:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the information. Seems like muslims and christians are much alike. They all decide to interpret and then claim that their interpretation is the correct one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now the problem with Islam throughout history is that it isn't very organized like Christianity/Catholocism where the Church has a rank and order with Pope on top, the ArchBishops etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Musta skipped that paragraph, huh MidGe? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Ofcourse we shouldn't forget that they are basically the same religion. Jesus was a Jew and Muhammad was a Christian. Allah and God are the same deity. Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam (and an important one at that) but not holy, godly or even the son of God(demi God). Big different there is that Christianity has the holy trinity (son, father, holy spirit) and in Islam there is only one God and that is God so Jesus was downgraded to a mere prophet my Muslims. Essentially Islam and the Koran are the sequal to Christianity and the Bible.

MidGe

02-27-2006, 05:24 AM

Hiya BCPVP,

[ QUOTE ]
Musta skipped that paragraph, huh MidGe?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that only apply to catholics and some other sects, Anglicans, etc., not recognising each other authority. Christianity is after all a very fragmented creed. /images/graemlins/smile.gif It would have more credibility otherwise. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Thanks for allowing me to make this point clear.

BCPVP

02-27-2006, 05:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ofcourse we shouldn't forget that they are basically the same religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you say this and then go on to point out a lot of DIFFERENCES between Christianity and Islam?

[ QUOTE ]
Allah and God are the same deity. Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam (and an important one at that) but not holy, godly or even the son of God(demi God). Big different there is that Christianity has the holy trinity (son, father, holy spirit) and in Islam there is only one God and that is God so Jesus was downgraded to a mere prophet my Muslims.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then Islam is almost nothing like Christianity. If Muslims believe Jesus was just a prophet, then they must also believe he was a liar and blasphemer claiming to BE God. If you don't accept Jesus for who he claimed to be, how can you claim in the same breath prophet? If I went around Iran saying I was Allah, I'd probably be stoned to death or hung. Allah is NOT the Christian God if Allah doesn't include Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Muslims must believe Christians are practicing idolatry when they pray to Jesus. You cannot say that they are "basically the same religion". They are not.

[ QUOTE ]
Essentially Islam and the Koran are the sequal to Christianity and the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not if the Koran contradicts the New Testament on the most fundamental level, Jesus's divine nature. They are then two almost completely different religions.

MidGe

02-27-2006, 06:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not if the Koran contradicts the New Testament on the most fundamental level, Jesus's divine nature. They are then two almost completely different religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it is just "another" covenant (according to muslims). Similar deal that between judaism and christianity (according to christians).

BCPVP

02-27-2006, 06:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not if the Koran contradicts the New Testament on the most fundamental level, Jesus's divine nature. They are then two almost completely different religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it is just "another" covenant (according to muslims). Similar deal that between judaism and christianity (according to christians).

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not "another" covenant. It's a different religion with a different God who demands different things.

What he said was similar to saying the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations were "basically the same" thing because there are a few obscure relationships between them, all the while ignoring the glaring and insurmountable differences between them (like Lincoln != Kennedy).

MidGe

02-27-2006, 06:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's not "another" covenant. It's a different religion with a different God who demands different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not according to the muslims dude. You gotta move with the times. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

BCPVP

02-27-2006, 06:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not "another" covenant. It's a different religion with a different God who demands different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not according to the muslims dude. You gotta move with the times. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Then the muslims are liars. I know you're joking because you don't believe in any of it, but the two really are different religions.

MidGe

02-27-2006, 07:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not "another" covenant. It's a different religion with a different God who demands different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not according to the muslims dude. You gotta move with the times. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Then the muslims are liars. I know you're joking because you don't believe in any of it, but the two really are different religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure that they are no more or no less liars than christians. They are honest believers and correspondingly rewarded in the immediate from the strength of their faith (however misguided), and long term by the promises. I will note that both christianity and muslims, as both groups are mostly represented, are part of ROT (religions of Terror). This seems to be the most prevalent aspect of all, so called incorrectly, revealed religions. The only revelation is the direct result of cultural conditionning.

Silent A

02-27-2006, 07:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's not "another" covenant. It's a different religion with a different God who demands different things.

What he said was similar to saying the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations were "basically the same" thing because there are a few obscure relationships between them, all the while ignoring the glaring and insurmountable differences between them (like Lincoln != Kennedy).

[/ QUOTE ]

Islam has the same basic connection to Christianity as Christianity has to Judaism. The idea is that Mohammed was chosen to correct a number of misunderstandings about what the one and only god wanted (i.e. the same god that spoke to Abraham, Moses, and Jesus - of course that's a key difference, in Islam Jesus is now the next to last prophet, not the son of god). These are not "obscure" linkages.

From a very broad perspective, this makes the 3 religions a single religion. Day-to-day here on Earth however, these large scale links don't usually ammount to much.

MidGe

02-27-2006, 07:47 AM

Just to make it clear. Islam claim to be the latest covenant , or mohammed being the lat prophet, has also been challenged. And, no doubt, the later ones will be challenged also. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

BCPVP

02-27-2006, 07:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Islam has the same basic connection to Christianity as Christianity has to Judaism.

[/ QUOTE ]
This does not justify the statement that the two are "basically the same." They are not the same. They have similiar foundation (Judaism).

[ QUOTE ]
The idea is that Mohammed was chosen to correct a number of misunderstandings about what the one and only god wanted (i.e. the same god that spoke to Abraham, Moses, and Jesus - of course that's a key difference, in Islam Jesus is now the next to last prophet, not the son of god). These are not "obscure" linkages.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doctrinally, they are. Christianity is founded on the idea that Jesus was God. Islam has a completely different view. Either Islam believes that the Apostles and Gospels were liars and lies in which case the two religions are completely different, or they were not, in which case Islam is a false religion and worshipping Allah would be idolatry.

[ QUOTE ]
From a very broad perspective, this makes the 3 religions a single religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only in the sense that they are all monotheistic religions with roots (Judaism being the main root) to the God of Abraham. It's like saying a human and a chipmunk are "basically the same" since they're both mammals.

BCPVP

02-27-2006, 07:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I will note that both christianity and muslims, as both groups are mostly represented, are part of ROT (religions of Terror).

[/ QUOTE ]
You were doing well till this piece of trollish garbage...

MidGe

02-27-2006, 08:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will note that both christianity and muslims, as both groups are mostly represented, are part of ROT (religions of Terror).

[/ QUOTE ]
You were doing well till this piece of trollish garbage...

[/ QUOTE ]

Might be garbage to you... but at least I am not in denial... Both religions are trying to gain adherents by suggesting eternal damnation (the ultimate terrorism) if not following their beliefs.

BCPVP

02-27-2006, 08:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Might be garbage to you... but at least I am not in denial...

[/ QUOTE ]
You're purposefully being ignorant.

[ QUOTE ]
Both religions are trying to gain adherents by suggesting eternal damnation (the ultimate terrorism) if not following their beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
I won't speak for Islam, but in Christianity, damnation's kind of a fuzzy topic. No one really knows what Hell is like except that it is eternal life without God. I guess if you prefer that, that's your perogative.

MidGe

02-27-2006, 08:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I won't speak for Islam, but in Christianity, damnation's kind of a fuzzy topic. No one really knows what Hell is like except that it is eternal life without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, I am not in denial... shall we quote your bible about hell?

BCPVP

02-27-2006, 08:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I won't speak for Islam, but in Christianity, damnation's kind of a fuzzy topic. No one really knows what Hell is like except that it is eternal life without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, I am not in denial... shall we quote your bible about hell?

[/ QUOTE ]
Knock yourself out. The existence of Hell should not be one's reason to become a Christian and merely trying to avoid it would not save you.

Rduke55

02-27-2006, 12:23 PM

I was under the impression that a lot of these have to do with hygiene and disease type stuff (pork, unleavened bread, circumcision, etc.) adn the best way to get people to comply is to make it part of the religion.

mroels

02-27-2006, 01:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ofcourse we shouldn't forget that they are basically the same religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you say this and then go on to point out a lot of DIFFERENCES between Christianity and Islam?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I misworded that a bit. What I was getting at is that both religions are related because they worship the same God and essentially share lineage.

bocablkr

02-27-2006, 02:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
From www.religionfacts.com (http://www.religionfacts.com)

"Many believe the Jewish dietary laws to be primitive health regulations. This theory is supported by the fact that obeying the kashrut offers many health benefits. Some are obvious: rodents and insects are notorious as disease-carriers, and a discovered carcass is likely to be rotting and unsanitary. Some benefits have only come to light recently: the parasitic disease trichinosis has been linked to pork"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct answer.

BCPVP

02-27-2006, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ofcourse we shouldn't forget that they are basically the same religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you say this and then go on to point out a lot of DIFFERENCES between Christianity and Islam?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I misworded that a bit. What I was getting at is that both religions are related because they worship the same God and essentially share lineage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, but the Christian God and the Muslim God are not the same.

mroels

02-27-2006, 06:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ofcourse we shouldn't forget that they are basically the same religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you say this and then go on to point out a lot of DIFFERENCES between Christianity and Islam?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I misworded that a bit. What I was getting at is that both religions are related because they worship the same God and essentially share lineage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, but the Christian God and the Muslim God are not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

uhhh yes they are

BCPVP

02-27-2006, 06:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ofcourse we shouldn't forget that they are basically the same religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you say this and then go on to point out a lot of DIFFERENCES between Christianity and Islam?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I misworded that a bit. What I was getting at is that both religions are related because they worship the same God and essentially share lineage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, but the Christian God and the Muslim God are not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

uhhh yes they are

[/ QUOTE ]
No, they're not. The Christian God has three parts: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Allah, does not. Therefore, they are not the same.

gumpzilla

02-27-2006, 08:08 PM

I have nothing to contribute to this discussion for real. Instead, here's a limerick a guy I knew wrote for his friend's birthday. I think it's basically correct.

Steve was a Jew from New York
Who refused to eat any pork
Not testicled pork
Or bespectacled pork
Or any other kind of [censored] pork.

mroels

02-27-2006, 10:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ofcourse we shouldn't forget that they are basically the same religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you say this and then go on to point out a lot of DIFFERENCES between Christianity and Islam?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I misworded that a bit. What I was getting at is that both religions are related because they worship the same God and essentially share lineage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, but the Christian God and the Muslim God are not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

uhhh yes they are

[/ QUOTE ]
No, they're not. The Christian God has three parts: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Allah, does not. Therefore, they are not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh..Muslims merged the Holy Spirit and the Father into one and downgraded JC to a prophet! Same Old Testament, same God.

BCPVP

02-28-2006, 01:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Uhh..Muslims merged the Holy Spirit and the Father into one and downgraded JC to a prophet! Same Old Testament, same God.

[/ QUOTE ]
So Allah is like the God of Abraham. He is not like the Christian God. "Downgrading" Jesus to prophet status automatically differentiates Allah from God.

mroels

02-28-2006, 03:27 AM

Isn't Jesus the son of God?

BCPVP

02-28-2006, 03:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't Jesus the son of God?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Jesus is also God. That's what Trinity means. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God. Turning him into a mere prophet means that Allah is not the same god as the Christian God.

New001

02-28-2006, 04:03 AM

Curious (honest) question, do you think the God depicted in the Old Testament is the same God as depicted in the New Testament?

BCPVP

02-28-2006, 04:24 AM

A cautious yes, as I'm not a bible scholar. I suppose, then, that that means that Allah and the God of the OT are not the same either. I shouldn't have said otherwise earlier.

New001

02-28-2006, 04:29 AM

Then one more question: before the New Testament was written, was there a concept of the Trinity (in the Old Testament)?

BCPVP

02-28-2006, 04:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Then one more question: before the New Testament was written, was there a concept of the Trinity (in the Old Testament)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's an interesting chart of themes present in both:
http://www.carm.org/evidence/ot_nt_themes.htm
Trinity is among the similar themes.

New001

02-28-2006, 04:55 AM

Interesting, thanks for the link. I'll check them all out in depth tomorrow when I'm not so tired.

My general point (and the point of the questions, beyond general curiosity) was that if (as Muhammad claimed) previous prophets had interpreted or recorded the words of God incorrectly, or that humans later fouled that God's message up, and the Qur'an "corrects" those mistakes, then the God of the Qur'an is the God of the Bible.

PoBoy321

02-28-2006, 04:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Turning him into a mere prophet means that Allah is not the same god as the Christian God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a misunderstanding here. Mohammed was the prophet. Allah is still the same God of Abraham.

diebitter

02-28-2006, 05:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Then one more question: before the New Testament was written, was there a concept of the Trinity (in the Old Testament)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it, but numbers have deep significance in Jewish doctrine. I'm probably trivialising greatly cos I don't know, but 40 often seems to mean a long time (days of rain in the Flood, Jesus's days in the desert, and I think the years the Jews wandered after leaving Egypt), whilst I think 7 denotes man, 8 denotes divinity, and 6 notes the devil (eg 666). I think the fact the Star of David is made up of 2 3-sided objects is significant too.

But I'm talking from mostly ignorance here, and I'd be very interested if someone who knows a little more about this side of Judaism would pitch in here...

MidGe

02-28-2006, 05:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then one more question: before the New Testament was written, was there a concept of the Trinity (in the Old Testament)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's an interesting chart of themes present in both:
http://www.carm.org/evidence/ot_nt_themes.htm
Trinity is among the similar themes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, could not find anything about trinity in the link you gave. I am pretty certain it must be an errancy of sorts.

PoBoy321

02-28-2006, 05:08 AM

db,

I'm not sure about the others, but I know that "40" appears often simply because it was(is?) the Hebrew way of saying "many." So saying "40 days" just meant many days. It's like saying "I walked through the desert for a bajillion days" in English.

diebitter

02-28-2006, 05:34 AM

Fair enough. Maybe 40 isn't significant, but I'm sure the other numbers do have significance in Jewish law (and I'm not talking the Bible Code BS either).

BCPVP

02-28-2006, 06:00 AM

PoBoy321: No, I was talking about Jesus being turned into a prophet in Islam. If Jesus is just a prophet, then the Christian God is not the same god as the Islamic god.

MidGe: 3rd from the bottom.

PoBoy321

02-28-2006, 06:08 AM

BC,

OK, I get what you're saying.

mroels

02-28-2006, 06:13 AM

BCPVP:

In my view Allah is God and God is Allah. They root from the same old testament and are different only by interpretation of those to wrote the holy scripture e.g. Bible v. Koran.

As far as the Holy Trinity argument, in my reasoning if Jesus is the son of God he can't be God and therefor when the Muslims make him a Prophet it removes the concept of the Holy Trinity but leaving the two upper spirits and combining them.

either i'm not gonna argue symantics in a thread about pork so i'll agree to disagree

BCPVP

02-28-2006, 06:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
BC,

OK, I get what you're saying.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry for the confusion. Shoulda been more specific.

mroels

02-28-2006, 06:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
and 6 notes the devil (eg 666). I think the fact the Star of David is made up of 2 3-sided objects is significant too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure everyone already knows this but anyone every think their credit cards are evil? For those of you who use VISA cards it has been said that they cary the mark of the devil.

Roman VI= 6
Ancient Egyptian S= 6
Sanskrit A= 6

And as for MasterCard..mmm...no attempt to even hide it.

PoBoy321

02-28-2006, 06:23 AM

Actually, IIRC, 666 became known as the "Mark of the Beast" in Revelation where it was used as a covert way of signifying the emperor Nero (I forget how it worked about, but somehow, the letters N-E-R-O can be translated to the number 666). I'm not sure if it was used anywhere in the Old Testament, though.

BCPVP

02-28-2006, 06:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the Holy Trinity argument, in my reasoning if Jesus is the son of God he can't be God and therefor when the Muslims make him a Prophet it removes the concept of the Holy Trinity but leaving the two upper spirits and combining them.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, they (Islam) totally rearranged God's nature. You cannot objectively call the Christian God and Allah the same when they are so radically different. The Christian God is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Allah is made up of only God (the Father). There can be no coexistence within Allah of other beings, afaik.

Also, why can't Jesus be both the Son of God and God?

PoBoy321

02-28-2006, 06:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the Holy Trinity argument, in my reasoning if Jesus is the son of God he can't be God and therefor when the Muslims make him a Prophet it removes the concept of the Holy Trinity but leaving the two upper spirits and combining them.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, they (Islam) totally rearranged God's nature. You cannot objectively call the Christian God and Allah the same when they are so radically different. The Christian God is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Allah is made up of only God (the Father). There can be no coexistence within Allah of other beings, afaik.

Also, why can't Jesus be both the Son of God and God?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.shamrockglass.net/images/shamrock.gif

MidGe

02-28-2006, 06:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
MidGe: 3rd from the bottom.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK! The reference claims to be related to the trinity. I think it is gross misrepresentation. How do those relate in anyway to "trinity"??

1)Gen. 1:1,26; Job 33:4; 2) Gen. 17:1; 18:1; Ex. 6:2-3; 24:9-11; 33:20; Num. 12:6-8; Psalm 104:30; 23)Gen. 19:24 with Amos 4:10-11; Is.48:16

Start with the first one first.. I got tired of checking them when they didn't support the claim.

BCPVP

02-28-2006, 06:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MidGe: 3rd from the bottom.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK! The reference claims to be related to the trinity. I think it is gross misrepresentation. How do those relate in anyway to "trinity"??

1)Gen. 1:1,26; Job 33:4; 2) Gen. 17:1; 18:1; Ex. 6:2-3; 24:9-11; 33:20; Num. 12:6-8; Psalm 104:30; 23)Gen. 19:24 with Amos 4:10-11; Is.48:16

Start with the first one first.. I got tired of checking them when they didn't support the claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe they relate to God's nature being of more than one being. For a better explanation, I'd ask a priest or scholar.

PoBoy321

02-28-2006, 06:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe they relate to God's nature being of more than one being. For a better explanation, I'd ask a priest or scholar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't done any serious Biblical scholarship in a few years, so take this what it's worth (and it's not much, since I didn't review all of those passages) but I believe that most secular scholars contend that those passages are indicative of polytheistic or henotheistic influences on early Judaism, rather than an indication of a belief in a multi-natured God.

MidGe

02-28-2006, 06:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe they relate to God's nature being of more than one being. For a better explanation, I'd ask a priest or scholar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry dude, I thought you were talking about the word of your god as proof, not the word of men.

ORLY /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Taraz

02-28-2006, 07:30 AM

Muslims believe that there is only one God and that both Jesus and Muhammad brought the message of that God. So, to them, the Christian God and Allah are the same thing. Christians will disagree with this because they don't believe in Muhammad.

But if you aren't Christian or you don't believe in the Holy Trinity, then the Christian God is the same thing as Allah.

MidGe

02-28-2006, 07:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But if you aren't Christian or you don't believe in the Holy Trinity, then the Christian God is the same thing as Allah.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the way I understand it according to islam, unfortunately christianity ahsn't caught up here.

I think monotheism (ie Judaism) was a huge step forward for the thinking of mankind, then came christianity, a step backwards, regressive, because of their trinity concept, then came islam which was back to true monotheism and eventually, hopefully, there will be no gods at all. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It just takes time. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

BCPVP

02-28-2006, 03:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Muslims believe that there is only one God and that both Jesus and Muhammad brought the message of that God. So, to them, the Christian God and Allah are the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why people keep saying this. Allah is comprised of just one being. The Christian God is comprised of 3. They are not the same.

BCPVP

02-28-2006, 03:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think monotheism (ie Judaism) was a huge step forward for the thinking of mankind, then came christianity, a step backwards, regressive, because of their trinity concept, then came islam which was back to true monotheism

[/ QUOTE ]
Christianity is monotheistic, MidGe. I don't worship more than one God.

MidGe

02-28-2006, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is monotheistic,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The Christian God is comprised of 3. They are not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Double talk or mental gymnastics will explain away any inconsistencies and obviously cannot be argued about. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

BCPVP

02-28-2006, 05:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is monotheistic,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The Christian God is comprised of 3. They are not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Double talk or mental gymnastics will explain away any inconsistencies and obviously cannot be argued about. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Notice "God" is singular, not plural. There are not 3 Gods in Christianity.

MidGe

02-28-2006, 06:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Notice "God" is singular, not plural. There are not 3 Gods in Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Changing the rules of grammar doesn't make the mental gymnastics/double talk go away. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

BCPVP

02-28-2006, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Notice "God" is singular, not plural. There are not 3 Gods in Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't make the mental gymnastics/double talk go away. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry to hear you're not capable of mental gymnastics. Perhaps you should go play some tic-tac-toe games to keep yourself occupied?

MidGe

02-28-2006, 06:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry to hear you're not capable of mental gymnastics. Perhaps you should go play some tic-tac-toe games to keep yourself occupied?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am capable of mental gymnastics, but I am also aware of it. That is, I see the device for what it is, an attempt at concealing the sleigh of hand, by calling it a mysterium. LOL

BCPVP

02-28-2006, 06:10 PM

What sleight of hand? I have nothing to hide.

MrMon

02-28-2006, 08:23 PM

Getting back to the original question, where did the prohibition on pork come from, the answer is no one really knows. There is the hygene theory, but that's been pretty much discredited. Of all the theories out there the one I like best is the idea of it's purely cultural. The Jews were originally shepards, meaning they moved from location to location with the seasons. They didn't keep pigs because that lifestyle is not conducive to raising swine, which require pens and aren't exactly favorable to constantly moving from place to place. So it just started out that they weren't eaten because it wasn't convenient to raise them.

Move forward a few years and the Jews start to build cities and towns. Now it is possible, but it's not traditional. And you know how some people are about tradition. Then comes in the outsider factor. The Middle East being a very tribal area, dietary laws evolved to keep out outsiders. Intermarriage was very frowned upon, and since one Middle Eastern tradition was to share a meal with someone before allowing your children to marry, if you make it impossible to share the meal, you eliminate the whole intermarriage problem. No pork, you eliminate those farming cultures who raise swine, shellfish, you eliminate fishing peoples, camels and other desert animals eliminate the early Arabs, etc.

So if you come down to it, dietary laws just evolved from one thing to another, picking up new uses and meaning along the way. Jewish dietary laws are inherently contradictory and often don't make sense, but I don't think they're supposed to. Don't get me started on the mixing of meat and milk.

HLMencken

02-28-2006, 08:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why people keep saying this. Allah is comprised of just one being. The Christian God is comprised of 3. They are not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully one day, you will be able to chuckle at just how silly your words really are.

The Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy are not the same dammit! What don't you get?!?!

Taraz

03-01-2006, 05:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Muslims believe that there is only one God and that both Jesus and Muhammad brought the message of that God. So, to them, the Christian God and Allah are the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why people keep saying this. Allah is comprised of just one being. The Christian God is comprised of 3. They are not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I answered this already. "But if you aren't Christian or you don't believe in the Holy Trinity, then the Christian God is the same thing as Allah. "

You don't believe that Allah and the Christian God are the same thing, but I don't understand why that precludes others from believing it. They could simply state that the Holy Trinity idea comes from a misunderstanding/misapplication of the Bible's teachings.

BCPVP

03-01-2006, 05:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You don't believe that Allah and the Christian God are the same thing, but I don't understand why that precludes others from believing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because you don't believe in either doesn't mean you can't recognize obvious major differences between the two. It'd be like saying Wolverine and Hercules are the same thing. You don't have to believe either exists, but that shouldn't stop you from recognizing the clear differences between what is written about Wolverine and Hercules.

[ QUOTE ]
They could simply state that the Holy Trinity idea comes from a misunderstanding/misapplication of the Bible's teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they could. That doesn't change the fact that Christians worship a certain God made up of a certain nature and Muslimst do not worship that God and vice versa.

Taraz

03-01-2006, 05:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Just because you don't believe in either doesn't mean you can't recognize obvious major differences between the two. It'd be like saying Wolverine and Hercules are the same thing. You don't have to believe either exists, but that shouldn't stop you from recognizing the clear differences between what is written about Wolverine and Hercules.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're acknowledging the fact that Muslims believe that the Christian God and Allah are the same thing. I'm pretty sure that Christians that converted to Islam believe they are worshipping the same God.

And what if Muslims accepted the Holy Trinity? Is there some reason why the Holy Trinity God wouldn't be able to inspire Muhammad to further Christ's teachings?

Also, don't assume that I don't believe in God. I'm not evem sure of what I believe exactly. But I know that if there is a God, then I believe that the Jewish God, the Christian God, and the Muslim God are all the same being.

BCPVP

03-01-2006, 06:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you're acknowledging the fact that Muslims believe that the Christian God and Allah are the same thing. I'm pretty sure that Christians that converted to Islam believe they are worshipping the same God.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can believe the Mountain Dew I'm drinking is actually Guinness. That doesn't make it so. Muslims claiming they worship the Christian God while denying the divinity of Jesus are lying to themselves as the Christian God is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while Allah is made up of just the Father and him alone. Those are not the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
And what if Muslims accepted the Holy Trinity? Is there some reason why the Holy Trinity God wouldn't be able to inspire Muhammad to further Christ's teachings?

[/ QUOTE ]
If they accept the Holy Trinity then they would be worshipping the same God. The fact is that they do not accept it. Therefore, they are not worshipping the same God. It really is that simple and I don't understand how this conversation has made it this far.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, don't assume that I don't believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]
In that sense, I meant you=the non-believing reader. Sorry for the confusion.

[ QUOTE ]
But I know that if there is a God, then I believe that the Jewish God, the Christian God, and the Muslim God are all the same being.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then your belief will self-destruct as they cannot all be the same given the belief systems of each. Stating that Jesus and Shiva are the same being makes as much sense.

MidGe

03-01-2006, 06:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Then your belief will self-destruct as they cannot all be the same given the belief systems of each. Stating that Jesus and Shiva are the same being makes as much sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It just seems a bit more universal and god like, than the puny, vengeful and narrow one you are portraying as god.

BCPVP

03-01-2006, 06:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then your belief will self-destruct as they cannot all be the same given the belief systems of each. Stating that Jesus and Shiva are the same being makes as much sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It just seems a bit more universal and god like, than the puny, vengeful and narrow one you are portraying as god.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not portraying God as puny, vengeful, or narrow. I'm just saying he doesn't contradict himself by being both made of three beings and made of only one being at one time. That is impossible.

MidGe

03-01-2006, 06:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying he doesn't contradict himself by being both made of three beings and being only one at one time. That is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.. That is impossible... lol

BCPVP

03-01-2006, 06:44 AM

Law of non-contradiction. God cannot be both made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and NOT made up of them. People here arguing that Allah and the Christian God are beating their heads against this law to their own detriment.

MidGe

03-01-2006, 06:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Law of non-contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note only applies when BCPVP applies it. Otherwise means nothing. 1=3 huh??? and 2+2 = 12 ??

BCPVP

03-01-2006, 06:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Law of non-contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note only applies when BCPVP applies it. Otherwise means nothing. 1=3 huh??? and 2+2 = 12 ??

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see what that has to do with the law of noncontradiction. Just in case you don't know what it means. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_non-contradiction)

1/3+1/3+1/3=1. A very simplistic, and by no means complete, analogy, I know.

But say you don't believe the Holy Trinity is possible. That means that Allah cannot be the same god as the Christian God because the Christian God depends on Holy Trinity while Allah does not.

MidGe

03-01-2006, 06:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But say you don't believe the Holy Trinity is possible. That means that Allah cannot be the same god as the Christian God because the Christian God depends on Holy Trinity while Allah does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I say that your speciifc interpretation is simply misguided and regressive at that (the fewer gods the better).

MidGe

03-01-2006, 07:02 AM

It seems to me that 1=3 contradicts noncontradiction, unless you are twisting the meaning of noncontradiction. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

If you say 1/3 + 1/3 = 1/3 = 1, I agree with you but each 1/3 is puny of itself.

BCPVP

03-01-2006, 07:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But say you don't believe the Holy Trinity is possible. That means that Allah cannot be the same god as the Christian God because the Christian God depends on Holy Trinity while Allah does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I say that your speciifc interpretation is simply misguided and regressive at that (the fewer gods the better).

[/ QUOTE ]
Good, because I only pray to one God. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

BCPVP

03-01-2006, 07:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that 1=3 contradicts noncontradiction, unless you are twisting the meaning of noncontradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]
"In logic, the law of noncontradiction states, in the words of Aristotle, that 'one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.'"
The law of noncontradiction deals with opposites, not two different things. 1=3 has nothing to do with noncontradiction.

[ QUOTE ]
If you say 1/3 + 1/3 = 1/3 = 1, I agree with you but each 1/3 is puny of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]
1/3 is an infinitely long number, is it not? Btw, I won't claim to know the exact relationship among the Trinity, so that's one of the reaons the 1/3 analogy is simplistic and incomplete.

MidGe

03-01-2006, 07:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
1/3 is an infinitely long number, is it not?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, long it is, but nowhere as big as 1. lol

Taraz

03-01-2006, 07:44 AM

I think a lot of the confusion here is coming from the term "Christian God". I'm going to revise my statement a little bit to make it a little clearer.

Muslims believe that there is one God. This God sent both Jesus and Muhammad to teach/save humanity. In their mind there is no difference between Allah and "the Christian God".

I don't see any contradiction here. I am not saying that Christians believe the same thing.

MidGe

03-01-2006, 07:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any contradiction here. I am not saying that Christians believe the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no issue with beliefs. They are not subject to coherence or reason. I don't disagree with [ QUOTE ]
I don't see any contradiction here. I am not saying that Christians believe the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ] I am sure you don't, but I am also certain that christians do not agree with you. Neither position has any validity in my opinion. Both rest in the irrational, chimeras all.

BCPVP

03-01-2006, 07:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Muslims believe that there is one God. This God sent both Jesus and Muhammad to teach/save humanity. In their mind there is no difference between Allah and "the Christian God".

I don't see any contradiction here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that that is what muslims may believe, but they are lying to themselves if they think that Allah and "The Christian God" are the same thing. They are not. One has parts that are not existent in the other. Therefore, they cannot be the same. A more accurate statement would be that Allah is roughly the same as God, the Father. But once you recognize that there's more to the Christian God then just the Father, you cannot correctly call Him and Allah the same.

MidGe

03-01-2006, 07:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
but they are lying to themselves

[/ QUOTE ]

Like all people that surrender reason to belief.

BCPVP

03-01-2006, 07:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but they are lying to themselves

[/ QUOTE ]

Like all people that surrender reason to belief.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good thing I haven't done that! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

MidGe

03-01-2006, 08:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but they are lying to themselves

[/ QUOTE ]

Like all people that surrender reason to belief.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good thing I haven't done that! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.. 1 = 3 , say no more!

Taraz

03-01-2006, 05:16 PM

BCPVP? So do you believe that Moses and Abraham were sent by the Christian God?

BCPVP

03-01-2006, 07:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP? So do you believe that Moses and Abraham were sent by the Christian God?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. But before you you say "But Jews don't believe in the Christian God!", Christians wouldn't be rejecting fundamental tenets of Judaism by equating the two Gods. For a muslim to say he worships the same God that Christians do, means that he must acknowledge Jesus's divinity, which of course muslims do not do. Therefore, they cannot claim the two are the same.

MidGe

03-01-2006, 09:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Christians wouldn't be rejecting fundamental tenets of Judaism by equating the two Gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some christians reject monotheism. There are NO parts of the old testament that speak about trinity! The concept would be anathema to true monotheists, including Judaism.

Taraz

03-01-2006, 09:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For a muslim to say he worships the same God that Christians do, means that he must acknowledge Jesus's divinity, which of course muslims do not do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false.

mroels

03-01-2006, 10:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For a Muslim to convince a Chritian that he worships the same God that Christians do, means that he must acknowledge Jesus's divinity, which of course muslims do not do.

[/ QUOTE ]FYP

For a Muslim to say it he just has to say it. In a Muslims view he does worship the same God as Christians. It's a few literalist Christians who object to this notion because Muslims reject the concept of a Holy Trinity.
However many logical Christian will see that since Jesus is the son of God he can't be God and therefore Muslim's turning Jesus into a prophet doesn't affect God.
Muslim's essentially believe that Jesus brought God's word to the world but that the Bible(The New Testament) is a misinterpretation of God's word. According to Muslims one of the faulty premises of the Bible's presentation was the concept of a Holy Trinity. Now ofcourse since Muslims believe that the Holy Trinity never existed since there is only one God, they believe that Christians still worship the same God but a misinterpretation of God.

Taraz

03-01-2006, 10:34 PM

Couldn't have said it better myself.

BCPVP

03-02-2006, 02:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christians wouldn't be rejecting fundamental tenets of Judaism by equating the two Gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some christians reject monotheism. There are NO parts of the old testament that speak about trinity! The concept would be anathema to true monotheists, including Judaism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Genesis 1:26 - "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . . ."

PoBoy321

03-02-2006, 02:46 AM

BCPVP

03-02-2006, 03:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
For a Muslim to say it he just has to say it.

[/ QUOTE ]
A nitpick. You know what I meant.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a few literalist Christians who object to this notion because Muslims reject the concept of a Holy Trinity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Trinity is the largest tenet of Christianity. If Trinity is wrong, then Christianity is wrong. The Christian God is a Trinity. Muslims do not accept Trinity. Allah is not a Trinity. Therefore Muslims do not worship the same god.

[ QUOTE ]
However many logical Christian will see that since Jesus is the son of God he can't be God and therefore Muslim's turning Jesus into a prophet doesn't affect God.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong and wrong. Ask any Christian who knows what Trinity means and he will probably tell you that it means that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit make up God. To deny Jesus's divinity is to deny that the Christian God exists.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_beliefs.htm
Scroll down to Gods and Spirits. You will see a similar theme; that the major branches of Christianity believe in Christ's divinity and in the Holy Trinity. Anyone who claims to the contrary is not worshipping the same god. They are worshipping a totally different god with a different essence.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/christianity_islam.htm
And here, scroll down to Beliefs and Doctrine. The two religions believe in different natures of God. They do not believe in the same God.

[ QUOTE ]
Now ofcourse since Muslims believe that the Holy Trinity never existed since there is only one God, they believe that Christians still worship the same God but a misinterpretation of God.

[/ QUOTE ]
They must necessarily believe we (Christians) worship a false god since we believe Jesus is God, however nicely they put it. Ask yourself this: may a muslim pray to Jesus? Would he be wrong to do so in his religion? If so, then Allah is different from God.

BCPVP

03-02-2006, 03:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, that's a holdover from polytheism. It isn't evidence in a belief in any kind of trinity.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know that it is a holdover from polytheism? Why would a religion founded on monotheism have any holdovers from polytheism?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the Bible wasn't written in English, so unless you know Hebrew, you really shouldn't comment on the language of the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't comment on the language of the Bible. I quoted from it. Is it your assertion that the translation is wrong? If it isn't, then why write that? Just to be a snob?

PoBoy321

03-02-2006, 03:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, that's a holdover from polytheism. It isn't evidence in a belief in any kind of trinity.

[/ QUOTE ] How do you know that it is a holdover from polytheism? Why would a religion founded on monotheism have any holdovers from polytheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many Biblical scholars contend that Judaism originially developed as a henotheistic religion. That is, they were not truly monotheists in the sense that they only believed in the existence of one God, but rather, they believed in the existence of many gods, but that theirs was supremem above others. Many scholars point to passages like that, and ones similar to it, in making their case.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, the Bible wasn't written in English, so unless you know Hebrew, you really shouldn't comment on the language of the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ] I didn't comment on the language of the Bible. I quoted from it. Is it your assertion that the translation is wrong? If it isn't, then why write that? Just to be a snob?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you did comment on the language of it. To be specific, you commented on the use of plural nouns. However, you're using an English translation to try to divine the meaning of another language.

I'm not saying that English translations of the Bible are wholly inaccurate. Using them for religious or literary purposes is fine, but to try to use a translation to understand the intent of the original writers is patently ridiculous.

Taraz

03-02-2006, 03:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]

They must necessarily believe we (Christians) worship a false god since we believe Jesus is God, however nicely they put it. Ask yourself this: may a muslim pray to Jesus? Would he be wrong to do so in his religion? If so, then Allah is different from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Jesus is God, how do you pray to him and not to the other "parts of God"?

Why does it matter to you that Allah and the Christian God are different beings? You don't believe in Allah anyway, so why does it matter that Muslims believe Him to be the same God as your God?

Why does the Trinity have to be a literal translation of three different things?

BCPVP

03-02-2006, 03:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Many Biblical scholars contend that Judaism originially developed as a henotheistic religion. That is, they were not truly monotheists in the sense that they only believed in the existence of one God, but rather, they believed in the existence of many gods, but that theirs was supremem above others. Many scholars point to passages like that, and ones similar to it, in making their case.

[/ QUOTE ]
The first 5 books are believed to be written by Moses, correct? If so, why would he include parts of polytheism when in Exodus he reveals God's Commandments (specifically the 2 Commandment)? That is contradictory, unless God has several essences...

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that English translations of the Bible are wholly inaccurate. Using them for religious or literary purposes is fine, but to try to use a translation to understand the intent of the original writers is patently ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have little reason to doubt the translation. Either provide some evidence that the translation is wrong or move on.

BCPVP

03-02-2006, 03:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why does it matter to you that Allah and the Christian God are different beings? You don't believe in Allah anyway, so why does it matter that Muslims believe Him to be the same God as your God?

[/ QUOTE ]
This whole thing started when someone (I don't even remember now!) that the Christian God and Allah were "basically the same". I disagreed and feel I have shown that the beliefs Muslims have about Allah and the beliefs that Christians have of God are not the same. Muslims don't believe in the Christian God because the Christian God consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and Muslims do not believe that Jesus was the Son.

It doesn't really "matter" to me whether Muslims claim they worship the same god. I think they are wrong and either deluding themselves or purposefully lying about it. This whole argument is rather silly because it's easily demonstrated that the beliefs of both relgions about their God are not the same.

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the Trinity have to be a literal translation of three different things?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because that is what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

mroels

03-02-2006, 03:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
For a Muslim to say it he just has to say it.

[/ QUOTE ]
A nitpick. You know what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]
You know what the rest of us mean too when we say Allah and God are the same...

[ QUOTE ]
Trinity is the largest tenet of Christianity. If Trinity is wrong, then Christianity is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ] Hence the creation of a new religion...just because Muslims rewrote the whole damn book doesn't mean that it none of the original components were incomporated.

[ QUOTE ]
However many logical Christian will see that since Jesus is the son of God he can't be God and therefore Muslim's turning Jesus into a prophet doesn't affect God.

Wrong and wrong. Ask any Christian who knows what Trinity means and he will probably tell you that it means that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit make up God. To deny Jesus's divinity is to deny that the Christian God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Logic will defy to concept that God impregnated the Virgin Mary (which in itself is illogical but reasonable considering it is God acting) to birth Himself who is also His son.

[ QUOTE ]
They must necessarily believe we (Christians) worship a false god since we believe Jesus is God, however nicely they put it. Ask yourself this: may a muslim pray to Jesus? Would he be wrong to do so in his religion? If so, then Allah is different from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Muslims may not pray to Jesus as they aren't allowed to pray to Muhammad. But they can look to Jesus' actions for guidance in life.

PoBoy321

03-02-2006, 03:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The first 5 books are believed to be written by Moses, correct? If so, why would he include parts of polytheism when in Exodus he reveals God's Commandments (specifically the 2 Commandment)? That is contradictory, unless God has several essences...

[/ QUOTE ]

According to religious fundamentalists, yes. Moses wrote the Bible. According to serious Biblical scholars, it was likely a compilation of oral traditions and older texts compiled around the time of King David. I'm having trouble finding any non-fundamentalist information online, but if you're actually interested in this, I suggest you look up some of the commentaries on the Old Testament by John Pilch.

As for your comment about the 2nd Commandment, doesn't the simple fact that it acknowledges the possibility of worshipping other gods, acknowledge their existence?

[ QUOTE ]
I have little reason to doubt the translation. Either provide some evidence that the translation is wrong or move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that the translation is "wrong." It's very likely the best possible English translation. What I'm saying is that English lacks much of the nuance of Hebrew and it's very difficult to convey the original meaning exactly as it was intended. Therefore, unless you're able to go into a detailed analysis of the original Hebrew, you can't accurately understand its meaning.

If you'd like some proof for this, buy this book. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0631197117/sr=8-1/qid=1141285704/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-0115456-4484067?%5Fencoding=UTF8) And maybe a few of these. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=br_ss_hs/002-0115456-4484067?search-alias=aps&keywords=Hebrew)

Here's a good page I found about the origin of the OT. (http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/HWC22/Medieval/Bible/Bible.html)

And an interesting, albeit incomplete, article about polytheism in the OT. (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~eslinger/genrels/issues/polytheism.html)

PoBoy321

03-02-2006, 04:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Logic will defy to concept that God impregnated the Virgin Mary (which in itself is illogical but reasonable considering it is God acting) to birth Himself who is also His son.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to continue on my little tirade about the language of the Bible, just because Mary was a "virgin" doesn't mean she didn't have sex. The Aramaic which is often translated as "virgin," and its counterparts in other languages, doesn't have the same connotation as the English word "virgin." A girl could be considered a "virgin" regardless of whether or not she had had sex if she were unmarried, if she had never born children or any of several other qualities which were considered "virginal."

BCPVP

03-02-2006, 04:18 AM

I guess you can take this source with a grain of salt:
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/10_8/trinity
But this article seems to suggest that the translation is accurate and has actually been reinterpreted by various Jews to change the meaning.

Another source on Trinity in the OT: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-genesis1-26.htm

PoBoy321

03-02-2006, 04:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess you can take this source with a grain of salt:
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/10_8/trinity
But this article seems to suggest that the translation is accurate and has actually been reinterpreted by various Jews to change the meaning.

Another source on Trinity in the OT: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-genesis1-26.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

I have absolutely no interest in reading any kind of fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible since it is completely irrelevant to the point that I'm making. Many of these same people believe that the first man was made out of dirt because a 2500 year old book said so and their opinions have absolutely no credibility in any kind of intellectual discussion on Biblical interpretation.

Come back with some links from archaeologists and serious secular scholars that contend that there is evidence in the OT for a belief in the Trinity.

Also, I'm glad that you freely admit that current translations are an interpretation and have a different meaning and intent from the original authors.

[ QUOTE ]
has actually been reinterpreted by various Jews to change the meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

BCPVP

03-02-2006, 04:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Come back with some links from archaeologists and serious secular scholars that contend that there is evidence in the OT for a belief in the Trinity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why should I trade one bias for another?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm glad that you freely admit that current translations are an interpretation and have a different meaning and intent from the original authors.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you intentionally twisting my words? I said that the real meaning was an embarrassment so some Jews attempted to change the text.

PoBoy321

03-02-2006, 04:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come back with some links from archaeologists and serious secular scholars that contend that there is evidence in the OT for a belief in the Trinity.

[/ QUOTE ] Why should I trade one bias for another?

[/ QUOTE ]

What bias is there in backing up your claims on the historic origins and linguistics of a 2500 year old document with archaeological evidence?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm glad that you freely admit that current translations are an interpretation and have a different meaning and intent from the original authors.

[/ QUOTE ] Are you intentionally twisting my words? I said that the real meaning was an embarrassment so some Jews attempted to change the text.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not twisting your words. In fact, you've said it again. The current translation has no basis in the original intent of the authors. Therefore, you can not say that current translations can possibly reflect said original intentions.

BCPVP

03-02-2006, 04:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What bias is there in backing up your claims on the historic origins and linguistics of a 2500 year old document with archaeological evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]
If they don't believe in it there's a potential bias for trying to disprove it.

[ QUOTE ]
The current translation has no basis in the original intent of the authors. Therefore, you can not say that current translations can possibly reflect said original intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]
The source I was paraphrasing said that the current (english) translation is an accurate representation as far as meaning and that some Jews in the past attempted to change that meaning or the text, but failed to make it stick.

New001

03-02-2006, 04:44 AM

PoBoy321

03-02-2006, 04:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What bias is there in backing up your claims on the historic origins and linguistics of a 2500 year old document with archaeological evidence?

[/ QUOTE ] If they don't believe in it there's a potential bias for trying to disprove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. You clearly have little or no familiarity with archaeology or the interpretation of ancient texts in a scholarly setting, so just let me tell you how the system works.

Archaeologists and Biblical scholars review evidence in order to make the most accurate assessment of the text's origins. Those assesments are then put through numerous peer reviews before they can be published in any kind of scholarly journal. Once they are published, EVERY serious archaeologist and scholar in the world tears that assessment apart hoping to find some kind of bias or lack of evidence in any assertion made in order to tear down the credibility of the writer and thereby make a name for themselves in the field.

So the likelihood of any bias or lack of evidence in any of these assessments is virtually nill.

Fundaentalists, however, necessarily have a bias due to the simple fact that before making any assessment, they have a specific belief about the origins and/or interpretation of the text which they are trying to prove to be true, and are open to absolutely no kind of peer review of any kind.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The current translation has no basis in the original intent of the authors. Therefore, you can not say that current translations can possibly reflect said original intentions.

[/ QUOTE ] The source I was paraphrasing said that the current (english) translation is an accurate representation as far as meaning and that some Jews in the past attempted to change that meaning or the text, but failed to make it stick.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that it isn't an accurate representation. What I'm saying is that ANY translation is still just a representation and can't accurately describe the original intent of the authors.

Regardless, your source is CLEARLY biased in the simple fact that they have a specific agenda to try to show some kind of connection between the OT and the NT concept of a Trinity. Nevermind the fact that their "evidence" is sparse and suspect at best.

Anyway, I really don't think that I can have any kind of serious discussioin about this with you because you continue to try to turn this into some kind of theological debate about the nature of God, when really it's a matter of archaeology and literary interpretation.

PoBoy321

03-02-2006, 04:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What bias is there in backing up your claims on the historic origins and linguistics of a 2500 year old document with archaeological evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]
If they don't believe in it there's a potential bias for trying to disprove it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand your concern with regard to any potential bias, but in this case, the attempt isn't to prove or disprove a particular belief. What bias could there be for a secular individual to interpret (and back up with evidence) the history of a belief (rather than the validity of a belief)? This is assuming that what's in question is Christianity's and Judaism's relations to polytheism.

Or am I completely off here?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got it.

I should add that my major field of study is the interpretation of ancient texts, so that's why I kinda picked up on this.

BCPVP

03-02-2006, 05:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So the likelihood of any bias or lack of evidence in any of these assessments is virtually nill.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a hard time believing this when one of your own sources uses Exodus 20:3 (the 2nd Commandmant "You shall have no other gods before me.") as proof of polytheism in the OT. That is intellectually dishonest as it does not show the OT to be polytheistic and is instead a commandmant by God that polytheism is false. Most of the passages used as "evidence" of polytheism are rejections of polytheism. So your point that Genesis 1:26 indicates a holdover from polytheism is hollow. This is the type of bias I'm talking about. Maybe bias isn't the best word. Misunderstanding might be better.

New001

03-02-2006, 05:23 AM

Getting back to the original topic (or the original hijack?)...

My English translation of the Qur'an frequently uses "We" as the pronoun when referring to Allah's first person words. Example:

[ QUOTE ]
Who believe in the Unseen,
Are steadfast in prayer,
And spend out of what We
Have provided for them;

[/ QUOTE ]

(Baqara 2:3)

I believe this is standard in other translations as well.

BCPVP

03-02-2006, 05:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Getting back to the original topic (or the original hijack?)...

My English translation of the Qur'an frequently uses "We" as the pronoun when referring to Allah's first person words. Example:

[ QUOTE ]
Who believe in the Unseen,
Are steadfast in prayer,
And spend out of what We
Have provided for them;

[/ QUOTE ]

(Baqara 2:3)

I believe this is standard in other translations as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
And yet Islam does not believe in the divinity of Jesus. While the above may be evidence that it's a little hypocritical for muslims to say they believe their god is of only one nature if Allah uses "We", it doesn't say anything about Jesus. Islam already affirms that Jesus was a prophet and not a divine figure. Therefore it is incorrect to equate Allah with the Christian God.

MidGe

03-02-2006, 05:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christians wouldn't be rejecting fundamental tenets of Judaism by equating the two Gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some christians reject monotheism. There are NO parts of the old testament that speak about trinity! The concept would be anathema to true monotheists, including Judaism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Genesis 1:26 - "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . . ."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what is known as the regal or royal "we". It is used by the queen of england and most sovereigns when referring to themselves in english. In other words it is an extremely formal use. I am sure that there are no implications of the queen being somehow three persons when she uses it. LOL

But more interestingly, if we could find a credible unbiased exegis of the meaning of that usage as used in the original texts, would you then accept that and change your beliefs, or you would just ignore any evidence that doesn't fit in with your beliefs.

BCPVP

03-02-2006, 05:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is what is known as the regal or royal "we". It is used by the queen of england and most sovereigns when referring to themselves in english. In other words it is an extremely formal use. I am sure that there are no implications of the queen being somehow three persons when she uses it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you think "we" is used that way? My guess is that they believe they are speaking on behalf of others (England, the gov't, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
But more interestingly, if we could find a credible unbiased exegis of the meaning of that usage as used in the original texts, would you then accept that and change your beliefs, or you would just ignore any evidence that doesn't fit in with your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm open to you presenting evidence. I'll judge it for myself, though.

New001

03-02-2006, 05:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Getting back to the original topic (or the original hijack?)...

My English translation of the Qur'an frequently uses "We" as the pronoun when referring to Allah's first person words. Example:

[ QUOTE ]
Who believe in the Unseen,
Are steadfast in prayer,
And spend out of what We
Have provided for them;

[/ QUOTE ]

(Baqara 2:3)

I believe this is standard in other translations as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
And yet Islam does not believe in the divinity of Jesus. While the above may be evidence that it's a little hypocritical for muslims to say they believe their god is of only one nature if Allah uses "We", it doesn't say anything about Jesus. Islam already affirms that Jesus was a prophet and not a divine figure. Therefore it is incorrect to equate Allah with the Christian God.

[/ QUOTE ]
That wasn't quite what I was getting at /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

The Qur'an uses the pronoun "We" (in addition to "I" and "Mine" and "My" and others) when reffering to Allah's first person speech. There should be no confusion that Islam clearly has one supreme entity, so what does this mean?

I would say it would imply that when, in the Old Testament (say, the passage in Genesis that states "And God said, Let us make man..." (Genesis 1:26), the language is being used in the same way as it's being used in the Qur'an - without reference to any other being. It doesn't necessarily imply that multiple beings are being referenced, as in the Christian Trinity.

So how can the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament be the same, and yet the God of the Qur'an must be different?

diebitter

03-02-2006, 05:52 AM

you bunch of hijacking [censored]. I'm gonna hijack all your threads now, just you watch me... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

New001

03-02-2006, 05:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
you bunch of hijacking [censored]. I'm gonna hijack all your threads now, just you watch me... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
http://popi73.hihome.com/popi/bring.jpg

BCPVP

03-02-2006, 05:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So how can the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament be the same, and yet the God of the Qur'an must be different?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is probably going to be my last post in this thread as I seem to be getting asked the same question and keep giving the same answer.

The God of the NT may be the same as the God of the OT because there is no vital tenet removed from the God of the OT in the NT. Islam has to remove the most important foundation of Christianity, that Christ was divine, in order to equate Allah with God. And as I've said many times now, to remove Christ from the equation is to have a different entity that is not the Christian God.

If there really are still questions, there are more qualified people out there who can answer them.

MidGe

03-02-2006, 06:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is what is known as the regal or royal "we". It is used by the queen of england and most sovereigns when referring to themselves in english. In other words it is an extremely formal use. I am sure that there are no implications of the queen being somehow three persons when she uses it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you think "we" is used that way? My guess is that they believe they are speaking on behalf of others (England, the gov't, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
But more interestingly, if we could find a credible unbiased exegis of the meaning of that usage as used in the original texts, would you then accept that and change your beliefs, or you would just ignore any evidence that doesn't fit in with your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm open to you presenting evidence. I'll judge it for myself, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a link (http://www.holocaustrevealed.org/english/s/p127.html), since you are found of links. It seems to be a christian link but obviously not the same sect as the one you belong to.

PoBoy321

03-02-2006, 12:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the likelihood of any bias or lack of evidence in any of these assessments is virtually nill.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a hard time believing this when one of your own sources uses Exodus 20:3 (the 2nd Commandmant "You shall have no other gods before me.") as proof of polytheism in the OT. That is intellectually dishonest as it does not show the OT to be polytheistic and is instead a commandmant by God that polytheism is false. Most of the passages used as "evidence" of polytheism are rejections of polytheism. So your point that Genesis 1:26 indicates a holdover from polytheism is hollow. This is the type of bias I'm talking about. Maybe bias isn't the best word. Misunderstanding might be better.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've said before, it's useless for me to try to have this discussion with you. You're a fundamentalist, which is fine, but until you're able to get over the facts that 1) The Bible wasn't written in English and 2) It was written by people, it's useless for me to try to explain the nuancecs of the historical origins and cultural contexts of the OT.