Miroslav Volf has for two decades been a leader in the interfaith healing industry; he founded and directs the Yale Center For Faith and Culture. His specialty is proclaiming that Christians and Muslims “worship the same god,” even though, apparently, this conclusion is based on a distinctly one-sided investigation, for he blandly announces that he arrived at his conclusions by “studying Christian theological sources…also the great thinkers of the Christian faith,” but gives no indication that he has subjected to similar study the “Muslim theological sources” — Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira — or the “great thinkers of the Islamic faith.” Could it be that he hasn’t felt the need?
Miroslav Volf appears to believe that “when enmity between two groups of people arises, we want that other, our enemy, to be different than we are. We don’t want to have commonalities with that other.” It is a willed enmity, that must be kept at full strength. According to Volf, the reason that Christians resist his conclusion that “we (Christians and Muslims) worship the same God” is not based on their own study of the texts but rather, having chosen to be enemies (or in Volf’s awkward phrase, at a “point of enmity”), they would not wish anything positive, some “point of unity” or “commonality,” with Islam, to get in the way. To which one is entitled to ask: Why not?
In the hope of someone understanding something of what he is attempting to express, let me give you another quote from Volf, remarkably like the first: “I think what happens is that when enmity between two groups of people arises, we don’t want to have commonalities with that other.” Still not clear? How about if we try yet another version from Volf: “if you say you worship the same God, that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, somehow, that is a point of unity, and at a time when we are at a point of enmity, we want to push the other person (away). I think that, in part, is what has been going on.” Again, ask away, on redirect, about are we different or just the same, or just repeat after me: Mumbo-jumbo, beat an empty barrel with the handle of a broom, boomlay boomlay boomlay boom.
So, to sum up, Christians relish their “points of enmity” with Muslims and don’t want to have anyone bringing up some pesky “commonality” that would force those Christians to lessen their enmity, because god knows they are having so much fun – aren’t we all? — with Muslims for enemies.
By now you are as confused as I am, but perhaps neither of us is as confused as Miroslav Volf.
Let’s take a station break right here and ask him a few questions.
Why would Christians in the first place feel any “enmity” toward Muslims? He’s neglected to tell us. Perhaps he can’t imagine why. Might it have been something that Muslims have done to Christians, over the past 1350 years, acting in accordance with, rather than in opposition to, certain texts – Qur’an, Hadith, Sira? Could this “enmity” have had anything to do with the way Muslims attempted during those same 1350 years to emulate the behavior of Muhammad? And why does Volf not mention that the “enmity” for Muslims is felt not only by Christians, but by Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists? Have they all been trying to deny those “points of commonality” and to keep the number of “points of enmity” sky-high? Could it be that there are no “points of commonality” that needed to be denied in the first place?
And is it really true that the Christian theologians who have accepted at face value assorted Muslim exercises in taqiyya and kitman, including “A Common Word,” have been out to deny “points of commonality”? Haven’t they, with a very few admirable exceptions, in recent years bent over backwards on every conceivable occasion to find and celebrate any soi-disant “points of commonality” between Islam and Christianity they can? Isn’t that what Miroslav Volf has been doing since 2001?
Miroslav Volf tells us that Christians and Muslims are taught to “love” their “neighbor.” Not quite in the same way, however. Christians are taught to love their “neighbor,” that is their fellow man, whether Christian or not. Muslims are taught to love their fellow Muslims and to despise non-Muslims. The Qur’an teaches them that they, the Muslims, are the “best of people” and that non-Muslims “are the vilest of creatures.” The Qur’an tells them when to make war on non-Muslims, how to treat them when they are conquered, what fiendish ways may be used to remind the non-Muslim of his state of permanent humiliation. The Qur’an tells Muslims “not to make friends with Jews and Christians” (5:51), to fight them “until they pay the Jizya (a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” ( 9:29), to “kill the disbelievers wherever they find them” (2:191), “murder them and treat them harshly” (9:123), “fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem” ( 9:5).
The Quran says that all those who disbelieve in Islam go to hell (5:10), they are najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (9:28), and orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (2:193). It prohibits a Muslim from befriending a non-believer even if that non-believer is the father or the brother of that Muslim (9:23), (3:28).
The Quran asks the Muslims to “slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that they shall have great punishment in the world hereafter” (5:33). And tells us that “for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods” (22:19-22) and that they not only will have “disgrace in this life, on the Day of Judgment He shall make them taste the Penalty of burning (Fire)” (22:9).
The Quran says that “those who invoke a god other than Allah not only should meet punishment in this world but the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to them, and they will dwell therein in ignominy” (25:68). For those who “believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!” (48:13).
Then Allah advises Muslims to “strike off the heads of the disbelievers”; and after making a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” (47:4). Allah has promised to “instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers” and has ordered Muslims to “smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them” (8:12). and “to strike terror into (the hearts of the enemies” (8:60).
The Muslim Allah has made the Jihad mandatory and warns Muslims that “Unless we go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish us with a grievous penalty, and put others in our place” (9:39). and Allah says “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be stern against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed” (9:73).
These passages do not represent minor points of Islamic difference with Christianity; the moral universe of Allah has nothing in common with the moral universe of the Christian God. After such knowledge, what forgiveness for Miroslav Volf and his claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same God?
So let’s summarize what we have learned from Miroslav Volf: the object of worship – called God or Allah — for Christians and Muslims is the same, but at the same time it’s different, in such unnamed trivial ways that the difference doesn’t matter. Or to put it otherwise, so as to make things crystal clear: the object of worship for Muslims and Christians is different, God is more or less like Allah, or Allah like God, and Christians should not keep denying that commonality, just in order to have it get in the way of that enmity, and so on and so confusingly forth. And to clear things up, Volf smilingly offers what he calls a “silly example” (but offers it nonetheless) – that “when the French wouldn’t support us after 9/11, because you couldn’t bring the French too close to us so we for a while didn’t eat French fries, we ate Freedom fries, because we couldn’t bring the French too close, right?” That’s a fitting conclusion. Your head simply swirls. He’s at Yale? Founder and head of his very own little center on faith? Eli, Eli lama sabachthani.
Hope says
Any study comparing the Bible to the koran will clearly show that the Christian God and this Allah fellow cannot possibly be the same entity. Even a third-grader could figure that out.
linnte says
I did! The more I read, the more appaled I became.
gravenimage says
Agreed. “Allah” is indeed a completely appalling figure.
TH says
Allah seems to be the remains of a pagan moon god which Mahommad tried to whitewash taking and also twisting some elements from the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament.
Westman says
From Allah’s description of the punishment he intends for the unbeliever, he appears as a petty sadist.
We cannot imagine even the worst bloodthirsty historical tyrant desiring to inflict the ultimate sadistic torture, forever, for a simple disagreement. Uuhh..seizure coming on.. seeing a vision.. the apparition is becoming clear.. i was wrong…Allah is….Kim Jung-un.
Esther Egan says
This whole situation goes back to Abraham and Sarah when they became impatient waiting on God to give them a son. When Ishmael was born to Abraham and then cast out, God said he would be a great nation. Today his decedents are a large nation, and they have been giving us trouble a long time.The difference between Issac and Ishmael is like hot and cold, love and hate. Their god is not the same. It shows that when we do not wait on the Lord their are consequences to be paid, and sometimes they are harsh. President Bush tried to tell us that their god was the same, and did I hear an uproar over that, NO. They are our enemy and when we finally realize it the better. They are now among us, what will you do, what will I do. They need to be converted or destroyed.
Champ says
Indeed, Hope!
DFD says
Get rich quick: Establish an interfaith type group, lecture on the beauty of Islam, etc
Get checks from Saudi Arabia.
Play your cards right and you get a ‘scholarship’ on top
linnte says
Where’s that darned “Like button”!?
Jay Boo says
Actually, he comes across more as a deluded ‘true believer’ in interfaith dogma than a financially motivated opportunist.
DFD says
Where’s the difference as far as we are concerned?
Fessitude says
His specialty is proclaiming that Christians and Muslims “worship the same god”…
Pace the many unitarians one keeps bumping into among modern Western Christians in a modern context of overall Christological insouciance (in which, of course, particular, absolutist Christological concerns continue to be maintained as though that overall context had not long ago radically overturned the cultural soil of the ancien régime or, at best, a surreal sense of disconnection from its remarkable implications), the Same God of the Christians and Muslims may be summarized this way:
Christian God: “…and the Word was God…” / Jesus says: “I and the Father are one.”
Muslim God: God (Allah) tells Jesus (Issa) to fight and kill all those who keep saying that “the Word was God” and that “Jesus and the Father are one”.
In summary, we have a perfect schema of the entire problem:
1. The Christian God proclaims the Man-God.
2. The Muslim God commands the slaughter of all those who insist upon the Christian God..
3. The Modern Westerner suffers from a schizophrenic episode resulting in the conclusion that the Christian God and the Muslim God are “the same God”.
maghan says
But even if it were true, that doesn’t imply anything definite. Sunnis and Shia worship the same God but they slaughter each other when necessary. And the Ahmadiyyas are plundered and slaughtered at will too by other Muslims.
Jay Boo says
maghan
First
The Christian God is in no way the same as the Muslim god.
Second
Therefore — your follow-up about Sunnis and Shia has nothing to do with that point
Westman says
Try this:
Jesus- Love those that despitefully use you. Love your unbelieving neighbor as yourself. Turn the other cheek. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Allah – You are my slave. An Eye for an eye. Convert, extort and subjugate, or kill the unbeliever.
Any difference?
Sunni-Shis conflict only requires declaring the other as apostate unbelievers as justification. Move over Mars, there is a new God Of War in town and the Sheriff is sleeping off the taqiyya wine.
Fessitude says
Yes; the problem here is really the secondary Problem of the Problem (the West’s ineptitude about the primary Problem of Islam) — not the primary Problem of Islam in abstraction from the functional primacy of the secondary problem.
I.e., the Western PC MC impulse to equate the two Gods because of an anxious need to be nice to Muslims is the problem that is getting us killed; not the theological details.
Jay Boo says
Good point Fessitude
gravenimage says
True, Fessitude–Islam *in its own texts* goes out of its way to codify that Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians do–and more, that Christians should be oppressed and murdered for this difference.
Custos Custodum says
Hi GI – interesting point. Would you have citations to the Qur’an etc. in this regard?
Thanks!
Angemon says
Because their intelligence services considered your intelligence services were overestimating the possibility of Saddam having WMDs. How did that turn out?
Lia says
Do read General Georges Sada (of Iraq) on ‘Saddam’s Secrets’. He explain about the WMD, when, where & how they went, so that they were not found in Iraq.
Angemon says
Available in ebook format – added to my “To Read” list, Lia.
gravenimage says
Miroslav Volf is also pretending that the French–whatever you think of their stance immediately post-9/11–were regarded as “enemies” in the same way that the Jihadists of the 9/11 attacks were, which is clearly ludicrous.
The point of this is to dilute the horror of these attacks and the enmity of Jihad towards us by associating it with Americans being irked by lack of French support vis-a-vis Iraq.
Jaladhi says
Muslims worship allah – a mean, deceitful, hateful and criminal imaginary entity. How can that be elevated to level of God? And when you worship such a criminal, you emulate him and become like him – we see this Muslim behavior everyday.
gravenimage says
So true, Jaladhi.
Christians try to emulate Christ; Muslims the baleful Muhammed.
Though few succeed in living up to–or, in the case of Muslims, down to–their models, you can see the difference in the behavior of Christians and Muslims every day.
Compare and contrast.
Champ says
Jaladhi wrote:
Muslims worship allah – a mean, deceitful, hateful and criminal imaginary entity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed, Jaladhi, and allah is NOT the God of the Bible …
And an ex-muslim explains that, many times, the Bible describes God as a God of Love, but that there isn’t *one* verse in the quran that states that allah is a god of love–whoa not one!
https://youtu.be/DH-OHLR8Gbc
Kepha says
Maybe that’s why this guy who wanted to know God ended up an ex-Muslim. God can be very, very gracious.
Champ says
Very true, Kepha 🙂
Mark Swan says
The Qur’an asserts that Muhammad came as an “apostle” to the “People of the Book” (primarily Jews and Christians). Most professing Jews and Christians, however, rejected Muhammad’s new religion (Surah 5:19–32).
Considering some of the key differences between Muslim teaching and the biblical account, this is not surprising. For example, the Qur’an asserts that it was by the angel Gabriel’s decree, not through the Holy Spirit, that Jesus Christ was conceived in Mary’s womb (Surah 19:19–21). Islam teaches that Christians blaspheme when they proclaim, “Christ is the Son of God” (Surah 5:72). As is written in Surah 112, and as was inscribed on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem around 691–692ad, Islam says, “Praise be to God, who begets no son and has no partner… He does not beget, He is not begotten, and He has no peer.”
The Qur’an also teaches that Jesus did not endure crucifixion; instead, someone else supposedly took His place (Surah 4:157). More than 90 verses in the Qur’an counsel war against the “unbelievers”—(e.g. Surahs 4:101; 5:51; 9:29), and prescribe execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile for those who wage war against Muhammad and Allah (Surah 5:33).
Interestingly, although the Qur’an asserts that Allah has the power to bring every person to salvation, he apparently chooses not to. Rather, his desire is, “I will fill hell with demons and men altogether” (Surah 32:13). Hell in Islam is an ever-burning fire in which the damned will spend eternity (Surah 5:36–37). How does the Allah of Islam compare to the God of the Bible?
The God of the Bible is constant and does not change (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8), unlike Allah who, according to the Qur’an, changes his revealed truths as he likes (Surah 2:106). The God of the Bible loved the world so much that He offered His only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). His intent was not to condemn the world, but that through His Son, the world might be saved (v. 17).
The Quran calls Jews and Christians “People of the Book”-people to whom God gave Scripture. With this designation comes a measure of respect; Muslims are told (Sura 29:46) to “be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book.” Yet the Quran asserts (Sura 5:13) that the Jews tampered with the Book that God gave them-the Old Testament.
By contrast, the Apostle Paul wrote: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). When Paul wrote those words, “Scripture” meant the Old Testament-the books from which Jesus Christ taught. We know that Scripture cannot be broken (cf. John 10:35), so to reject the Old Testament, as Muslims do, is also to reject Jesus Christ.
If the Quran were a divinely inspired book, would it attack a belief that did not exist? One might instead suspect that these verses reflect Muhammad’s human revulsion at the excessive Marian devotions that had infiltrated Christianity, which he would have seen when meeting traders passing through the very cosmopolitan city of his upbringing.
Muslims revere Jesus as a great prophet, but do not consider Him God. Muhammad taught that Jesus was not crucified, but was taken to heaven-and a substitute appeared to die in His place (Sura 4:157). This is strikingly similar to some Gnostic teachings Muhammad would have encountered in his travels.
The Quran affirms Christ’s virgin birth, but in doing so appears to confuse the identities of Miriam, the sister of Moses, and Mary the mother of Jesus. In Sura 19:28, Christ’s mother is called the “sister of Aaron”-a phrase which everywhere else in the Quran refers to Miriam. In response, Muslims suggest that “sister of Aaron” is a generic term meaning “virtuous woman” even though such a usage occurs nowhere else in the Quran.
To reconcile the many inconsistencies, Muslims teach that a Gospel account called the Injil once existed, corroborating Muslim accounts of Jesus’ life, but that this Injil has been lost or suppressed. Biblical archaeology, however, makes this claim hard to defend. Manuscripts of the earliest Gospels-containing material that contradicts Muslim teachings-have been found, dated to within decades of Christ’s life, but no similar findings of this hypothetical Injil have been documented.
In Christ’s day, Jews held varying expectations of the afterlife. Some, like the Sadducees, understood that we simply cease to exist at death. However, even in Christ’s day, many Jews had become influenced by Hellenistic and Eastern concepts of the immortal soul, and believed that all souls continue in an incorporeal form after death, whether in a pleasant Heaven, a shadowy Sheol or a fiery Hell.
By the 7th century, nearly everyone around Muhammad taught some form of the doctrine of the immortal soul. It was this doctrine, rather than the accurate Biblical teaching, that found its way into Islam. According to the Quran, the souls of the righteous will, after death, “delight for ever in what their souls desire” (Sura 21:99). Each will be in “a blissful state in a lofty garden, with clusters of fruit within his reach” (Sura 69:20).
The souls of the wicked, however, will be cast into a fiery eternal Hell in which their torments will never end: “The evil doers shall endure for ever the torment of Hell, which will not be assuaged for them; they shall be speechless with despair” (Sura 43:73). Another account: “Those that deny Our revelations We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge” (Sura 4:56).
Muslim theology includes the concept of jihad, or struggle, and teaches that those who succeed in jihad, and give their lives to it, will be promoted to the highest rewards offered in Heaven. In most circumstances, jihad is understood as the struggle to live a righteous life-“overcoming” would be a close synonym. But in the context of war, jihad takes on a more foreboding implication. Muslims have come to believe that if they die on the battlefield while spreading Islam, they will assure themselves of a glorious salvation.
While many Muslims appear neutral on this militaristic understanding of jihad, it remains a powerful force in the Muslim world, a tool often used by rulers to incite nationalistic passions in their peoples. Muslims acknowledge that they will not bring about a righteous world by themselves. Particularly in the Shia branch of Islam, a “righteous one” or Mahdi is expected at the end of the age. Some expect Jesus to be that Mahdi; most expect Jesus to return from heaven after the Mahdi, to judge the nations and destroy false religious teachings.
Yes, Muslims are awaiting Jesus’ return! But the Jesus for whom they wait is not the true Jesus Christ of the Bible. A false Christ coming shortly before the return of the real Jesus Christ could use Muslim prophecies to sway hundreds of millions of Muslims into accepting him (cf. Matthew 24:4-5).
Prayer and fasting and almsgiving are integral parts of Muslims’ lives. Devout Muslims seek fervently to overcome their sinful natures. But no matter what their “good works,” Muslims face a dilemma.
True Christians, accepting Jesus Christ’s sacrifice and letting Him live His life in them (Galatians 2:20), can produce good works by yielding to their living Savior. Without Christ, Muslims contend in vain against the flesh.
But after Christ returns, today’s Muslims will have their true chance to accept the living Jesus Christ as Savior. Jesus Christ will indeed return-not as Muslims expect, but as the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Revelation 19:16). After He returns, former Muslims will see that the ideals and values they sought to uphold are fulfilled perfectly not by the man-made laws of Islam, but by the God-given law administered by Jesus Christ, when all human beings learn God’s perfect love in that thousand-year period of peace and justice-the.
gravenimage says
And Mark, in the Last Days, the Muslim “Jesus”–really, “Isa”–is supposed to come back and *slaughter Christians* who won’t convert to Islam.
Few Christians who swallow the whole “Islam reveres Jesus” Taqiyya understand this.
Mark Swan says
Yes thank You gravenimage
linnte says
I for one am grateful I have seen the “writing on the wall”! Thank you Robert Spencer for your life and dedication to the truth!
And I have a question? How does Robert support himself financially? I don’t see a place to donate.
gravenimage says
This article is actually by Robert Spencer’s erudite colleague Hugh Fitzgerald, linnte. Go back through the archives to read his stuff–some real classics. His work can also be found at the New English Review–Google it, and his name comes up.
As for donations, you can find “One Time Donation” and “Donate Monthly” buttons at the right-hand side or bottom of the Jihad Watch home page, depending on how your screen is configured.
Westman says
Graven, Do you know anything about Hugh? I cannot find any sketch of his life or connections. I only found one conjecture that he is a Spencer alter-ego, ghost-written by Robert. However, I see significant differences in the writing style. He seems to be a mystery.
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald is indeed a man of mystery, Westman–but just because “Hugh Fitzgerald” is a nom de plume.
There is a long time poster here whom I am in touch with who knows both men–they are definitely two different people.
Mr. Fitzgerald was not contributing here for a while, but could be found at The New English Review, where he still writes.
Robert and Hugh are both extremely erudite and knowledgeable, but their approaches and styles are very different. Most of those who claim they are one and the same person somehow hope to discredit Jihad Watch with this claim.
Fessitude says
Wow, that’s a blast from the past. A decade or so ago, it seems, that whole issue was hashed over. It seems exceedingly unlikely that Hugh and Robert are the same person; that, however, doesn’t mean that it’s not odd that nobody has ever produced any video or photos of Hugh, when one can in seconds find such of any other luminary or quasi-luminary of the Counter-Jihad (e.g., aside from Spencer himself — Daniel Greenfield, Daniel Pipes, Pam Geller, Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish, Jamie Glazov, David Horowitz, Frank Gaffney, Bosch Fawstin, Bruce Bawer, Eric Allen Bell, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray, Sam Harris, Debbie Schlussel, Diana West, Andrew Bostom; and many more).
Note: the point here is not that Hugh Fitzgerald doesn’t have the right to his pribvacy, for security concerns or any other concern that’s none of anyone’s damn business; the point is, rather, that there is a curious aura of denial around the whole thing. If someone had just said, when this was bruited about a decade ago, “For reasons of his own, Hugh doesn’t want his identity known” or “Out of concern for his security, Hugh wants his image to remain unknown”, that would have been the end of it. But his defenders took the unusual tack of insisting with stolid stubbornness that (to paraphrase) “Hugh is not hiding, plenty of people have seen him at various functions” etc. — which only made the tempest in the teapot worse. It’s hardly a big deal; but that doesn’t mean his defenders didn’t (re: the above) behave in a silly fashion unbecoming of purported lovers of truth.
Jay Boo says
Voeg might be going by the moniker Fessitude
It’s hardly a big deal; but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t often behave in a silly fashion unbecoming of purported lovers of truth.
gravenimage says
Another fine article from Hugh Fitzgerald.
So according to Miroslav Volf the problem is that Christians don’t realize that the worship the same God as Muslims do.
If Christians were to believe that, would it prevent Muslims from slaughtering us?
Since all too many Christians *do* believe this twaddle and it has not prevented increasing bloody Jihad terror attacks against us, clearly it does not have that effect.
The problem is not Christians, but that *Muslims* don’t believe that Christians worship the same god as “Allah”–and that they should be punished for it–including being murdered.
If Christians *really* believed that the baleful “Allah” was the lord of the universe, they would all have occasion to cry “eli eli lama sabachthani!”.
Kepha says
The cry “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” Was Jesus’ own expression from the cross. It reveals how he took on himself the curse that was due to us–the curse he left behind in the grave when he rose again on the third day.
I, for one, have no problem believing in a wrathful God. The wrath of God is revealed from Heaven on all ungodliness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. (Rom. 1:18). The work Christ did on the cross for us makes no sense apart from our original position as enemies of God. Perhaps the daily mockery of misplaced humanitarian goodwill seen in islam’s insistence on being its bloody-minded, violent self against all the wishful thinking of Western liberals could be God’s providential guidance to mock a Western world that forgets all of the benefits it has received from the Christian God’s hand. I suppose my issue with Volf is that the commonalities between Christians and Muslims do not lie in our faith in a common God, but in our sinfulness and need of redemption.
gravenimage says
Kepha wrote:
The cry “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” Was Jesus’ own expression from the cross. It reveals how he took on himself the curse that was due to us–the curse he left behind in the grave when he rose again on the third day.
…………………………
Kepha, I *do know that*.
I was perhaps being a bit flippant in my last comment above–I meant something along the lines of if “Allah” really were God, all Christians would be feeling pretty forsaken.
Please know that I intended no irreverence here at all–I was just referring to Hugh’s use of the term.
Mark Swan says
Excellent comments both of You.gravenimage and Kepha
Mark Swan says
His body was already ripped to shreds, by a Roman lictor, skilled in the art of
Using the flog, a devilish device with several strongly braided whip tales embedded
with sharp pieces of metal, every lash pulled and ripped open the flesh of the victim.
Deep lacerations, torn flesh, exposed muscles, bone and excessive bleeding would leave the victim near dead. Death was often the result of this cruel form of punishment though it was preferable to keep the victim alive to be brought to public subjugation with the crucifixion. The Centurion in charge would order the “lictors” to halt the flogging when the criminal was near death.
“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” – Isaiah 53:5-6
This flogging had taken place with Jesus…to make physical healing for us possible.
Now a perfect Being without sin was to give-up His real flesh and blood life, a Being
who had emptied Himself of eternal life and became fully Human was to now make
the greatest sacrifice possible, give His life so that Humans could be reconciled with
God, the wages of sin was death, all Humans who have ever lived could not pay for
one single sin, this would require a perfect Being, so here He was.
Psalms 22
But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised by the people.
7 All those who see Me ridicule Me;
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 “He trusted in the Lord, let Him rescue Him;
Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!”
But You are He who took Me out of the womb;
You made Me trust while on My mother’s breasts.
10 I was cast upon You from birth.
From My mother’s womb
You have been My God.
11 Be not far from Me,
For trouble is near;
For there is none to help.
14 I am poured out like water,
And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It has melted within Me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And My tongue clings to My jaws;
You have brought Me to the dust of death.
16 For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;
17 I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.
18 They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.
So just before He breaths His last breath He Cries Out to The Father.
“Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani”
My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
Now He has finished this extraordinary trial with perfectly innocent love.
mortimer says
When a Yale professor gets so much wrong it is difficult to argue with him concisely. First of all, Volf, a Croatian Protestant, seems to have adopted the theory called ‘ultimate reconciliation’ which is not shared by ‘orthodox’ Christians, and secondly, he as adopted the cultural Marxist theory of ‘liberation theology’. Putting those two controversial doctrines together leads to the shaky conclusion that reaching out in reconciliation is going to lead to a successful utopia. History and Islamic source texts do not show that Islam wants reconciliation. Islam’s supremacism and militancy are based on theology. Thirdly, Islam is a system of world governance. What place, if any, do Christians have in an Islamic state? Historic examples, show us the Contract of Omar and the recent strict Sharia law of ISIS and Boko Haram.
It is becoming apparent the more I look into Volf that he has ignored or never learned much about the pre-eminence of jihad and Islam’s political system. He has apparently swept away the inconvenient jihad emphasis in the Koran, hadiths, Sira, canonical commentaries, manuals of Sharia law, approved books of jurisprudence, etc. Volf is proficient at ignoring jihad.
Fourthly, Volf has downplayed the Trinitarian problem in the Koran. The Koran does not even get the definition of the Trinity correct. An idiot wrote the Koran’s version of the Trinity: Father, Son and Mother Mary. As well, the same idiot wrote in the Koran that Jews worship Ezra, making him the ‘son of god’. The next error is that Volf takes the Koranic text seriously, when it is filled with so many errors and misstatements of Biblical details and many other howling errors of all kind.
My last point may seem insignificant, but I believe it is crucial: different names, different deities. Would say that Abraham Lincoln was the same person as Leon Schwartz? Hmm. The Tetragrammaton (Jehovah in KJV Exodus 3:15,16) is called God’s ‘eternal’ name. How can it be changed to ‘Allah’? It cannot. ‘Allah’ doesn’t know the Bible which he says he wrote. He doesn’t know his ‘eternal’ name.
What else is different about Allah? The evidence shows that ‘Allah’ knows almost nothing about the New Testament or Old Testament. The Koran’s god says he is the same god as Jehovah, but the text of the Koran proves Allah is a very unconvincing hoax.
gravenimage says
I believe it is not so much that Islam misunderstands Judaism and Christianity–though it *certainly* does–but that Muslims are enjoined to slaughter Jews and Christians if they do not submit to Islam.
mortimer says
GI wrote: “not so much that Islam misunderstands Judaism and Christianity”
But that is the point, my fine friend: the ‘misunderstanding’ leads to the erroneous conclusions called ‘SHIRK’ (worshipping other than Allah). That conclusion ALONE justifies the slaughter.
Mark Swan says
Both Your takes on it are right they even compliment the other’s.
Good analysis mortimer.
Jay Boo says
However, mortimer
Let us not be too sympathetic of the Muslim point of view.
Much of the — ‘misunderstanding’ is WILLFUL.
Furthermore,
That conclusion ALONE (doesn’t — (justify) — the slaughter.
It (RATIOALIZES) in order to excuse the inherent shameless despicability of a typical Qur’an following Muslim
gravenimage says
Well, you’re right, Mortimer.
I just meant that people misunderstanding others’ religions in ways great and small, even in these “interfaith” days, is not uncommon.
I’m sure many of us here–I include myself, by the way–probably have a few misconceptions about Hinduism, or Buddhism, or even Judaism and other Christian denominations–but we have no concomitant urge to slaughter people over it.
We are also, of course–most of us, anyway–open to correctives if we learn more. That is not the case where such misunderstandings are part of the received dogma, as is the case with Islam.
Mark Swan says
I like what, and how You said what You said here.
Pong says
No doubt, there are too many similarities in doctrines. Many christian leaders insist that god and allah are the same. Catholic church stipulates such concept as the true understanding of god.
As a result, the differences become a secondary issue and, probably, should be left to the clergy to argue about.
It is not an important issue and putting such great emphasis on it obscure the real question: compatability of islam with the western culture. Why do we care what they think in saudi arabia about god or allah? By arguing theological issues with islam, we legitimize islam and bring it to the same level as any other faith. It is exactly what moslems want and the sure path to defeat.
Catholic church knows that and prepares for life under islam. Moslems don’t want everyone to convert (some have to work and pay jazia) and people will have to belong to a congregation. There will be no choice like it is now. Church will have more power under islamic rule then it has now. Moslems will give churches that power for keeping jazia paying infidels in line.
Moslems encourage those theological discussions and the christians fall for it, because it is vital to them how jesus should be understood. Continue to argue with islam with the bible in your hands and you will lose badly.
mortimer says
Pong, You are wrong about the Koran’s view of the Bible and the church’s view of Islam. Dead wrong. You need to learn more about the subject. The church has consistently taught that Mohammed is not a prophet.
The Koran confirms in many places that OT and NT are the eternal words of Allah, since no one may change Allah’s words. This poses a problem because there are so many enormous difference between Allah and Jehovah and between Judaeo-Christian doctrines and those of the Koran. They are separated by a Grand Canyon.
The claims of Islam do not stand up to scholarly scrutiny. Even when Islam’s teachings are compared with other verses in the Koran, no Islamic doctrine is consistent.
mortimer says
Pong wrote: “Moslems encourage those theological discussions and the christians fall for it”
I agree if you mean the church’s leaders strongly want to think Islam shares a common ethic and mullahs frequently tell lies about jihad. Unfortunately, few church leaders read Islam’s source texts, so they maintain their wrong hypotheses. They are useful idiots.
However, those theological concepts you think can be easily dismissed are part of what maintains Muslim fanaticism. Islamic theology is the source of Islamic pride and rage. Muslims have to be shown that Islamic theology cannot hold up to intellectual scrutiny, before they will doubt Islam and leave it. The Koran’s inconsistent theology is a very cheap and quick hack job of theology put together by someone with no concept of theology out of many different religious source books existing before Islam. Islam is a hodgepodge so inconsistent and fantastic, it could not have lasted so long if it weren’t surrounded by a wall of vigilantes ready to murder everyone who tried to escape.
The fact, that Volf cannot see the myriad textual problems with the Koran, makes me think he has no firm understanding of the Koran, the hadiths, the canonical commentaries or Islamic history…and perhaps Volf has not even read them.
Fessitude says
mortimer says
April 18, 2016 at 7:42 pm
“Pong, You are wrong about the Koran’s view of the Bible and the church’s view of Islam. Dead wrong. You need to learn more about the subject. The church has consistently taught that Mohammed is not a prophet.”
Pong didn’t say anything about a “prophet”. Pong said:
“Catholic church stipulates such concept as the true understanding of god.
As a result, the differences become a secondary issue and, probably, should be left to the clergy to argue about.”
And about that, Pong is arguably correct.
From the Papal pronouncement Lumen Gentium (“Light of the Nations”), promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1964, says:
… the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
This is a patent error. In orthodox Christian doctrine, it is Jesus, God Himself as the Second Person of the Trinity, who will judge mankind on the last day — and as such, Mohammedans most certainly do not “adore” Him as “the one and merciful God”. In fact, the theology of Mohammedans tells them to hate and fight and kill and subjugate those who do adore Jesus as “the one and merciful God” and as the Judge at the Last Day.
The Catholic Church compounded this error by promulgating with foot firmly in mouth yet another Papal pronouncement, Nostra Aetate (“In Our Age”), promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965:
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth.
Again, since orthodox Christian doctrine maintains that it is Jesus, God Himself as the Second Person of the Trinity, who is the Creator, Moslems most certainly do not “adore” him as such. In fact, again, their theology instructs them to hate and fight and kill and subjugate those who do adore Jesus as the Creator.
It is the Catholic Church (and mortimer) that is incorrect here; not Pong.
Fessitude says
I botched the html codes for italics again — I keep making the mistake of using the inferior text drafting box devised by the JW tech team (compare with the wonderfully pleasant and easy to text draft boxes at Gates of Vienna, for example) and forgetting to draft my comments in a Word document first…
Jay Boo says
Pong
You made a few valid points
But you also said,
1 “Church will have more power under islamic rule then it has now.”
— That is just Wacko
2 “Continue to argue with islam with the bible in your hands and you will lose badly.”
— That sounds like something an Atheist with a grudge against Christianity would say.
— This web site is Jihad Watch not Christianity Watch
— Go watch a David Wood video or Robert Spencer debate of the differences to discover that is a wrong conclusion.
Jay Boo says
P.S.
To Pong
Please don’t bother to offer me flattery or compliments.
That won’t work with me.
gravenimage says
Pong wrote:
Church will have more power under islamic rule then it has now. Moslems will give churches that power for keeping jazia paying infidels in line.
…………………….
An interesting post, Pong, but I have to take issue with your line above.
The Church has little power in Dar-al-Islam, and is constantly oppressed and humiliated and Christians are threatened and murdered.
This “interfaith” hogwash has far more to do with “political correctness” than it does with some supposed wish for the Church to submit to Islam.
Most of these idiots fail to believe Islam is a real threat at all, and certainly don’t imagine themselves and their flocks forced to live under Islamic rule.
mortimer says
correction: “Would YOU say that Abraham Lincoln was the same person as Leon Schwartz?”
jewdog says
Somebody needs to do a PhD thesis on why our universities are so full of moonbat air heads. I tend towards a Marxist explanation: that somehow the security of tenure, isolation from the usual economic carrots and sticks, and outrageous fees extracted from students, with no clear economic quid pro quo, have all combined to create a kind of intellectual romper room. Pay me a good salary to do nothing but be my clever self and I’ll go fishing. I defer to the experts.
mortimer says
jewdog wrote: “outrageous fees extracted from students, with no clear economic quid pro quo”
You have a point. Students should be warned not to study with certain profs due to their moon-bat-ism.
It’s a big hit in the pocket to study errant nonsense like this.
traci94 says
Muslims deny that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died and rose again. The Apostle Paul says that if Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is in vain, it’s useless. This doesn’t require a doctorate or a degree from Harvard or Yale. Jesus is the whole focal point of the Christian faith, and Muslims say He was not God but a prophet. They also deny the Trinity which is also a key doctrine of the Christian faith; they say that Christians are polytheists because of the Trinity. Additionally, Islam is very works based while Christianity is dependent upon what Christ has done for us, not what we’ve done because we can never be good enough or do enough, so it is based solely on the grace of God. There are tremendous differences between Christianity and Islam, and that’s not because I choose to embrace “enmity” or whatever this guys says! I choose to open my eyes and embrace reality. We do not worship the same God. I can not even take this guy seriously.
traci94 says
Ps…all that I said might have been said earlier. I didn’t read the replies, I just jumped in to give my contribution because I am so frustrated with this guy. Sorry if I’ve been redundant.
Kepha says
Miroslav Volf started out as a Pentecostal in his native Croatia and ended up a member of the Episcopal Church in the USA–one of the most woolly-headed denominations around.
In fairness to Volf as revealed in the film snippet and in Hugh’s quotes, his ideas about reconciliation make a lot of sense in a Christian context, in which the central story is the reconciliation of sinful man and holy God through God’s becoming man and working redemption for us. Islam, with its weak view of human sinfulness, has nothing comparable. Christianity has the parable of the Good Samaritan in its Scriptures, in which the message is that one’s neighbor may very well be someone who is ignorant of divine truth–yet that neighbor falls under the commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself. For the Christian, the love of a neighbor outside the redeemed community may well be a means whereby the neighbor is brought in to share the benefits of redemption. Again, Islam has no such concept.
The mockery that Islam throws back at people like Volf should cause all of us Christians to pause and consider that the way forward is not to gain the approval of institutions such as Yale, but to be more faithful in bearing witness to what the Bible actually teaches–especially that there is no substitute for Jesus Christ as both fully God and fully man in one person, and his work for us on the cross. We need witness rather than dialogue.
mortimer says
Response to Kepha: very well and fairly written. However, Volf’s reconciliation theory reminds me of what was said about wolves…
…It matters little if the sheep pass resolutions to be vegetarians when the wolves do not agree.
The prime directive of jihad remains in place until Doom’s Day after the Christians have been slaughtered and the crosses all broken by Jesus. Did Volf actually say ‘same god’?
Mark Swan says
Yep He Did….“we (Christians and Muslims) worship the same God”
Kepha says
mortimer:
I believe very much that Christianity is about reconciliation. But that reconciliation involves admitting I’m not right with God and am a stranger and alien to him who needs his coming near in Christ to be reconciled. I cannot have that reconciliation if I deny the way God chose to bring it about.
As for Islam’s eschatology, a lot of it seems to be a determined effort to imitate and deny Christianity at the same time
Jay Boo says
Ironically those who deny the existence of any god will agree with Miroslav Volf in the sense of saying that Islam and Christianity are no different in their view of God.
gravenimage says
Jay Boo, one can be an Atheist or Agnostic and still understand that the Christian and Muslim views of God could not be more different.
There are, in fact, Agnostics and Atheists here at Jihad Watch with a fine grasp of the differences–including, of course, Hugh Fitzgerald himself.
Mark Swan says
Good Point gravenimage
Yet Jay Boo shows that for some it is just easier to brush it all into one pile.
Fessitude says
Unless one is an Amish psychopath, ultimate reconciliation is irrelevant to the problem in this life of protecting innocent men, women and children – and their society (which includes property & infrastructure) – from evil men. Indeed, I dare say that anyone who muddies this simple moral issue with eschatological obfuscation inflected with sectarian minutiae (no matter how self-righteously sincere (and of course, oh so humble) they believe themselves to be) will have a Hell of a lot to answer for at the Last Day, concerning the innocent men, women and children they abandoned or betrayed to the wolves.
Lynda says
The question whether Christians, Muslims, Jews or anyone worships the same God needs to be answered on two levels. The confusion arises when these distinctions are conflated into one simple answer which does justice to neither.
Philosophically – we worship the same God.
Theologically – we do not worship the same God.
Theology covers the content of Revelation – what God has proposed to us as divine teaching revealing the truth about God and man in relation to God.
Philosophy – is man’s search for God which is the universal understanding through reason what we can say about God. Philosophy can lead to the reasonable conclusion that something like God exists but it can’t tell us anything more than that.
mortimer says
Lynda wrote: “Philosophy – is man’s search for God”
Muslims are told not to study philosophy by the mullahs, so few do. There is no acceptable definition of ‘Islamic philosophy’ so that should explain the problem.
Philosophy examines and then exposes the fallacies of Islam’s legal system. Early on, mullahs saw that philosophy pulls Islam apart with the use of reason, so pretty well all philosophy is condemned by the mullahs. Mullahs tell their followers to avoid philosophy and study Sharia to increase their blind faith in it.
I personally prefer to say ‘philosophy is our search for the good life’. Islam does not seek the good life through philosophy, but seeks deeper brainwashing through memorization.
Fessitude says
The over-drawn distinction between Philosophy and Theology is an artifact of the many intellectual problems that began to crop up during medieval Scholasticism — one feature of which was the need to draw distinctions like Reason/Revelation, Mind/Heart, Philosophy/Theology, etc., leading to further breakdown in the early Modern period whereby a Jesuit philosopher, Descartes, suddenly became vexed by his alienation from the reality of the cosmos (Creation) and had to figure out a way to get himself out of the corner he painted himself into. And the rest is Modern History…
gravenimage says
With all respect, Lynda, I believe that Christianity and Islam are quite different philosophically as well as theologically. The entire conception of God and man and view of the world in these two faiths is very, very different, whatever one’s theological beliefs–if any.
Mark Swan says
Yes
mortimer says
Volf is asking Christians to lie down on the rails in front of the oncoming JIHAD freight train.
No dice, pal.
Wellington says
Volf is typical of intellectuals who ordinarily see too much or too little. Gotta’ get it just right and getting it just right is not a skill asset possessed by a very large percentage of the intellectual type. This is one reason why, while you might want them as advisers to a very sensible leader, you don’t want them as leaders themselves. As JFK put it, he had “rarely met an intellectual with both feet on the ground.” Volf is no exception to this rule.
mortimer says
Understand Wellington’s point. Someone said a scientist learns more and more about less and less.
However, Volf is making a broad, sweeping generalization about Christianity and Islam without … as Fitzgerald pointed out… having a solid understanding of jihad. Perhaps he hasn’t bothered read the Islamic texts…he perhaps read some flattering books ABOUT Islam without immersing himself in the original texts.
Mark Swan says
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools. (Romans 1:22)
garegin says
This argument can be extended to Judaism. Certainly Christ considered the Jews to worship the same God but said that they truly down know Him. There’s no question that Muslims refer to the same God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. They just have wrong ideas about his character.
I’ve heard many Christians say that the Jews don’t worship the same God. It’s stupid.’It’s like saying that a husband and baby have different wife/mother because the baby has a very different perception of the person from the husband.
mortimer says
The Koran has ‘Allah’ rather than ‘Jehovah’ (Tetragrammaton), a name that does not occur one single time in the Koran, but ‘Jehovah’ appears almost 7,000 times in the OT. Did ‘Allah’ forget his eternal name? Or is Allah’s poor memory the sign of human fingerprints all over the Koran?
Jay Boo says
Correct me if I am wrong but I suspect that Jerusalem is another name that does not occur one single time in the Koran yet Muhammad is claimed to have ascended to Paradise from there according to Muslims.
Mark Swan says
Good Point mortimer.
Jay Boo…let’s look-that-up
garegin says
Duh. Of course the writers of the Koran were ignorant about theology and just threw stories together. Tetragrammaton was by that time not pronounced by neither Jews nor Christians, so the Muslims had no idea. Just like the Koran does’t have knowledge of Israelite city names. One doesn’t have to be a believer to correctly refer to the same being. I’m sure Christopher Hitchens knows who the God of Israel is, doesn’t mean he has an intimate γνώσεως θεοῦ.
Jay Boo says
Miroslav Volf is wrong
Mark says
Musllims worship satan, in any case muslims are fully aware that allah is the pagan moon god of the pagan kabbah, they just lie about it as with everything else about islam.
Jay Boo says
garegin
You have likely never heard about:
ISRA
http://www.believersingrace.com/outofegyptpart3.html
Kepha says
@garegin. I can live with your argument. I’ve long considered Paul’s view that the unbelieving Jews of his day (and he himself never saw himself as anything other than a Jew) had “a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge”. I’ve often thought that perhaps this might hold true for Islam and a number of anti-Trinitarian aberrations that continue to call themselves “Christian”.
As for the use of “Allah” for “God”, I understand it is an Arabic cognate to the Hebrew _El_, as in _El-elohe-Yisroel_ (God, the God of Israel) and Aramaic Aloha (as in -Aloha Chaya_, the living God, used in Daniel). The Septuagint and the New Testament use the Greek word _Theos_ for God, even though this term was also used for the silly little things that got portrayed in garishly painted stone. In Chinese, they sometimes use “Shen” (神), which refers to the painted wooden things you can buy in some shops, put on a shelf in your home, and burn incense to; sometimes “Shangdi” (上帝), which, some say, is some sort of impersonal thing out there whom only the emperor could worship once a year (and I’m sure the further Christianization of Sinitic Asia will probably throw up “Sino-Israelites” who’ll insist that this parallel to the Day of Atonement “proves” that the Chinese are the Lost Tribes of Israel). I am satisfied that our English word “God”, the Greek of the Septuagint and New Testament, and the Chinese of other Bible versions I read all pour the content of the Hebrew words into terms used by other tongues and nations–and I am sure that this is what the Holy Spirit would have missionaries and translators do. I am satisfied that there are Arabic-using Christians for whom “Allah” is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who hold that he became flesh in Jesus Christ.
I note as well that Socrates (or Plato using him as a mouthpiece) thought there had to be some sort of single, bigger God than the ones his Athenian contemporaries worshiped. There are hints of a single supreme God in the mythologies of a number of peoples–all of which I am prepared to say may well be a case of how the fact of our living in God’s world rather than one of our own making sometimes has a way of poking through the worst of our idolatries. Sure, we can’t save ourselves by such natural knowledge, but God can surely use it to start us seeking a way out of our lost condition.
This being said, I most emphatically deny that Islam truly understands the God of Abraham, Moses, Jonah, John, and Jesus of whom it claims to speak.
And I wonder what I might hear if I had a chance to press the issue with Dr. Volf in a venue where there were no MSM cameras rolling.
Singh the Sikh says
Here is some food for thought traitor Miroslav Volf:
Saudi court sentenced Lebanese man to 6 years, 300 lashes for trying to convert Saudi girl to Christianity – graphic images:
http://victoriaonwuchekwa.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-saudi-court-in-al-khobar-sentenced.html
Kepha says
Singh, while I would be a bit more emphatic about the truth of the Christian faith to all and sundry, I will not quite call Dr. Volf “traitor”. Whether we Christians have been good at it or not, our sourcebook is full of the reconciliation of sinners to a holy God; that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross purchases for us a divine pardon. There is more joy in heaven over a sinner who repents than over a thousand just persons (if there be so many) who need no repentance.
You do not have to remind us that Islam, when it is in power, is a violent and cruel religion (and my guess is that your religion’s ancestral lands of the Panjab saw more than their share of how violent and cruel Islam can be). I also suspect that when the MSM cameras are not rolling, Dr. Volf understands this, too. He is, after all, at least groping for some understanding of how a “great religion” can be so vicious; and I, for one, pray that he and others like him would find out before it’s too late.
Mark says
How does someone so ignorant they cant even do a google and then check out the validity of the returned websites get to spout such falsehood?
So many genocide enablers.
citycat says
The Holy Spirit that is found in some Catholic gatherings is being spunked by the leaders, who may not be aware of its presence, i surmise.
So the commonalities of the gift of life are excluded from the religious war.
Obviously.
Reading the Qur’an and the Bible make is quite clear that God is an unquestionable tyrant, and a handy tool to control the the followers with what ever flowery philosophy suits the conditions thereabout.
Just because Islaam is based on only Muslims being allowed to live does not give credit to any other religion/tribe.
This comparison of religions is delaying progress in the understanding that the time has come for all religions to be given the grim horror fairy tale label.
Radical change has to happen now, else the game is up for the forthings of all good people. The meek as a lamb good maybe should metamorphose into bloody minded states of truth before bloody war rules Earth ok
citycat says
That should read the gifts of the presence of the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit itself, which is indestructable and uncapturable, and does not bull with the truth, and is with the power of the devotion of the follower.
citycat says
The Holy Spirit is not a commonality.
It’s only in the Catholic religion, not sure of other Christian tribes, a touch in the protestant, milder, not as sharp.
There’s no such thing as interfaith.
The differing spirits of the differing religions do not mix, due to the differing mores, principles, etc etc
Carol says
Actually, City Cat, the Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the Trinity, that Jesus said (in John 14-17) would come after his death and resurrection, and teach us all things. Jesus’s name also means Emanuel, or “God With us”. When we accept Jesus as Savior, the Holy Spirit makes His home with us and we walk in fellowship with Jesus and the Father in one. Your posts sound a little confused between Islam and Christianity and Catholicism, and lump all together. I apologize if that is wrong. To walk in the Holy Spirit, we are to love all mankind, but speak the truth from the bible, and confront falsehoods. You are right that there is no such thing as interfaith as all faiths want to propagate themselves.
Kepha says
@CIty cat: The God of the Bible is less of a tyrant than the Dialectic, Historical Necessity, [uncaring] Cosmos, or personal appetites before which so many moderns and post-moderns bow down in thoughtless and dead worship.
As for the Holy Spirit, he is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Parakletos whom Jesus promised would come to testify of him.
Speaking as a high school social studies teacher, and hence part of a large group of people who are paid to obscure the truth about history and religion to you and too many others, I’d urge you to reconsider the shallow nonsense you seem to be too ready to parrot.
Mark Swan says
The supreme way in which God chose to reveal Himself was through Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Make no mistake about it; Jesus was no ordinary man. He was not simply a “good man” or even a prophet. He was nothing less than Immanuel—God with us! John 1:1–3 gives us the most fundamental explanation of Jesus’ identity. “In the beginning,” John wrote, “was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” John explains that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (v. 14). Though Christ had shared incredible power and glory with the Father from eternity, He voluntarily emptied Himself of that to become our Savior.
Yet from Genesis through Revelation, God reveals that mankind is cut off from Him as a result of sin, and needs redemption and reconciliation. The Role of the Holy Spirit In John 14:16–20, Jesus emphasized that after His departure to be with the Father, the disciples would not simply be abandoned (the Greek term used in verse 18 is orphanous, meaning “orphans”). Rather, through the power of the Holy Spirit (1 John 3:24), Jesus and the Father would dwell inside true Christians (John 14:20, 23). The Holy Spirit imparts both understanding and strength. It flows out from God (15:26), and connects our minds to His. God is Spirit (4:24); the Holy Spirit is not some separate and distinct personality of the Godhead. Rather, the Holy Spirit is the means by which Christ and the Father make their presence felt in the hearts and minds of believers. The Holy Spirit is God’s outflowing power (Luke 1:35). It imparts God’s love as it is “poured out” in the hearts of believers (Romans 5:5). It is the means by which He created and brought into existence the very universe (Psalm 104:30). It is the power by which He works in the minds of human beings made in His image (Genesis 6:3).
The Bible describes the Holy Spirit in various ways. Primarily, the Spirit is compared to wind. After all, pneuma—the Greek word for “spirit”—means “wind” or “breath.” In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word translated “spirit” is ruach, and has the same meaning as the Greek pneuma. Another common analogy is of flowing water ( John 7:38–39). Just as air and water are necessary life-giving forces, so the Holy Spirit is the source of eternal life for Christians (Romans 8:11). Just as air and water both flow, and have power to affect and change what they touch, so also does the Holy Spirit. God offers us His Spirit for a purpose! Through it, we come to share in God’s power, His attitude, His love and His thoughts. God’s Spirit is intended to transform our lives by renewing our minds (Titus 3:5; Romans 12:2). We become a new creation because God is changing us, writing His laws in our hearts and minds (Hebrews 8:10). In the opening chapter of 1 John, the “beloved Apostle” described the importance of our fellowship with God and with one another. Notice what John wrote—that “truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ” (v. 3). The Bible nowhere speaks of our having fellowship with the Holy Spirit in the same way that we have with the Father and with Christ. Rather, the Holy Spirit flows out from the Father and Christ (John 15:26), and is the basis of our connection to God and to one another. It is the means by which Christ lives His life in us (Galatians 2:20).
Evidence from Paul’s Epistles Nearly all of Paul’s epistles contain an opening verse similar to Romans 1:7: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” The books of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Philemon all open with an identical phrase. A slightly modified version opens 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Similar phrases open 2 Peter, 2 John, and Jude. Yet none of the books of the New Testament open with anything even approaching a Trinitarian greeting, linking the Holy Spirit with the Father and Christ as a separate and distinct personality. Paul would never dishonor or neglect the Person of God; we see from his epistles that he did not address the Holy Spirit vital to Christian life, as a person like Jesus Christ or the Father.
We know that the word “trinity” is nowhere mentioned in the Bible? There are, however, a couple of passages of Scripture that are sometimes quoted to lend credence to Trinitarian teaching.
First, note 1 John 5:7: “For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.” On the surface, this verse seems to teach the Trinity quite clearly. However, there is one problem: this verse was never in any of the inspired Greek manuscripts. Bible scholars, almost without exception, admit that this verse originated as a monkish insertion into the Latin text! Thence they have crept into the text. Clearly the early Trinitarian teachers of the Roman Catholic Church were at such a loss to find biblical substantiation for their teaching that they resorted to adding words to the text here!
Advocates of the Trinity often turn to chapters 14 and 15 of John to support
their idea that the Holy Spirit is a person just like the Father and Jesus Christ.
On the night of His final Passover, Jesus told His disciples that He was going to return to the Father, but would send them another Helper. The Greek word translated as “Helper” is paracletos, which usually refers to someone who gives help or support. In the context of John 14 it clearly refers to the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised to send to His disciples after His ascension back to the Father (Acts 1:4–5; John 15:26). Because these verses use the English pronoun “he,” many have assumed that the Holy Spirit should be considered as a “person” of the Godhead. But this is a misunderstanding, brought about by translation from the original Greek. In Greek, nouns are routinely assigned fixed “gender,” which has nothing to do with either physical gender or personhood. For example, the Greek noun for “little girl” is neuter, while the word for “hand” is feminine—whether or not it refers to part of a woman’s body. Greek requires that the pronoun used—he, she or it—always agree with the noun to which it refers. In Greek, the noun pneuma—translated as “spirit”—is neuter, and always takes a neuter pronoun such as “it,” while paracletos is masculine and demands a masculine pronoun. The pronoun used has nothing whatsoever to do with proving personhood!
Jude, writing three decades after the founding of the New Testament Church, exhorted the brethren to earnestly contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). In other words, the true Christian faith had already been delivered, intact, prior to Jude’s writing.
Jude—Jesus’ half-brother as a son of Joseph and Mary—explained that ungodly men had secretly crept into the Church, and were already beginning to distort the true doctrines that Jesus Christ had delivered to His disciples. In fact, they taught a very different explanation of the nature of the true God! Greek philosophical writings, rather than the biblical text, form the background of third century discussions of the “trinity.”
God Is a Family Perhaps the most profound truth about the nature of God, though understood by very few, is that God is a Family! This truth is utterly obscured by the “trinity” teaching. The ultimate destiny of human beings, is that they might be converted or changed by an inward spiritual renewal and ultimately born again into the very Family of God at the resurrection. God is bringing many sons to glory (Hebrews 2:10)! Jesus Christ is described as the firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29). Notice Scripture’s plain revelation about the Godhead. In Genesis 1:1, we read that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The Hebrew word used for God is Elohim—a word that is plural in form though often singular in usage. A little later, in Genesis 1:26, we learn that God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” God’s supreme purpose is to reproduce Himself! Notice what Paul explained in Romans 8:14: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” What is the implication of this? If we are God’s children, we are His heirs; “heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ” (v. 17). Ultimately, God’s children will be “filled with all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:19). God is building a family, and that family takes its name from the Father—it is the Family of God (3:14–15). The real truth of what God is like, and what He is doing, goes far beyond anything that most have ever imagined. God is knowable because He has chosen to reveal Himself. He wants us to come to know Him, and to build a relationship with Him that will lead to us being part of His very family forever!
dumbledoresarmy says
Beware of putting too much weight on grammatical gender.
The Hebrew word RUACH (breath, spirit) is grammatically *feminine*. I am not sure whether it is so in Aramaic (a closely-related language).
I would guarantee that in his discourses Jesus / Yeshua was speaking *Aramaic* NOT Greek, and *thinking* in Aramaic; I am unsure how much Hebrew he would have known and used.
The Hebrew or Aramaic word for spirit is *translated* by the Greek word pneuma which is grammatically neutral. Get it: *translation*. there are a lot of little clues in much of the NT that indicate that most of the authors, except perhaps Luke, are *thinking* in Aramaic or in Hebrew, not in Greek.
But when it was translated into *Latin*… the word spiritus in Latin is grammatically ‘masculine’.
So: do you follow Latin or Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew?
Kepha says
@Mark Swain and Dumbledore’s Army:
There are some who defend the Johannine Comma. Further, the consensus United Bible Societies text of the Greek New Testament is largely based on the codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, which while probably 4th century, and hence the oldest complete codices, were preserved chiefly because they’re all from Egypt, where the climate will allow perishable materials to last. Many later chronologically later texts may well have been from earlier exemplars–and we can’t rule out Arian “correction” of the Egyptian uncials. Keep in mind that a further issue in New Testament textual criticism is that we have more ancient manuscript evidence (that is closer in time to the original compositions as well) than for any other piece of Graeco-Roman era literature.
DDA: Ruach is feminine in Aramaic as well. Further, in the Greek of Luke-Acts, there are certain constructions that suggest that the “Greek” Luke may have originally been an Aramaic-speaking Syrian; or perhaps a poorer student who adapted earlier Semitic sources in a somewhat clumsy manner–a nearly literal translation of the “it came to pass” structure, for instance (v’yehi).
Mark Swan says
Thank You Both for Your Help.
“So: do you follow Latin or Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew?” I will compare all renderings
and let the context guide it’s purpose. Does that make more sense…to say it that way.
Sincerely
Mark Swan
dumbledoresarmy says
Australia’s Rev Dr Mark Durie – who is s parish priest, shepherding an Anglican congregation in a major Australian city, and is also a *formidable* scholar and critic of Islam – challenges Volf politely, charitably, and relentlessly.
Here’s his review of one of Volf’s books.
http://blog.markdurie.com/2011/09/do-we-worship-same-god-review-by-mark.html
gravenimage says
Thanks for that link, DDA.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Where is the counterpart Yale professor to rebut Volk’s falsehoods? He leaves unaccounted facts laying all over the place, covered in a thin veneer of self-serving assumptions. But there is no Yale professor to call out his nonsense, so his statements are seemingly true. This is the opposite of honest scholastics, where the truth is left out as irrelevant to feelings, in particular the misplaced feeling of guilt. This is why places like Yale and Harvard don’t matter anymore. All they have to sell is prestige, and even that’s fake.
citycat says
@ Carol
fine
your experience is your experience
i experience wot i experience
your ideas are your ideas
i don’t really have any in such a regard.
I feel wot i feel- i see wot i see
i don’t believe in God
The Holy Spirit that i talk of is somehow connected with the word “CHRIST”
i know no more on an intellectual level.
I believe that it all is generated by the disciples, and the quality of the “SPIRIT” there present is directly connected to the disciples.
Ok
KrazyKafir says
How typical that this lefty progressive views the trouble between Christianity and Islam as the fault of Christians. In world war II he would have been sitting right beside, Vidkun
Gene says
Christians have “chosen to be enemies” of Islam. I guess that is true, Christians have chosen not to convert to Islam, which means that they are automatically part of the House of War, as defined by Islam.
gravenimage says
True.
Jay Boo says
We have all seen this before.
Peace through Pandering
On Sept-11-2001
Pandering butt kissers across the US and beyond had an epiphany that Muslims were the latest butts in need of their services.
Champ says
Very informative video!
“Even among Islamic scholars there is general agreement that the term ‘Allah’ refers to a pagan deity before Islam came into existence under the leadership of Mohammed. The pre-Islamic Arab culture spoke of 360 gods of which “Allah” was simply just one of them.”
https://youtu.be/jOug-gj4NwQ