Wrong: "Yes, Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God (But Here's What That Means & Doesn’t)"

"Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? Is God and Allah one-in-the-same? In the most primitive way, yes," claims Benjamin L. Corey. {Source: Yes, Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God (But Here’s What That Means & Doesn’t)}

That's wrong. It's also un-Christian teaching.

But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. (Luk 12:9) That's Jesus speaking there. The Muslims, according to Jesus, are denied by Jesus to God the Father of Jesus and His angels. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. (Mat 10:33)


Tom Usher

Mohammed is denied. He is rejected for not having worshiped the right one as God.

Let's get into this a step further. The God of Abraham was/is God Most High, God among other divinities. So was/is Zeus. I could make this explanation really long, but I've already done that elsewhere.

Zeus was God to the Greeks and described with attributes some of which literally fit and others that don't fit with the God of Jesus Christ. Did Jesus worship Zeus? Personally, I think that's a context too far, but it would be a good starting place in proselytizing to a Zeus worshiper of the time.

Is Allah the same object as the God of Jesus Christ, the same "substance," as used in the Christian creed, just because "Allah" means god in Arabic? No.

The reason it is not is because of the attributes attributed that make up the concept of the god of the Muslims (lower case "god" if one believes that, that god, "Allah," is a pagan deity).

This is all an extremely profound subject. People can study it for a lifetime and not get it right.

I do not worship the God or god of the Muslims. Jesus Christ is the son of my God. The Muslim's worship something that has no such son. They worship something I can't be a son of.

No, the deity of Islam is definitely not the same essence and spirit that is the God of Jesus and Jesus' father and my father in Heaven.

"Primitive" is the wrong word. Fundamental is the right word. In the most fundamental way, the Allah of the Muslims is not the Elohim and YHVH of Jesus the Christ, the son of God.

The same thing applies to those particular religious Jews who reject Jesus. Their  Elohim and YHVH are down a different path.

That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. (Joh 5:23)

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (Joh 14:6)

What about Abraham, did he worship the God of Jesus? Yes he did but without the refining knowledge of God imparted to us by Jesus. Had he come chronologically (in our worldly sense of the term) after Jesus on the Earth and heard Jesus's teachings and rejected them, then the one he, Abraham, would have been referring to as God would, in fact, have been a different one and not the God of Jesus.

This is part of the reason Paul could discuss God with the Romans where the Romans were not confused by the concept of Jupiter (the Roman's version of Zeus).

You may find the following interesting:

... the Stoic God is immanent throughout the whole of creation and directs its development down to the smallest detail. God is identical with one of the two ungenerated and indestructible first principles (archai) of the universe. One principle is matter which they regard as utterly unqualified and inert. It is that which is acted upon. God is identified with an eternal reason (logos, Diog. Laert. 44B ) or intelligent designing fire (Aetius, 46A) which structures matter in accordance with Its plan. This plan is enacted time and time again, beginning from a state in which all is fire, through the generation of the elements, to the creation of the world we are familiar with, and eventually back to fire in a cycle of endless recurrence. The designing fire of the conflagration is likened to a sperm which contains the principles or stories of all the things which will subsequently develop (Aristocles in Eusebius, 46G). Under this guise, God is also called ‘fate.’ It is important to realise that the Stoic God does not craft its world in accordance with its plan from the outside, as the demiurge in Plato's Timaeus is described as doing. Rather, the history of the universe is determined by God's activity internal to it, shaping it with its differentiated characteristics. The biological conception of God as a kind of living heat or seed from which things grow seems to be fully intended. The further identification of God with pneuma or breath may have its origins in medical theories of the Hellenistic period. See Baltzly (2003). [source]

There's plenty of starting ground there to begin a discussion about the God of Jesus Christ with the Roman Stoic's of Jesus's time and shortly after.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.