If the question was simply “Was Jesus the Messiah?” it would be simple. However, Christians (again, except the Unitarians) have deified Jesus and made him into a divine being as part of God. That goes far beyond being simply the messiah.
Zev Steinhardt
Monotheism. If all the religions are right on their basic premise - that there is one God - doesn’t it have to be the same one?
Shodan, upon further review, I see you slipped that one in already. Oh well, submit.
**
Not necessarily. One could (theoretically) be a monotheist and believe in an idol, for example. That’s hardly the same Diety that Jews and Muslims believe in.
Zev Steinhardt
You didn’t say modern, Rabbinical Judaism. You just said Judaism.
The Essenes were Jews.
**
I never expressed doubt that they have done so. And the Essenes may have been more similar to Gnostics and Christians than to modern Jews, but they were still Jews.
**
What’s your point. I stated that the flesh/spirit dichotomy present in Gnosticism was shared by the Pistics. The Pistics were the sect of Christianity that eventually became the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Both sprung up around the same time.
Now then, your way out of this hole is to clarify whether you meant that Gnostic Christianity had an influence on present Christianity or that Greek Gnosticism had an effect on Christianity in general. Only the second is really accurate.
That goes for pretty much the rest of your post:
**
I disagree. Gnostic Christianity, IMO, was much more enlightened by today’s standards than Pistic Christianity. It was less sexist, less encouraging of martyrs, more book knowledge oriented.
We’re all floundering here because of our misconceptions about what “same god” means.
First of all, does it make any sense to ask if they’re praying to the “same god” if, for instance, there were no gods? What would the statement “we pray to god X” refer to if “god X” doesn’t actually exist? Surely we mean to discuss this in a way that allows for that possibility, and so we don’t really mean “same god” the way we might mean “same person” when discussing the discovery that we had a mutual friend.
I think what we mean when we talk about the “same god” is what we mean when we say figuratively about a person who has changed that “he seems like a different person.” If I knew person X when he was young and rowdy, and you knew person X when he was middle-aged, forlorn and regretful, you might say “are we talking about the same person” but you would not mean it in terms of actual identity. What we’re talking about would be the person as defined by his characteristics, rather than by identity-over-time. With the person we have the luxury of knowing he exists and can make the identity-over-time observations and even test his DNA to establish he’s the “same person”, but with “god” we don’t know that (at least not in the same way) so we have to identify “god” by attributes instead of by singluar identity.
If we identify a “god” by its attributes, then the Christian god and the god of Islam are certainly different gods. They have completely different natures, have done different things (which also reveals character differences), they request different things of their followers. If a god’s identity is established by the set of its character traits, that god is his attributes, such that god X = {X1, X2, X3, X4,…} and god Z = {Z1, Z2, Z3, Z4, …}, then X = Z if and only if all the elements of the sets are identical. They are clearly not identical between the god described by Christians and that described by Islam, so they are not the same god.
There are a couple senses in which you could argue they are. The religious heredity argument that seems to be predominating the discussion is one of these, both religions sprang from a common earlier religion. Really, this only means that as a consequence both have given their god the same “name”, the same initial referent statement identifying him as the god who appeared to Moses at a certain time under certain circumstances.
In a tantalizingly logical sense, there is a way in which all monotheistic religions honor the same god. Since the primary principle of monotheism is that there is one and only one god that actually exists, then any two people both affirming a belief in monotheism are talking about an entity that shares at least one important characteristic, that of being the only god. If there really were a god, and so the statement had an actual referent, then they would have to be identifying the same thing at least in the sense that identity is based entirely on such a fundamental attribute. By analogy, I’m “me” because everyone else isn’t. So god is “god” because nothing else is. In this sense, they would be naming identical entities, but of all the monotheist traditions in the world and all that might be hypothetically posited, all but one of them would of necessity be monstrously ill-informed about the actual attributes of that entity.
> I’d like to see the cite on this one.
No cite. It was a newspaper I picked up in a train. Wouldn’t do you much good either – since it was in Danish, and anyway it was just the view of that person without clarification or argumentation. But perhaps it shows that there is wiggle room for another point of view?
> It does in a historical context.
Might as well have said it does in a geographical context, or a culinary context, since none of these contexts (contexes? Argh. What is the plural?) are adequate to address the question.
Well, now I have clarified the point.
So were early Christians. This is simply an argument based on definitions, not substance.
Modern Jews, which I have now clarified is what I mean, have nothing in common with Essenes. Christians and Gnostics do.
I don’t see that I am in any hole, since you are the one who has broght up this distinction - and then answered your own question.
The traits that Gnostic Christianity and Christianity share, which spring from Gnosticism, are:
Much of what is unpleasant about Chistianity derives from this legacy - in particular, the exaultation of asceticism; the promotion of celebacy as a positive good; the denigration of sexuality; and, not least, the (biologically absurd) idea that women are inherently more “of the flesh” than men, less “spiritual”, and thus more tied to Satan/the demiurge.
The contrast is not between “Christian Gnosticism” and “Christianity”, but between “Christianity without the Gnostic influence” and “Christianity with the Gnostic influence”. What Christianity would have been like without Gnosticism cannot be now determined - but there is no question that much of what is by today’s standards repellant about Christianity is a legacy of Gnostic influence - which both strains of Christianity share.
Nope. The your claims regarding saints, Mary, and Satan are all inaccurate regarding the actual teachings of various Christian sects. You’re pretty much stuck with saying that the Trinity takes the Christian God outside Jewish belief and the use of images is contrary to Jewish (or Divine) Law, but the extra stuff you’ve thrown in has no bearing on this discussion.
Certainly, with the Trinity, Christians have, as Zev noted, moved to a place that is utterly estranged from Jewish belief or understanding. Bringing in the other stuff, however, has no bearing on the nature of God.
On the other hand, I have never encountered a Jewish writer who claimed that Christians worshipped a different God than Jews–we just got all the details wrong. (There may have been some such scholars, but I have not encountered them.) After all, in Jewish belief, there is only one God, so we couldn’t actually be worshipping a different God who cannot exist.
I do not think that it is “just plain wrong,” however, the traditional scholars of each of those faiths over the years have not claimed that the others were worshipping different gods, and have appealed to many of the same texts in the Tanakh/Old Testament to identify the God to whom they referred.
I think you can argue that each group worships a “different” God; I just think you’d be wrong.
Seems like the burdon of proof should be on the newcomer. Christianity came after Judaism, so Christians should prove to Jews that they worhsip the same God, and Jews are free to accept or reject this. Same goes for Muslims wrt Chrsitians and Jews.
I’ll admit that it’s somewhat different for Muslims since early Chrsitianity really was just a sect of Judaism founded by people who were, mostly, born Jewish. Islam was formed by someone who was netiher Jewish nor Christian. But the same principal should apply.
Not sure if there’s a single recognized leader of Judaism (or even just one of it’s 3 main branches) but Catholics at least among Christians have a clearly defined leader. While I do not actually recall the pope saying that Muslims worship the same God, he has certainly implied it. So I would say that for Catholics, anyway, Muslims worship the same God.
Are you saying that I, as a Christian, require the blessing of Jewish authorities before I can believe what I believe? That I have an obligation to “prove” to Zev et al that the God I worship is the same one he does? Sorry, I don’t see that.
The tenets of Christianity are either valid or they’re not. We ALREADY know that Jews think they’re not (otherwise, presumably, they’d be Christians!). Luckily, however, Jews don’t get a veto over Christian doctrine.
Personally, I think Zev is waaaay out of line in calling Christianity a polytheistic religion… but I WOULD say that, wouldn’t I? To re-use an analogy I’ve offered before, the Mormons insist, sincerely, that they’re Christians, but most Christian sects think they’re something else entirely.
So, the Mormon says, “I’m a Christian,” and the Catholic says, “I don’t know what the heck you are, but you’re not a Christian. You’ve warped Christianity into something I don’t recognize.”
Meanwhile, the Catholic says, “I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” And the Jew replies, “I don’t know WHAT you’re worshipping, but it sure isn’t the God I know. You’ve warped our teachings into something wholly other.”
On some level, the Mormon might LIKE other Christian sects to confirm their basic Christian-ness, and a Christian might LIKE Zev to confirm the connection of his faith to God’s covenant with Abraham. But such confirmation is NOT forthcoming! Better by far not to seek it in the first place. If you believe in the tenets of Mormonism, my opinion shouldn’t matter to you, any more than the opinion of a panel of rabbis should matter to Catholic Astorian.
Well, no, Judaism recognizes that its possible to worship false gods or gods that don’t exist. A person could, and people did, worship Zeus, for example, even though Zeus doesn’t exist. In the bible, you see people worshiping all sorts of idols and false gods.
**
Whoa! Back up there a minute. The question was not “Are Christians monotheistic?” The question was “Do Jews and Christians (and Muslims) worship the same God?” As I pointed out, one can be monotheistic and not worship the same God as the Jews do at the same time. I made no judgement call on whether or not Christianity is polytheistic or not. I simply said that the Christian diety does not equal the Jewish God.
**
That’s because the Catholic worships a (single, if you will) triune God (which presumably existed as such even before Jesus was born); while the Jew would disagree with that concept.
**
[/QUOTE]
Zev Steinhardt
Astorian:
No, I did not say you needed Jews to affirm your belief. However, if they say the Christian God is not their God, then who are you to argue? They set the tenets of their religion, not you. Unfortunately, they got there first. You are, of course, free to believe that your God is the Jewish God. However, you are NOT free to require that the Jews believe that.
John Mace said:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
This is just after the section concerning the Church’s relationship to the Jewish people, so yes, as far as the RCC is concerned Jews, Muslims, and Christians all worship the one God.
In what way are my claims inaccurate?
I think this “extra stuff” is quite relevant, as this “extra stuff”, just by existing and being extra, dilutes the notion of what the single, monotheistic god is.
You don’t have to take my word for it - Christians have convulsed themselves over exactly these issues over the centuries. Read up on the iconoclastic controversy, or if your tastes run to more modern issues, the conflict over “Marianism” within Catholicism.
Worship of icons, saints or Mary is ultimately incompatible with the original notion of a single, jealous monotheistic god. Let alone the concept of Satan as an evil supernatural being with god-like powers (I also suggest a study of Gnosticism and its impact on Christianity, for this last point).
Either only one god exists, or there are many. There is no halfway house.
If you want to debate this, it could be fun - but simply saying “you are wrong” is not much of a debate, unless you are prepared to back it up with reasons why I am wrong.
Keep in mind that there are 1 billion muslims in the world and we in the non-muslim world hear mostly about the whack-o ones. Not surprising that some of us would question if they worship the same God “we” do.
Well, that’s good, because Catholicism does NOT worship saints or Mary.
I beg to differ.
From an anthropological perspective, it is quite clear that at least some Catholics do “worship” both Mary and Saints:
http://www.skeptica.dk/arkiv_us/030_murphy.htm#Marianism
From a Jewish perspective, it certainly appears that praying to saints and Mary, ascribing supernatural powers to them, “adoring” them, etc. amounts to worship.
Certainly, some Protestant Christians have always felt that what Catholics did with saints, Mary, and Icons was “worship”:
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/mary.htm
Now, Catholics may say that what they do with the figure of Mary is not “worship”. Everyone else, however, thinks that what Catholics do is, more or less, “worship Mary”. Ditto with saints, only much less so.
Now, I don’t mean this as a knock against Catholicism - they are entitled to worship whoever and whatever they want. I merely point this out to demonstrate the difference between the Jewish idea of the diety as “absolutely singular” and the Catholic one - which is more inclusive.
There is nothing wrong with goddess-worship. 
The operative word being some and the operative words of my post being actual teachings. That some Christians have created a pantheon of saints or established Satan as the dark god of a Manichean dualism has no more to do with this issue than similar branch beliefs within Islam regarding djinn and afrits.
If we are discussing whether the three peoples of the book are praying to whom they consider to be the same God, then dragging in splinter factions and side tracks and heresies that have all been rejected by the mainstream adherents is irrelevant.
Picking specific people who have raised objections does not constitute “Everyone else.” Even the use of the verbs worship and adore is in direct contradiction of Catholic practice and belief. (That is, even the people on the fringes whom I would agree have set up a minor pantheon among the saints would never use those words o describe their actions.)
Considering that the ship of Christian unity foundered on the rock of just such “splinter factions, side tracks and heresies that have been rejected” as “worship” of saints, Marianism and Icon-adoration, not once but repeatedly (see Iconoclastic controversy, remembering that the Iconoclasts lost, and the Reformation as a ‘minor side note’ 
), I think understanding of these issues is central to knowing what the religion and its relation to the diety(s) is all about.
To deny the importance and centrality of (say) Marianism to Catholicism is foolish - Mary is clearly a very important figure. Whether believers “worship” her or not is surely a pure exercise in semantics - Catholics may indeed “never use those words to describe their actions” (which is not true BTW - my mother in law is a quite religious Ukranian Catholic, and she uses both terms) - but it is obvious that the “actions” in question amount to worship by any objective criteria. These I have seen with my own eyes on many occasions:
-burning candles in front of said shrine;
-praying to Mary on your knees in front of her picture;
-asking for the blessings of Mary.
Looks like “worship” to me - call it what you will …
As a matter of fact, I was forcefully reminded of the houses of my Hindu friends, who do exactly the same things with their favoured dieties. Of course, in Hinduism, all gods are eminations of the Bhrama-principle - so they are just as monotheistic as Catholics, where the three are one and Mary, saints etc. are just “interceding” with him. At least, if all that is important is the theory
Certainly, the importance of Satan in both “official” Catholicism and Protestantism cannot be doubted - of were all those hell-fire preachers just “side tracks” having nothing to do with the religion? I don’t think even the most rigidly anti-folk intellectual Catholic would deny the importance of Satan to Catholic theology.
As for djinns and efreets, I know nothing about them outside of fairy tales - but I most seriously suggest that they are far less important to Islam than Mary is to Catholicism. You can probably understand Islam without understanding djinns, but I seriously doubt you can understand Catholicism without understanding Mary, or the role of saints.
Any Catholics out there think that Mary & saints are no more important than fairy tales? … I thought not. The role of Satan, Mary and the saints are central, not peripheral, to understanding Catholicism.