Pope's call for interfaith day of prayer provokes debate

[Contarini]

Because you have attempted to use the example of Jews to show that Muslims worship the same God as Christians.

Certainly. But the argument works differently when we are talking about the Trinity than when we are talking about the differences between Jews and Muslims. The problem is that some folks take one position and some take another, most people don’t want to have to think about the question at all!

And others have explained (much better then I) that it doesn’t work.

We were talking about Islam but you keep dragging Jews into it.

To summarize yet again: Jews and Muslims have essentially the same concept of God. Any differences between them are trivial compared to the differences between both religions and Christianity. Jews are highly relevant to any discussion of whether Muslims worship the true God–when it comes to a doctrine of God, what applies to one applies to the other. Perhaps you or ddarko can come up with some good examples of radical differences between Jewish and Islamic doctrines of God, or of major Jewish theologians who say that Muslims don’t worship the true God. But in the absence of such evidence, I don’t find your position convincing.

No, I don’t. Totally different, unrelated scenario. Pre-incarnation philosophers musings about God are not the same as false prophets that prevert the gospels into an anti-christ religion that leaves people in bondage and drags souls to hell.

Pre-incarnation paganism didn’t leave people in bondage? The Fathers thought that it did.

One problem with this discussion is that people confuse praiseworthiness or spiritual value with the linguistic question of whether what Platonists or Muslims mean by “God” is what we mean by God.

Scripture and Tradition are pretty clear that pre-Christians are judged differently than those who knowingly reject Christ. That’s not relevant to the question of what is meant by the word “God.” One could admit that Muslims are speaking of the true God when they say “Allah,” but that every last one of them is bound for hell because they worship God wrongly. I don’t believe the second part of that statement, but that’s not the point under discussion here.

Similarly, one could say (as I would) that many Buddhists may be accepted by God even though they do not explicitly worship the true God.

One could even say that Buddhism has more spiritual value than Islam. Buddhism arose in a non-Christian environment and contains remarkable truth and goodness. Islam is largely a plagiarism from Judaism and Christianity. And while I’m not sure I’d subscribe 100% to the statement of the Byzantine emperor that got the Pope in trouble (that everything new about Islam is evil), I don’t think that statement was entirely outrageous.

But none of that is relevant to the question I’m arguing.

I’m not saying “if it’s possible that Plato went to heaven then it’s possible that Muhammad did.” I don’t profess any knowledge as to the final fate of either of them, but I could certainly see how Plato or Buddha or Confucius might be more likely to be accepted by God than someone who explicitly knew about Christianity and rejected it. But that’s completely irrelevant to the question of which of them, if any, knew and spoke of the true God.

The Fathers had much to say about heresy also, no?

Absolutely. But as far as I know they did not suggest that Arius (for instance) was talking about some being other than the one true God. Again, they could make very harsh judgments on the spiritual state of heretics such as Arius (or later Muhammad) without thinking that this reflected the linguistic question of what the word “God” was pointing at when used by these heretics.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

So, in conclusion…it is more warm and fuzzy, tolerant and politically correct to say that Muslims and Jews worship the same God as Christians as to say they both don’t worship the same God and rock the boat?

No. That has nothing to do with what I am saying.

Are you now saying that neither Muslims nor Jews worship the true God?

Then we have to have a different conversation.

I am opposing you not because what you are saying is not “warm and fuzzy,” but because I think it is wrong. Please let’s keep the conversation on truth instead of this silliness about who is or isn’t warm or fuzzy.

I believe that Muslims and Jews and other monotheists worship the same God, because this is consistent with the witness of the early Church. This is a question of orthodoxy, not a question of fuzziness.

The question of whether non-Christians may go to heaven is a question of God’s goodness and the virtue of charity (which you may see as warm fuzziness). But that’s a completely separate question!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Canon XXXIII. No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics.

For what it’s worth, I agree that this canon rules out prayer with non-Christians a fortiori.

Now whether modern RCs are bound by the provisions of this canon–well, that I’ll leave between you and them. If I were RC, I would happily follow the Pope’s lead on a matter of discipline such as this.

We Anglicans have bigger things to worry about

Edwin

 

[ddarko]

Even though they reject Christianity explicitly, on pretty much the same grounds as Muslims?

Actually that is incorrect. You see, you are already starting with the wrong plumb line of judging true and false. We reject Islam simply because it is FALSE. It undermines true teachings of Christianity and Judaism.

Now Judaism complains about Christianity. YES. BUT, the Jewish view of God is compatible with Christianity. 100% actually because it is the same God.

So this is how the plumb line is built (or epistemology if you will). We accept Christianity on faith. Thus, we automatically accept Judaism because Christianity is merely the fulfillment of Judaism. So the God revealed to the Jews is also 100% true God. Now that is all we have as our plumb line. Judaism + Christianity. That is what we used to judge other religions.

Now Islam does contradict Judaism. Apart from the fact that certain teachings are Anti-Semitic, what about the very fact that Muhammed is a prophet of God? That alone should start raising alarm bells.

The Old Testament God and Christ himself was very clear about False prophets, no? I don’t recall him saying accept them anyways because they have a lot of truth in common and so they speak of the true God too. So I think we can reject Islam on one thing alone. It is the teachings of a false prophet.

So if you grant that Jews believe in the true God in spite of not believing in the Trinity, I don’t see how you can reasonably maintain that Muslims believe in a false god …ur’an as saying that God is made of metal), Muslims worship the God of Judaism and Christianity, although they add some muddled ideas and some pagan practices to the mix.

Ok so now you seem to think that Trinitarian view was the ONLY important difference between us. Now I think I might even be able to show why Islam is false even in this sense.

So my argument to you is as follows. In the Old Testament or Jewish books, there is IN-FACT indications of the new Testament. I am sure you know this. Now there is even the idea that the Holy Trinity does also make some appearances in the OT.
(You can read about it here in the section titled “Old Testament” newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#II)

But the point I want to make is the following. We can understand Christianity more clearly if we look at the Old testament and Jews can understand their own religion more clearly through Christianity. They are complementary. If they did that, the trinity would make the most sense and their own religion will be so much more meaningful. Now the fact that Jews don’t do that is a different story. The fact however remains that they can.

BUT, when it comes to Islam you actually have nothing. You have something that is just a collection of random stuff done with earthly priorities. You can’t add anything to your knowledge of Christianity from Islam as much as you can’t add anything to Judaism. More over it is false. Muhammed was NEVER a prophet. That alone is a lie. So how are we suppossed to even take a second look at a book that was written by a poser?

So the problem with Islam is not really based on the Trinitarian view (though that is certainly included). It is based simply on the fact that it is FALSE. The fact that it was written by a prophet of God and contains contradictory truths to Judaism + Christianity is the reason we reject it.

The Jewish and Islamic concepts of God have much more in common with each other than either one has with Christianity (if you say otherwise, then you are trivializing the Trinity!). Muslims and Jews contradict the Christian conception of God in the same ways, and the differences between Judaism and Islam do not for the most part concern the doctrine of God. Therefore, if (as you grant) Jews worship the true God, then Muslims do as well. (That’s before we even get into the patristic witness about pagan philosophy.)

Again, this is not about having things in common. Your plumb-line is a very relativistic one and I don’t think it has any biblical grounds. Where do you draw the line? How many similarities do we need for it to be acceptable? This is why I initially said even Budhism might be relevant. Maybe it has more similarities than Islam apart from the Monotheism. From a biblical perspective, why was there EVER any concern of false prophets? After-all, the truth they reveal is also from a monotheistic God. You see the problem?

So my case is that your proposed plumb-line of judging true and false God’s is infeasible and I would even argue as being unbiblical. It seems very relativistic and quiet honestly any religion could be about the one true God in that sense and false prophets also represent the one true God.

What I think is the right way is to start with Christianity + Judaism as true. Then if anything contradicts, it is simply a false God. We are free to accept that they have elementary truths. But even those truths are judged as true by first assuming what we believe is true. Thing to keep in mind is that even false prophets have an element of truth in them. Deceit works best when its couples with a truth. But do they speak of the True God though… NO.

God Bless

 

[Harpazo]

For what it’s worth, I agree that this canon rules out prayer with non-Christians a fortiori.

Now whether modern RCs are bound by the provisions of this canon–well, that I’ll leave between you and them. If I were RC, I would happily follow the Pope’s lead on a matter of discipline such as this.

We Anglicans have bigger things to worry about

Edwin

I know it’s still on the books for us Orthodox because of the strong condemnation you see when an Orthodox priest or bishop will attend prayer services at RC churches. One priest (or bishop? I don’t remember which) in Romania tried to concelebrate with a RC priest and he was defrocked. My own Church, the Bulgarian Church–along with other Orthodox Churches–refuses to partake in any so-called ecumenical gatherings with churches or religions outside of herself. I agree with this because we do not believe in a syncretism of any sort. If RCs and Protestants want to, fine. I, nor anyone in my Church wants a part in it.

I highly doubt modern RCs even heard of this canon, considering many of them see themselves as a part of the same church as the Protestants (although many of them would not share sacraments). When I was watching some of the March for Life coverage on EWTN last week to see my friends from Ave Maria University, two of the commentators (a husband and wife duo) were going on and on about how RCs and Protestants are the Church.

That’s fine if they want to say that, but it always puzzles me when the RCs get so offended when the Orthodox do not return the favor. It’s hard to change the ways of someone who has been practicing them pretty consistently for centuries. When I was a freshman in high school many years ago, I made the mistake of changing for someone. I cut my hair for a girl so she’d go to the dance with me. Big mistake. She ended up ditching me at the dance. You could say that my Church sees things with the Latins in the same light. Why expect us to change our views now?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[ddarko]

I highly doubt modern RCs even heard of this canon, considering many of them see themselves as a part of the same church as the Protestants (although many of them would not share sacraments). When I was watching some of the March for Life coverage on EWTN last week to see my friends from Ave Maria University, two of the commentators (a husband and wife duo) were going on and on about how RCs and Protestants are the Church.

That’s fine if they want to say that, but it always puzzles me when the RCs get so offended when the Orthodox do not return the favor. It’s hard to change the ways of someone who has been practicing them pretty consistently for centuries. When I was a freshman in high school many years ago, I made the mistake of changing for someone. I cut my hair for a girl so she’d go to the dance with me. Big mistake. She ended up ditching me at the dance. You could say that my Church sees things with the Latins in the same light. Why expect us to change our views now?

lol that is indeed funny way to learn a lesson.

About the RC and protestants, sadly enough, in the West this is a big problem. I think this is because people take the stance that we look at whats in common and because we have so much in common, we must be the same.

Another thing is that you have to understand how publicity works. It’s rare that Orthodox get together in a country to celebrate a march for life with other religions. After-all, most Orthodox countries today are pre-dominantly Orthodox anyways (apart from atheist or obviously different religions like Islam of course). So in that sense you hardly see such public situations that might lead to erroneous pronunciations on Faith. On the other hand, I my-self have talked to Orthodox followers personally and had them take absurd positions that are contrary to their own Orthodox faith just like the RC couple on protestants.

So I think its not that the Orthodox church doesn’t have people who say these kind of things. Its just that there aren’t situations you would say something like this. So even in the West, Roman Catholics who are informed of their faith would do no such thing

Just thought you should know that its not something only affecting Roman Catholics

God Bless

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t really think it’s a question of whether or not the RC church sees itself as being bound by the canons of Laodicea, as this proposed interfaith day of prayer shows where the RC leadership is, in terms of fidelity to early church tradition, regardless of what they may say. As I’ve written before in another thread long ago, nothing that Rome does is in its own view the least bit unorthodox, so we get nowhere trying to consider the Roman Communion on its own self-professed merits (this is true of all communions, of course). You need only look at the canons yourself (available here, if you’re interested), and measure against them the behaviors of the various communions. It seems pretty clear who sees themselves as bound by them and who doesn’t.

One of the things a Coptic acquaintance once wrote to me a few months ago in encouragement is ringing in my ears right now: “good luck with finding your faith. make the bible your judge and you will reach orthodoxism” (give him a break with the grammar, he’s Egyptian! ). Since I don’t think the canons of a universally accepted pre-Chalcedonian council would contradict the scriptures (and reading over the canons myself at the link given, I don’t see any evidence to suggest this one did), I’d say that applies to the canons as well. There is a famous quote used in Catholic apologetics that goes something like “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” – I agree and would extend it further to say that to be even deeper in history is to uphold all the councils of the unified, non-Nestorian churches!

 

[ddarko]

I don’t really think it’s a question of whether or not the RC church see itself as being bound by the canons of Laodicea, as this proposed interfaith day of prayer shows where the RC leadership is, in terms of fidelity to early church tradition, regardless of what they may say. As I’ve written before in another thread long ago, nothing that Rome does is in its own view the least bit unorthodox, so we get nowhere trying to consider the Roman Communion on its own self-professed merits (this is true of all communions, of course). You need only look at the canons yourself (available here, if you’re interested), and measure against them the behaviors of the various communions. It seems pretty clear who sees themselves as bound by them and who doesn’t.

I would like to point out that if the Pope tomorrow decides to have a gay parade in st. Peters square, it does nothing to undermine the Roman Catholic Church.

No matter how stained the seat of Peter might be, it is still infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in its teachings. And that is all we need.

Keep in mind that Peter was a sinner. He denied Christ three times. BUT, it did not undermine his position. Judas, was an apostle, did the worst thing ever. Betrayed Christ. YET, it does not undermine everyone who is an apostle of Christ and Apostolic succession.

Now while I understand that it might be disheartening for you to see such things as what is happening today, that really should not be what leads you TO or AWAY from the Roman Catholic Church.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

One of the things a Coptic acquaintance once wrote to me a few months ago in encouragement is ringing in my ears right now: “good luck with finding your faith. make the bible your judge and you will reach orthodoxism” (give him a break with the grammar, he’s Egyptian! ). Since I don’t think the canons of a universally accepted pre-Chalcedonian council would contradict the scriptures (and reading over the canons myself at the link given, I don’t see any evidence to suggest this one did), I’d say that applies to the canons as well. There is a famous quote used in Catholic apologetics that goes something like “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” – I agree and would extend it further to say that to be even deeper in history is to uphold all the councils of the unified, non-Nestorian churches!

I know that this is not the thread to discuss such a full blow issue but I couldn’t help but wonder though at your statement “good luck with finding your faith. make the bible your judge and you will reach orthodoxism”…

Are you aware of the teachings of the Coptic and Orthodox church’s on birth control? Do you think it ‘orthodox’ and as the traditional view held since the early church?

God Bless

 

[dzheremi]

I would like to point out that if the Pope tomorrow decides to have a gay parade in st. Peters square, it does nothing to undermine the Roman Catholic Church.

Um…how do you figure, exactly?

No matter how stained the seat of Peter might be, it is still infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in its teachings. And that is all we need.

Remember the words of Jesus Christ to the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to His baptism in the Gospel of Matthew? “bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” You can’t rely on your supposed inheritance as an insulation from evil (especially evil that YOU yourself do, to tie this in with your previous statement!). Produce good fruit or be cut down. It was a Catholic priest, my former father of confession, who warned me against the heresies against the Holy Spirit that most infect modern man: The belief that everything is God (ahem…) , and the belief that nothing is God. If you are so convinced that you may not be stripped of the Lord’s favor regardless of what you do, I would suggest you refresh your memory about what God allowed to befall the Jews by His own hand, using the rod of His anger, the Assyrians. God does not mess around. I am in no way saying that the Catholic Church is in for anything bad (I’m no prophet), but I very much question this idea that the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church from error is some sort of “get out of heresy for free” card as you are presenting it to be. The Holy Spirit likewise guided the writers of the Bible, but they still had to do their part and put pen to papyri!

Keep in mind that Peter was a sinner. He denied Christ three times. BUT, it did not undermine his position. Judas, was an apostle, did the worst thing ever. Betrayed Christ. YET, it does not undermine everyone who is an apostle of Christ and Apostolic succession.

Of course, of course. Peter was a sinner, as was Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul…everyone who has ever lived, down to you and me and the Pope and the mailman and the paperboy (and then me some more ). If sin could undermine us to the point that God would not fulfill His purpose for us, then Jesus Christ didn’t do a very good job being the Messiah and trampling death by death. But we know this isn’t the case. Christ was perfect, and no amount of our sinfulness can destroy His victory and keep us from God. What are you getting at?

Now while I understand that it might be disheartening for you to see such things as what is happening today, that really should not be what leads you TO or AWAY from the Roman Catholic Church.

What led me to the Roman Catholic Church was a particular understanding of it (combined with cultural/familial/societal influences). What led me away from it was a particular understanding of it (the still-evolving result of reading primary sources such as the canons linked earlier, talking to Orthodox laypersons and clergy, praying more than I have ever prayed about anything else ever, doubting it all, praying some more, praying the liturgy of St. Basil, reading the Psalms, the Philokalia, the Agbeya, etc).

 

[ddarko]

Um…how do you figure, exactly?

Remember the words of Jesus Christ to the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to His baptism in the Gospel of Matthew? “bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” You can’t rely on your supposed inheritance as an insulation from evil (especially evil that YOU yourself do, to tie this in with your previous statement!). Produce good fruit or be cut down. It was a Catholic priest, my former father of confession, who warned me against the heresies against the Holy Spirit that most infect modern man: The belief that everything is God (ahem…) , and the belief that nothing is God. If you are so convinced that you may not be stripped of the Lord’s favor regardless of what you do, I would suggest you refresh your memory about what God allowed to befall the Jews by His own hand, using the rod of His anger, the Assyrians. God does not mess around. I am in no way saying that the Catholic Church is in for anything bad (I’m no prophet), but I very much question this idea that the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church from error is some sort of “get out of heresy for free” card as you are presenting it to be. The Holy Spirit likewise guided the writers of the Bible, but they still had to do their part and put pen to papyri!

Of course, of course. Peter was a sinner, as was Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul…everyone who has ever lived, down to you and me and the Pope and the mailman and the paperboy (and then me some more ). If sin could undermine us to the point that God would not fulfill His purpose for us, then Jesus Christ didn’t do a very good job being the Messiah and trampling death by death. But we know this isn’t the case. Christ was perfect, and no amount of our sinfulness can destroy His victory and keep us from God. What are you getting at?

What led me to the Roman Catholic Church was a particular understanding of it (combined with cultural/familial/societal influences). What led me away from it was a particular understanding of it (the still-evolving result of reading primary sources such as the canons linked earlier, talking to Orthodox laypersons and clergy, praying more than I have ever prayed about anything else ever, doubting it all, praying some more, praying the liturgy of St. Basil, reading the Psalms, the Philokalia, the Agbeya, etc).

Hi there,

I unfortunately can’t continue this discussion with you as much I’d like to on this thread. It would be a divergence from what is being discussed here right. Would you be interested in continuing this via PM?

Thanks,
God Bless

 

[dzheremi]

Wisely requested. Obviously I’m a wordy egoist who can go on for days and sometimes if nobody stops me I’ll run off to la-la land and take a whole thread with me. Sorry everybody, and thanks for the good advice, ddarko!

 

[tomarin]

That’s fine if they want to say that, but it always puzzles me when the RCs get so offended when the Orthodox do not return the favor. It’s hard to change the ways of someone who has been practicing them pretty consistently for centuries.

I can see why it’s attractive to say “to Hades with everyone else” and pretend they don’t exist but I’m glad my church doesn’t do that anymore. I think it’s a sign of a certain maturity to care about other Christians. If we had adopted that attitude centuries ago there might not be so much division in the Christian world.

 

[Mickey]

I can see why it’s attractive to say “to Hades with everyone else”

Who says that?

and pretend they don’t exist

Who does that?

but I’m glad my church doesn’t do that anymore.

In relation to what Harpazo was saying, does your Church believe that the protestants are the true Church?

I think it’s a sign of a certain maturity to care about other Christians.

It is a sign of true Christian love to care about **all mankind. **

If we had adopted that attitude centuries ago there might not be so much division in the Christian world.

Wanna bet?

 

[tomarin]

Who says that?
Who does that?

You must be shocked, shocked to find that the Orthodox here are perceived as haughty, smug and self-satisfied, which Harpazo’s post was in spades. Well you can’t have it both ways, Mickey. You can’t pour withering scorn on all the claims of Catholicism in all of your posts and then pretend to be all lovey-dovey with respect to non-Orthodox.

In relation to what Harpazo was saying, does your Church believe that the protestants are the true Church?

You know as well as I do what the Catholic Church says about that. You used to be Catholic for goodness sake. Please stop with the rhetorical questions – it’s tiresome.

It is a sign of true Christian love to care about **all mankind. **

Do you think you do acquit yourself well on that count?

Wanna bet?

What’s that supposed to mean?

 

[Mickey]

You must be shocked, shocked to find that the Orthodox here are perceived as haughty, smug and self-satisfied, which Harpazo’s post was in spades.

This response comes off as being smug and haughty.

You can’t pour withering scorn on all the claims of Catholicism in all of your posts and then pretend to be all lovey-dovey with respect to non-Orthodox.

Huh?

You know as well as I do what the Catholic Church says about that.

So you do not want to answer?

Do you think you do acquit yourself well on that count?

May God be the judge. I am the worst of all sinners and I try to improve each day.

What’s that supposed to mean?

Think about it.

 

[tomarin]

This response comes off as being smug and haughty.
Huh?
So you do not want to answer?
May God be the judge. I am the worst of all sinners and I try to improve each day.
Think about it.

Let’s start over. I regret losing my cool. I would have deleted my earlier response but I returned to the site too late. My apologies.

I honestly don’t know where you’re going with the two points you raise. If you want to clarify what you’re getting at, feel free to, otherwise I’ll bow out of this discussion.

Added: I really do think that of the three branches of Christianity the Orthodox, for whatever reason, are the least inclined to reach out to the other two. That may be a virtue or not but I don’t think I’m just imagining it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What I find concerning to me is how Orthodox Christians constantly berate Catholics as part of the problem and seem to take an almost pleasure in the “you Catholics and Protestants are two sides of the same mistaken theological coin” agenda.

This isn’t a thread about how the Catholic Church is screwed-up or schismatic, it’s a thread about the pope making a definite mistake pastorally in calling for this interfaith prayer day. I’m the first to criticize and lament his decision to do this BUT I’m concerned when my Orthodox brethren (most of whom I REALLY REALLY like) come in and start the Catholic-bashathon. I personally have some serious disagreements with Orthodox views on the Atonement. I find them exceptionally troubling and flat out wrong. But that has nothing to do with this debate. We need to just stick to the issue at hand—praying with non-Christians is, as my dad would put it, bad joo-joo!

 

[Contarini]

Actually that is incorrect.

It’s incorrect that Jews reject Christianity and give much the same reasons as Muslims? If you seriously doubt this, I can give you examples–but I want to be sure that that’s really what you are denying!

You see, you are already starting with the wrong plumb line of judging true and false. We reject Islam simply because it is FALSE. It undermines true teachings of Christianity and Judaism.

Now Judaism complains about Christianity.

They don’t just complain about it. They reject it.

YES. BUT, the Jewish view of God is compatible with Christianity. 100% actually because it is the same God.

Denial of the Trinity is compatible with belief in the Trinity?

And you call *me *a relativist!

The Jewish view of God is clearly not compatible with Christianity. Ask any Jew. And yet we still say that they worship the true God. To then say that Muslims don’t worship the true God is to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Now Islam does contradict Judaism. Apart from the fact that certain teachings are Anti-Semitic,

There are nasty statements about the Jews, sure. How is that relevant *to the doctrine of God. *(And what about the anti-Jewish elements in Christianity?)

what about the very fact that Muhammed is a prophet of God? That alone should start raising alarm bells.

And how about the fact that we believe Jesus to be God Incarnate? For Jews that raises a lot more bells. Again, you can’t find a difference between Islam and Christianity that isn’t matched by a greater difference between Christianity and Judaism.

Traditionally, Jews believe that Jesus is a false prophet. Muslims believe that He was a true prophet. So where does that leave us?

The Old Testament God and Christ himself was very clear about False prophets, no? I don’t recall him saying accept them anyways because they have a lot of truth in common

I’m not sure what you mean by “accept” or why you saw fit to use that word. I am not suggesting that we should accept Muhammad as a prophet!

and so they speak of the true God too.

Indeed. Speaking of the true God does not mean that your message should be accepted. But conversely, rejecting the claims of Islam does not mean saying that they aren’t speaking of the true God.

So I think we can reject Islam on one thing alone. It is the teachings of a false prophet.

Whether we should reject the claims of Islam is not a point on which you and I disagree. So why are you bringing it up?

Ok so now you seem to think that Trinitarian view was the ONLY important difference between us.

No, but it’s the most important difference.

 

[Contarini]

So my argument to you is as follows. In the Old Testament or Jewish books, there is IN-FACT indications of the new Testament. I am sure you know this. Now there is even the idea that the Holy Trinity does also make some appearances in the OT.

Implicitly and allegorically, sure. Not in any sense that is likely to have been understood by the original human authors or pre-Christian Jews generally,. And of course post-Christian Jews reject these interpretations categorically. Muslims are in this respect closer to Christianity than Jews–they speak of Jesus as the “Word” and the “Messiah,” they believe in the Virgin Birth, etc. I don’t think that this is particularly relevant to the doctrine of God, mind you–but neither are the points you raised above about Muhammad being a false prophet, etc. When it comes to the doctrine of God, Muslims and Jews essentially agree over against Christianity. You have so far failed to give me even one counterexample.

But the point I want to make is the following. We can understand Christianity more clearly if we look at the Old testament and Jews can understand their own religion more clearly through Christianity. They are complementary. If they did that, the trinity would make the most sense and their own religion will be so much more meaningful.

But that’s not what post-Christian Jews think. And it’s more or less what Muslims claim about our religion. They claim to be the completion of Christianity and Judaism, just as we think we are the completion of Judaism. Jews reject both claims, just as we reject the Islamic claim.

You’re right in saying that obviously we as Christians have a very different relationship to Judaism than to Islam. We can’t deny the validity of Judaism, while we can quite easily deny the validity of Muhammad’s prophetic claims. However, that’s the reason I keep bringing in the Jews into this conversation. Because we can’t deny the validity of Judaism, we can’t deny the validity of those aspects of Islam which agree with Judaism. On the doctrine of God, Muslims and Jews agree. Therefore, we must recognize both of them as worshiping the true God, although we believe that we have been given further revelation about the nature of God, which post-Christian Jews and Muslims both reject.

So the problem with Islam is not really based on the Trinitarian view (though that is certainly included). It is based simply on the fact that it is FALSE. The fact that it was written by a prophet of God and contains contradictory truths to Judaism + Christianity is the reason we reject it.

But you have yet to point to a single contradiction between Islam and Judaism with regard to the doctrine of God, which is the point at issue. Of course we reject the Islamic garbling of the Old Testament narrative. Of course we don’t accept Muhammad’s prophetic authority. But until you can give me a significant difference between Islam and Judaism with regard to the doctrine of God, you have no case.

Your plumb-line is a very relativistic one

How on earth is it relativistic?

You are the one saying that a doctrine of God that rejects the Trinity is 100% compatible with one that accepts the Trinity.

You are the one saying that Jews worship the true God and Muslims don’t even though they believe the same things about God, and you are saying this based solely (it appears) on the relative positions of the two religions with regard to Christianity.

So if anything, you are the relativist.

But the word “relativist” is overused. People throw it at anyone they perceive as too “liberal” or too nice to other religions. I have no investment in proving you to be a relativist–but I am certainly not making a relativist argument here.

Where do you draw the line? How many similarities do we need for it to be acceptable?

Acceptable as what? All I’m saying is that when Muslims speak of “Allah,” we should recognize that they are speaking of the one true God, and we should dispute with them “in the fairer manner” concerning their refusal to acknowledge Christian revelation about this one God.

This is why I initially said even Budhism might be relevant. Maybe it has more similarities than Islam apart from the Monotheism.

Quite possibly. But monotheism is the relevant point in this particular case. You keep jumping from this specific issue to the general “acceptability” of a religion, which is not the point in dispute.

From a biblical perspective, why was there EVER any concern of false prophets? After-all, the truth they reveal is also from a monotheistic God.

No, the false prophets described in the Bible were generally calling God’s people away from the one God to idols.

Furthermore, you are once again leaping from the question of whether someone speaks of the true God to whether their message is acceptable. These are separate things.

It is possible to say false things in the name of the true God.

Edwin