Genesis 14 and Psalm 110

[Pancho Frijoles]

Thus, the Second Vatican Council, in its document, Nostra Aetate, states:

They [Muslims] worship God, who is one, living, and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth.

If you read closely, the council isn’t saying that ‘the Muslim God [Allah] and the Christian God are exactly the same.’

If you read closely, the council isn’t saying “They [Muslims] worship a god”. The council is saying “They worship God”.
They are right in saying so, because if they worship One, Living, Subsisting, Merciful and Almigthy Creator of Heaven and Earth, then it MUST be the same and only God.

My friend, there is no other way around.
If a lost tribe in the Amazon came in contact with our civilization and we learned that they worship “Ukakane”, who is the Almighty and only Creator of everything that exists, who is the Judge of our actions and the Source of all good, would you think that Ukakene is a different God than the God you worship? That tribe would most likely tell different stories about Ukakene than the stories of the Bible. But it would still be the same God.

Do you think that God revealed Himself only to the Hebrews?

 

[Matthias]

If you read closely, the council isn’t saying “They [Muslims] worship a god”. The council is saying “They worship God”.
They are right in saying so, because if they worship One, Living, Subsisting, Merciful and Almigthy Creator of Heaven and Earth, then it MUST be the same and only God.

Diplomatic language.

My friend, there is no other way around.
If a lost tribe in the Amazon came in contact with our civilization and we learned that they worship “Ukakane”, who is the Almighty and only Creator of everything that exists, who is the Judge of our actions and the Source of all good, would you think that Ukakene is a different God than the God you worship?

I would need to know much more about “Ukakne” before I would be able to determine whether or not the deity is the Messiah’s God.

 

[Matthias]

“The false notion that all religions who give homage to a deity of any sort somehow worship the one true ‘God’ but simply ‘under another form’ is one that is presently being propagated in order to lead the Church down the smooth path of apostasy in the name of ecumenism.”

Do Catholics and Muslims worship the same God

www.catholicapologetics.info

 

[Behold]

Jesus is the pathway to God / Yahweh.

John 14:6

 

[Matthias]

“It has been rashly stated the Mohammedans and other infidels adore the same God ‘together with us’ yet not only is this undoubtedly offensive to Catholic doctrine (as we have shown above) but it shows forth an ignorance of Islamic notion of God and their absurd doctrines. Mohammedans don’t pray to their god, together with us, they pray to their false god against us! The Quran is explicit on this point as it openly states: ‘The Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before, may Allah destroy them, how they have turned away.’”

Do Catholics and Muslims worship the same God

www.catholicapologetics.info

 

[Matthias]

“Then Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’”

(Matthew 16:16)

If we were to use the generic Arabic word “Allah” as a replacement word for ”God” then Matthew 16:16 would look like this:

“Then Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living Allah.”

Would that sit well with the Muslim who believes and says “Allah has no son”?

P.S.

Verses from the qur'an about Allah has no son

Read the verses from the Qur'an which mention Allah (swt) being alone without a partner or son (total of 13 ayat/verses).

myislam.org

 

[Matthias]

“I am the way …”

(John 14:6)

“I am the gate …”

(John 10:9)

”Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

(Matthew 7:13-14)

All religions lead to the same God sounds to my ears like a wide gate, not a small gate; a broad way, not a narrow way.

All people will be saved (universalism) doesn’t sound to my ears like “the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

How does it sound to your ears @Pancho Frijoles?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Diplomatic language.

Conciliary documents are official texts primarily directed to the Catholics. They cannot contain things that contradict basic principles of Theology. So, we have no grounds to think they do not mean what they mean.
When I (Pancho Frijoles) say: "I consider Christians my brothers"... what do you assume, Matthias? Do you assume that I am being honest or do you assume that I am just using "diplomatic language", to hide my hate or indifference?

I would need to know much more about “Ukakne” before I would be able to determine whether or not the deity is the Messiah’s God.

How much?
Because it is obvious that they will have different stories about Ukakane. Maybe they will refer to Ukanane as a "She" and not as a "He". They may say the universe was conceived in her womb and she delivered it as she sang a sacred song. Maybe they will say she incarnates sometimes in a turtle during the night... a turtle that leaves the riverbank, enters their huts and deliver spiritual gifts to all those who worship Her.
They will say tons of things about Ukakane that will obviously be different in some aspect or another to your beliefs.
So, how much similarity do you need, my friend?

In this forum, you have interacted with many Christians who think of God different from what you think. If their God(s) are other gods and not your God, how is dialogue possible in an InterFaith Discussion forum?

Do you think that a dialogue between you and me is possible? I ask you this because the two of us keep saying "God says X, God does Y"... and we never ask each other "Which god are you referring to"?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

All religions lead to the same God sounds to my ears like a wide gate, not a small gate; a broad way, not a narrow way.

All people will be saved (universalism) doesn’t sound to my ears like “the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

How does it sound to your ears @Pancho Frijoles?

Thanks for asking this very important question.
For me, the narrow way keeps being very narrow, and the wide gate keeps being very wide.
Why? Because it is the commitment to live the life of Christ, a live of true love, which is difficult. Not the adherence to a set of doctrines.

Remember that Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than a rich enter the kingdom of God, just after they had witnessed how the rich young man found difficult to detach from his possesions. The narrow gate is to follow the example of Christ.

Devils can believe in a perfectly orthodox creed.
What devils cannot do is to live the life of Christ. They cannot transform a person into a new, better person.

Indeed, the easiest thing, the wide gate, is to think that I am safe and saved because I adhere to the correct, orthodox doctrine, or perform the right, orthodox rituals. That is what the Pharisee of the story thought. But the tax collector was aware of the impurity of his LIFE, of his daily life, and that's what led him to repentance and justification.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

“The false notion that all religions who give homage to a deity of any sort somehow worship the one true ‘God’ but simply ‘under another form’ ...

This is a strawman fallacy.
Ecumenism does not extend a blank cheque for a deity "of any sort". If a deity calls men to evil actions, to superstition, to degradation, to division and hate, that's a deity we should not follow.
But most importantly, ecumenism is not about erasing doctrinal differences, but about building a better world based on the spiritual understanding we have in common.

let's suppose that Thomas and Susan practice different religions.
If Thomas believes that praying for the victims of a war is good and important, and Susan believes the same, they can agree to pray together for that.
But if Thomas believes that he must pray in silence, kneeling down, and while Susan believes she must pray at loud, standing up, then Thomas will pray in silence kneeling down, and Susan will pray at loud, standing up.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

“Then Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’” (Matthew 16:16)
If we were to use the generic Arabic word “Allah” as a replacement word for ”God” then Matthew 16:16 would look like this:
“Then Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living Allah.”
Would that sit well with the Muslim who believes and says “Allah has no son”?

Yes, because "Son of God", as used in the Gospels, does not imply for the Muslim deity, but authority as ambassador... while "Allah has no son", as used in the Quran, implies for the Muslim "Allah is unique in essence and cannot beget another somebody who is also Allah".

 

[Matthias]

This is a strawman fallacy.

“Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.”

Strawman Fallacy

Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Ecumenism does not extend a blank cheque for a deity "of any sort". If a deity calls men to evil actions, to superstition, to degradation, to division and hate, that's a deity we should not follow.
But most importantly, ecumenism is not about erasing doctrinal differences, but about building a better world based on the spiritual understanding we have in common.

let's suppose that Thomas and Susan practice different religions.
If Thomas believes that praying for the victims of a war is good and important, and Susan believes the same, they can agree to pray together for that.
But if Thomas believes that he must pray in silence, kneeling down, and while Susan believes she must pray at loud, standing up, then Thomas will pray in silence kneeling down, and Susan will pray at loud, standing up.

Having read and considered your explanation, I don’t agree that what the Catholic apologist said is a strawman fallacy.

 

[Matthias]

Conciliary documents are official texts primarily directed to the Catholics. They cannot contain things that contradict basic principles of Theology. So, we have no grounds to think they do not mean what they mean.

Diplomatic language often does what you say cannot be done. I witnessed it many times in my service as a government agent.

When I (Pancho Frijoles) say: "I consider Christians my brothers"... what do you assume, Matthias? Do you assume that I am being honest or do you assume that I am just using "diplomatic language", to hide my hate or indifference?

I assume that you are being honest.

How much?
Because it is obvious that they will have different stories about Ukakane. Maybe they will refer to Ukanane as a "She" and not as a "He". They may say the universe was conceived in her womb and she delivered it as she sang a sacred song. Maybe they will say she incarnates sometimes in a turtle during the night... a turtle that leaves the riverbank, enters their huts and deliver spiritual gifts to all those who worship Her.
They will say tons of things about Ukakane that will obviously be different in some aspect or another to your beliefs.
So, how much similarity do you need, my friend?

Similarities may exist but differences, if / when they exist, preclude shared identity.

In this forum, you have interacted with many Christians who think of God different from what you think. If their God(s) are other gods and not your God, how is dialogue possible in an InterFaith Discussion forum?

Dialogue is often difficult, but not impossible, between people who don’t worship the same deity.

The answer isn’t to suppress people from speaking about the they worship, nor is the answer to insist that all deities are the same deity.

The answer, imo, is to treat people the way we would want people to treat us.

Do you think that a dialogue between you and me is possible?

Yes. I’ve found it both easy and enjoyable dialoguing with you.

I ask you this because the two of us keep saying "God says X, God does Y"... and we never ask each other "Which god are you referring to"?

I weigh everything you (and others) say about God with what the Bible says about Yahweh.

****

A personal favorite passage of scripture:

”A student is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher.”

(Luke 6:40)

Jesus of Nazareth is my teacher. Jesus explicitly states who his God and my God is in the Mew Testament. That’s bedrock for me.

Let’s say that you invite me to embrace Vishnu as my God.

Are Yahweh and Vishnu the same God? You may tell me that they are. What do I do now? Embrace Vishnu as my God or listen to my teacher and embrace no other God than the one whom he embraces?

I ask myself a simple question: Did (or would) Jesus of Nazareth embrace Vishnu as his God?

The simple answer is, no.

 

[Matthias]

Thanks for asking this very important question.
For me, the narrow way keeps being very narrow, and the wide gate keeps being very wide.
Why? Because it is the commitment to live the life of Christ, a live of true love, which is difficult. Not the adherence to a set of doctrines.

Remember that Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than a rich enter the kingdom of God, just after they had witnessed how the rich young man found difficult to detach from his possesions. The narrow gate is to follow the example of Christ.

Devils can believe in a perfectly orthodox creed.
What devils cannot do is to live the life of Christ. They cannot transform a person into a new, better person.

Indeed, the easiest thing, the wide gate, is to think that I am safe and saved because I adhere to the correct, orthodox doctrine, or perform the right, orthodox rituals. That is what the Pharisee of the story thought. But the tax collector was aware of the impurity of his LIFE, of his daily life, and that's what led him to repentance and justification.

Thanks.

Love alone isn’t enough. Doctrine alone is also not enough.

Jesus is neither devoid of love nor of doctrine / teaching. So, too, the Apostles. Not just any doctrine / teaching will suffice.

If my doctrine / teaching doesn’t agree with the Messiah’s doctrine / teaching then my doctrine / teaching is wrong.

If my doctrine / teaching is not his doctrine / teaching then I am not like him.

By the same token, if I don’t apply his doctrine / teaching to my own life then I am not like him.

 

[Matthias]

Yes …

That hasn’t been my experience with Muslims.

... because "Son of God", as used in the Gospels, does not imply for the Muslim deity, but authority as ambassador...

What does “begotten by God” imply for the Muslim?

… while "Allah has no son", as used in the Quran, implies for the Muslim "Allah is unique in essence and cannot beget another somebody who is also Allah".

The New Testament teaching is that Yahweh beget his son in the womb of the virgin.

In the discussions with my Muslim co-worker his response quite often was “The Bible has been corrupted.” His assertion was that the Quran has not been corrupted.

I don’t agree with his assertion about the Bible but, just and only for the sake of discussion, let’s say that he‘s right. How is a corrupted document (the Bible, he claimed) compatible with an uncorrupted document (the Quran, he claimed)?

He commended me for rejecting the Trinity and encouraged me to abandon Jewish monotheism and convert to Islam. Why do you suppose he did that?

****

btw, I think our interfaith conversation is going well and setting a good example for others.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

“Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.”

Strawman Fallacy

Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Having read and considered your explanation, I don’t agree that what the Catholic apologist said is a strawman fallacy.

The exaggeration/distortion here consists in saying "a deity of any sort".
Since the position of ecumenism has never been about accepting an evil deity, it is a distortion and exaggeration to say "of any sort".
Therefore, it meets the criteria of a strawman fallacy.

 

[Matthias]

The exaggeration/distortion here consists in saying "a deity of any sort".
Since the position of ecumenism has never been about accepting an evil deity, it is a distortion and exaggeration to say "of any sort".
Therefore, it meets the criteria of a strawman fallacy.

I’ve never known a Roman Catholic to say that the devil is a deity. They believe there is only one deity, and the devil isn’t him.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Thanks.

Love alone isn’t enough. Doctrine alone is also not enough.

Hi Matthias

I agree with you that our conversation is going well, and I thank you for that.
I remain open to your feedback in case I use any language or have an attitude that you consider inappropriate

You say love alone or doctrine alone are not enough.
I think that whatever doctrine we choose to believe, it must support, enable and multiply love.
That is why the whole Torah and the prophets could be summarized in Love God and Love your neighbor.
In religion, love is a non-negotiable, and the core principle for any subsequent doctrine.

So, love is enough to test the consequences or fruits of a doctrine, even if the intellectual framework of such doctrine looks obscure.
For example, the citizens who protected or hid Jews at their homes during the Nazi occupation, putting their own lives at risk, most likely did not have to analyze the validity of the arguments presented neither in "Mein Kampf", nor in the Tanakh, to make a decision. They did not compare "doctrines". And even so, they did what was right. Who was the God they believed in? Hard to say: some were Christians, some were not, but most should not have paid special attention to theological debates.

 

[Matthias]

Hi Matthias

I agree with you that our conversation is going well, and I thank you for that.
I remain open to your feedback in case I use any language or have an attitude that you consider innapropriate

You say love alone or doctrine alone are not enough.
I think that whatever doctrine we choose to believe, it must support, enable and multiply love.
That is why the whole Torah and the prophets could be summarized in Love God and Love your neighbor.
In religion, love is a non-negotiable.

So, love is enough to test the consequences or fruits of a doctrine, even if the intellectual framework of such doctrine looks obscure.
For example, the citizens who protected or hid Jews at their homes during the Nazi occupation, putting their own lives at risk, most likely did not have to analyze the validity of the arguments presented neither in "Mein Kampf", nor in the Tanakh, to make a decision. They did not compare "doctrines". And even so, they did what was right. Who was the God they believed in? Hard to say: some were Christians, some were not, but most should not have paid special attention to theological debates.

Jesus and the Apostles had a specific doctrine. They weren’t, as I read them, open to the doctrines of other faiths.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The New Testament teaching is that Yahweh beget his son in the womb of the virgin.

I'm not sure of the accuracy of such statement.
Some think that the New Testament teaches that God begot his Son before the universe was created.
Some have thought that God begot his Son at the time of his baptism, or his resurrection. This is known as adoptionism.
Some may think like you have said, although I am less sure about that.

The meaning of "begetting" a son remains a mystery. The text says:

The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

So, according to the angel, Jesus was going to be called the Son of God because of a special action of God's power on Mary. What was the exact nature of such action? We don't know.