Jump to content

Talk:Abrahamic religions/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

A term that's not particularly useful

It's a stretch to call Islam an "Abrahamic religion" since according to Koran, Islam existed before humankind was created and Adam was the first human prophet. If we listen to John (John 1:1) in the Bible, it is also a stretch to call Christianity an "Abrahamic religion". Within the "Abrahamic religions" themselves, there are schools like Sufism, Unitarian Universalism, Quakerism and many others that are more similar to traditions like Taoism or Hinduism theologically.

Genealogically speaking, it may be argued that both Jesus (at least via Mary) and Prophet Muhammad were decendents of Abraham, but they were also decendents of millions of other ancient people (some of them might be other prophets/sages who had a totally different theology than Abraham's). You have two parents, four grand-parents and eight great-grand-parents. If you go back more than 20 generations, you should have more than a million ancesters (if not many of them married their 1st or 2nd cousins).

General Cleanup

I just tagged the section 'religous scriptures/christianity' for general cleanup. Noteably the 2nd-half of the first major paragraph (in this section) is a confusing run-on sentence. This section seems the worst so far, but the writing is somewhat ragged throughout the whole article and could benifit from a skilled writer/editor... I'm not arguing any of the facts, just the quality of their presentation. Thats just my $0.02 though.

Other Abrahamic religions

I trimmed this because it seemed a bit out of place in the header section:

At the same time, Sikhism can also be considered to part of the Dharmic faiths, as it, like Hinduism and Buddhism accepts karma and reincarnation.

Perhaps there should be a section in this article giving an overview of all the other religions that claim or can be claimed to descend from Judaism, Christianity, or Islam (Sikhism, Bahai, Mormonism, Kardecism, ...). The parag above then would be reinstated there.
Jorge Stolfi 05:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why delete this article?

  • Strongly Oppose Deletion - The very fact that some want this article deleted is an argument to keep it. If its a very difficult topic then it deserves much work rather than us giving up, sometimes its the difficult things that are most worthy of our attention. In my personal opinion this is a hot and difficult topic because part of the character of the "Abrahamic" traditions is to see themselves as unique, set-apart, special or to be more exact "Chose by God." They therefore want to repell any similarity with 'other' traditiions. This characteristic desire to seperate themselves is one of the most characteristic features of an Abrahamic tradition, something which certainly distinguishes them from the more tolerant and syncretic so-called "Pagan" traditions which joy in sharing an exchanging ideas about the divine. (I am obviously my self a pagan.) The term "Abrahamic" religion is therefore probably an afront to those who are most "Abrahamic" because they wish to have a special and unique stauts which is betrayed by the terms they often use to referr to themselves e.g.: "The Chosen people", "The Elect of God", "The Sanctified" etc... Non-Abrahamic religions have had no need for such special statuses but were fine just remaining humans and citizens. This seems to be a distinguishing characteristic between what is an "Abrahamic" and "Non-Abrahamic" religiion.Paul diffenderfer 15:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you think that the main difference between Pagan and non-pagan, or Abrahamic, faiths is the issue of "chosen-ness" shows to me that you do not understand the difference between Paganism, and Monotheism. The original concept of "being chosen" was unique to the Jewish/Israelite/Hebrew people group. This chosen-ness was not - as you are stating, "a way of referring to themselves..." yet our ancestors were called 'Ivri' (Hebrews), which means "from the other" as in "from the other side of the river" denoting Avraham's journey in which he crossed the River leaving the land of the Chaldeans and entering the land of Cannan which is where he was told to go by the Creator. Furthermore "chosen people" has been usurped by religions outside of Judaism to imply as you infere an exalted status, yet Torah-observant Jews have the tradition of "being chosen by G_d" to mean that we are responsible for bringing the world to a greater understanding of true spirituality which in Judaism does not mean "homogenization of cultural differences" like it often is implied by Chirstianity, Islam and other belief systems...--Yehonaton 21:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Arabs vs Muslims

I don't see the relavance of this

Although Mohammed was an Arab, many Arabs are Christian, and most Muslims are not Arabs.

However, the origin of all Islamic/Muslim/Moslem ideas is a uniquely Arab source and character.--Yehonaton 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why this term?

Well, I think the bigger issue is, "Why have people started talking about 'Abrahamic Religions?'" The article is pretty good so far, but doesn't provide any context for when, how and why this concept developed. I am no expert in this, but my sense is people started using the term to promote something more inclusive than "Judeo-Christian tradition" -- more inclusive meaning, include Muslims -- at least that's what an article in Time magazine suggested (about a year ago, I think).

That's exactly right. It's an invented term specifically to reinforce what they have in common. But it was used as late as the Middle Ages by thoughtful people with the same intent.
As someone from an Muslim bakground I also support using this term, as it insists on what these traditions have in common instead on their difference as many people try to do in these troubled times. Note that the term "Judeo-Christian tradition" is also a coined term which has been invented in the XIX century --Khalid hassani 00:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But why call it "Abrahamic?" This article says it is because Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the God of Abraham, which makes sense. But to the best of my recollection, the Time magazine article (and it was referring either to a recent book or PBS special) said that it was because Abraham was the father of both Isaac (from whom Jews are descended) and Ishmael (from whom Arabs are descended).

Either the genetic or ontologic explanation leads back to Abraham, since he was the first to get the instructions from God as to what to do to found the nation of Israel.

Maybe this is just too tangential -- I won't argue. But it seems to me that this gets to the issue of why we need to be more inclusive, and who we want to include. What I mean is, I think the very idea of Abrahamic religion -- a term I doubt anyone (meaning, all the so-called practicioners of Abrahamic religions) used more than twenty or thirty years ago -- is a political response to recent political conflicts.

Yes, it's use is motivated by that, and yes, that should be mentioned in the article, more or less exactly as you say it.

Now, since 9/11 the enemy of "the West" has been "radical Islam" -- with political and civic leaders going to great pains to make clear that they do not mean all Muslims.

These leaders don't speak for *me*. I have no problem with radical Islam. I have more of a problem with fascists using 9/11 as pretext, and gangsters using religious imagery to get what they want - which is something that all "leaders" in all three of these so-called faiths are guilty of.
Really? So 3,000 murdered Americans don't concern you? You are more bothered by "fascists" using 9/11? And it's being used to: increase security? track down the murderers? protect westerners from the radical Islamists calling for the death of the West? I suggest you check your concerns, you might want to re-priortize. Incorrect

But prior to 9/11 I think that the villians in most Hollywood moviews were identifiably Arab, not Muslim -- in other words, the enemy was ethnic, not religious; similarly the problems in Israle/Palestine are, or at least have been, most often described as a Jewish-Arab conflict. So I think when people first started using the term "Abrahamic religion," they were trying to include "Arabs," not "Muslims." I am suggesting that the way people in the West have talked about their conclicts with certain people outside of Europe has changed in the past few years, and consequently the way people use the term "Abrahamic religions" has changed too. I may be wrong about the dates -- if anyone can provide a citation using the term "Abrahamic religion" prior to 1900, or 1948 -- or even 1967 -- I would be surprised but grateful for the lesson.

I'm pretty sure it's a very very old but obscure term used mostly to distinguish from the vedic religions, and often in the context where someone British was trying to get Muslims on their side against Hindus.

I may also be wrong that people use the term differently after 9/11. At the very least, I think it would be good if the article said more about when and why people first started using this term (I googled around a bit -- the earliest examples I could find of "Abrahamic" were 2001! Prior to that, even when people wanted to refer to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, they seem to have used "monotheistic." Why the change?) Slrubenstein

For exactly the reasons you state. I think desert monotheism is really the best term actually. It talks about where the faiths originated, not the mythical and maybe fictional figure on whom it is based. One might for instance think all this was inspired by specific mushrooms that grow only in the Sinai.

The term may have been created by political motivations, but it seems useful on its own. To the extent that one can trace a "genetic tree" of religions, "Abrahamic religion" would mean simply "a religion that descends from that of ancient Hebrews". "Monotheism" is more generic and ambiguous (isn't Taoism "monotheistic" in some sense?) "Desert monotheism" is still not specific enough (which desert?).
Granted that the genetic tree of religions is nowere as easy to determine as that of amoebas...
Jorge Stolfi 05:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lawgiver

Really, we need an article on lawgiver that talks about the various attributes of divinity or prophecy or whatever that they are assigned by people who come later.

"Islam ... also considers the wisest lawgivers of other nations (Confucius, Hiawatha) to be prophets as long as they claimed no divinity on their own behalf."

I am surprised to read this. Does anybody have a source for this?

I am not aware of this at least not in orthodox Islam, that said Islam recognize all jews prophets as beeing authentic prophets, the official name in Islam is nabi the same as in Judaism.khalid

Abraham's eight sons

Simple "edit"-note: acc. to the text, Abraham has eight sons, only two are mentioned..are they surplus? Or have you just omitted a sentence?

Abraham?!

The problem with this entry is there is no real discussion of what makes a religion "Abrahamic" other than its genealogy -- if the relationship between these religions is simply familial, why call them "Abrahamic"? And, of course, it is not simply familial, or the various Christian heresies would be considered "Abrahamic" while more distant cousins of Christianity or Judaism or Islam like Rastafarianism, Nation of Islam, or Jews for Jesus might not. It seems to me what these religions have in common is a sense of the centrality of the story of Abraham -- and particularly the Akedah -- to religious belief. The story certainly emphasizes critical themes that are repeated in the Abrahamic religions -- the test of faith, sacrifice, martyrdom, even resurrection and revelation in some readings. Not sure how to put that in the entry though.... --csloat 10:20, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These religions share in fact a lot of traditions, beliefs, legends, they interpret their own way in a kind of localisation. You might think of them as a kind of localised languages of the same original language, they are related to judaism the same way French, Spanish, or Italian are related to Latin. They also share the same strong and I must say debilating sens of "Sin" (Christianity), "Haram" (Islam) don't know the term in Judaîsm. Other central common notions if you don't count god, are Paradise, and the Devil', Islam has alas the originality of martyrdom and Jihad, although crusaders have had their fair share of that too !!
csloat: One suggestion is that you do not use the term "heresy" or "heresies", as we do not endorse nor condemn any particular religion, okay? :) - Gilgamesh 19:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The term "heresies" was not meant as my judgement on these views but rather as a description of them as deviations from mainstream Christianity -- specific doctrinal deviations that are based on (and sometimes parody) the original -- I have in mind such groups as Anabaptists, Freethinkers, Satanists -- none of these groups follow Christianity (and they even explicitly reject it) but they are nonetheless entirely based on opposition to Christianity; if Christianity did not exist there could be no Church of Satan for example. Yet even though these are more directly related to a major Abrahamic religion than say Rastafarianism, one would be foolish to call them "Abrahamic" because the story of Abraham does not feature prominently in any of them. I still think this point needs to be made more adequately in the article.... --csloat 19:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Invitation for Hebrew linguistics project participation

Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism is trying to decide all Hebrew linguistics issues for Wikipedia by themselves. But Hebrew is not purely the realm of Judaism; it is also the realm of Samaritans, Christians and Abrahamic religion as a whole, and also secular Canaanite languages studies. I'm trying to challenge mono-cultural mono-sectarian dominance over a linguistic field that we all should be sharing together. I invite you to participate in trying to pluralize Hebrew language conventions for Wikipedia. In particular, not only is Tiberian Hebrew transliteration challenged, but also Standard Hebrew transliteration, as some people want to use only Israeli Hebrew colloquial transliteration or Ashkenazi Hebrew liturgical transliteration. I think these are perfectly valid and worthy of participation, but not at the total expense of every other Hebrew linguistics study concern. Please support a multi-religious multi-cultural scientific NPOV mandate for studying Hebrew linguistics on Wikipedia. - Gilgamesh 02:54, 18 July 2004 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering, I dropped this dispute a long long time ago. It was a challenge against User:Yoshiah_ap, but we made up. :) We're good colleagues now and we cooperate extensively. - Gilgamesh 19:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merging Sections

I believe "The Supreme Diety" section of this article should be merged with the section about each religion's scriptures.--Josiah 15:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Book of Enoch

These people did not however leave any recorded moral code behind.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church considers the Book of Enoch inspired. Is it a "moral code"?

The Book of Enoch is not a "moral code" as it were. When read, it is an account of an event rather than "guidelines" of any kind. I have refrenced the book many times and I find no guidance in it save for the fuel for freethinkers and the like. --J. 03:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Hell

Could somebody please write something on this on the page? I would, but due to exams I don't have time at the moment. The Holy See (Vatican) website may be found useful.--Girl-razor 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The section of the article about the Catholic notion of the nature of Hell is somewhat mistaken. The idea that damnation to Hell is either eternal or to last until the Second Coming is neither dominant in modern Catholic Theology nor has it been the official mainstream theory in Catholic history. Religious art, among other sources, from as late as the 17th century clearly depict Hell as a form of purgatory (hence there is no "purgatory" between Heaven and Hell in Catholicism), a place where sinful souls go for a period of time, the duration of which depends on the nature of the sins committed and the willingness to sincerely repent. It is possible to stay in Hell forever, if the soul is uncapable of sincere repentance. In most cases, however, it is completely possible, in Catholic tradition, for a soul to leave Hell and ascend to Heaven, and that is not pending the Second Coming. Furthermore, it has always been stated in Catholic dogmatic that the type of suffering to which the soul is to be submitted in Hell shall vary in accordance with the sins committed and the profile of the sinner. Thus, the suffering may be physical or psychological, depending on those factors. And if the pain is to be physical, it doesn't necessarily involve "Fire and Brimstone", but rather it varies in accordance with those factors, again. That is what Dante's Devine Comedy reflects: different punishments for different sinners. That section of the article needs some work. Regards, Redux 19:20, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Hell and purgatory are two distinct things, and this teaching has remained unchanged for many centuries. See The Catechism of the Catholic Church sections 1030-1037 for the offical church's teaching, today. Lawrence King 04:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Name Change

I think this ought to be called Abrahamic Religions instead of it's current title, as it refers to multiple religous POVs.--Josiah 05:37, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Mormonism

<<N1LQJ@COX.NET>> I am frusterated with the descrimination on this page. Mormon's absolutely have a valid claim time their lineage, and our members exceed the World Jewish Population. Email me back. I am confussed as to how 700 years of time between the two religions can cause the LDS to be considered a minor Protestant faith. We are of a hebrew history, not a Catholic one, and as such, we are not gentiles by Chrildren of Israel. I am tired of gentiles attacking what is a crearly a Hebrew faith, and not a Catholic/Protestant one. Email me, as I am tired of going back an forth on this. Too my knowledge, the only four Abrahamic religions with a claim to lineage are

Islam Abraham/Ishmael/Muhammad

Jewish Abraham/Issac/Jacob(Israel)/Tribe of Judah (Judahism)

Mormon Abraham/Issac/Jacob(Israel)/House of Joseph (Mormonism)

Christian (The Gentiles) Jesus inherits thrown of David.

My understanding is this is the primary and essential requirments to be considered an Abrhamic Religion.

Mormons apparently had been removed from the page, and were re-added to the page on 13-Jan-05. More emphysis was placed on the fact that Mormons don't originate from The Catholic church or any church from that point on but 700 years earlier as they left the Northern Kingdom fearing an iminate invasion by the Babylonians.

Mormon(Latter-Day Saints) were added, and the page upgraded to reflect 4 major Arabramamic religions on 9 Jan 2005 around 0500(UTC) Some text needs to be rewritten here. --VChapman 16:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


There are other religions that recognize, to a greater or lesser degree, the prophets of the Bible, including the Mormon faith, the various Voodoo faiths (a syncretic blend of Christianity and African pagan religions), and Unitarian-Universalism. These religions may add or subtract other prophets, and in some ways have beliefs and creeds that differ greatly from Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Accordingly, these faiths are generally not classified as Abrahamic religions.

Don't know about Voodoo, but Mormons and Unitarians most certainly consider themselves Abrahmamic.

As a Unitarian Universalist I would dispute this. It is true that UUism derived from Christianity. However, as a creedless religion we have many members whose beliefs do not originate with any of the Abrahamic religions. So what it comes down to is if you're referring to origins of the institution or of the beliefs. --Tydaj 01:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The prophet, saint, pre-Abraham complexity is now covered properly I hope. I think we need an article on lawgiver, which is a nice neutral term for all such founding figures without making any claims specific to any religion. Clearly Moses and Confucius are both lawgivers, as are founding figures of Sparta, Athens, etc.
Are Donmeh too minor to be mentioned?

I feel that the article is unbalanced in regard to Mormonism, with descriptions of it's specific practices taking up too much of the article, and being longer than such descriptions of habits of Christianity and Islam combined. It is not good, especially considering that even minor branches of Christianity (like Easter Orthodoxy) and Islam (Shiism) are much larger than Mormonism. Links to appropriate pages describing specifics should be used instead. --PeterisP 12:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article is far too unbalanced as is, giving what is essentially a form of Christianity with a following of 20 million people or so its own heading, and huge prominence. As well, it claims that Mormonism is monotheistic, when, in fact, it sees the Abrahamic God as one of several gods (Jesus being another). I'm going to remove this stuff again, and ask that the anonymous inserter keep in mind that edits should be accurate, NPOV, and not give undue prominence to a fairly small modern form of Christianity. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with VChapman's comments above. Most within the faith are adamant about placing the faith squarely within Christianity, not as a separate branch or as a branch of Judaism. Actually, Mormonism is a form of Christian Restorationism, in the same genus as the Church of Christ and the same family as the Millerites. Whether you lump Restorationism together with Protestantism is a matter of debate, but clearly both of them are branches of Christianity. No need for a separate heading. COGDEN 00:48, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think that Momonism's claim to the Abrahamic lineage is very different than the standard Christianity. And although Mormons (meaning Latter-day Saints and the members of other church's from the Latter Day Saint movement) are clear in that they are Christian in the sense of believer's that it is only through Christ that we can return to full fellowship with God; they are also equaly adament that they are not a protest of Catholicism. Rodney Stark (and other sociologists) consider that the similarities between Mormonism and Judaism are as significant as those between Mormonism and Christianity. We should have some more discussion on this. Perhaps the material was too long and overpowered the Article (didn't see it when it popoed up before the 13th), but there are enough differences, such as the Godhead vs Trinity, and the importance of ordinances, etc. to justify some discussion. Trödel
Well, of course Mormonism isn't a protest of Catholicism, it's a Christian sect that grew out of previous movements, with a fair bit of new stuff added in by Joseph Smith and his successors; see comment above by COGDEN. And I think the differences regarding beliefs about God are already mentioned, aren't they? Jayjg | (Talk) 15:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Because Mormonism is associated with Restorationism and makes a claim on Abrahamic lineage both by 1) claiming that the teachings of the Book of Mormon are from members of the Tribe of Joseph who left Jerusalem 600 years before the time of Chist, and 2) claiming that the Church has members who are either decendants of Joseph or are adopted into his house by accepting the gospel. Furthermore, the Church teaches that it is instramental in the gathering of isreal. These teachings deserve some treatment here. (As you correctly point out there are articles that clarify the beliefs about God). Trödel 15:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And you don't think there is enough in there already? How much more do you think needs to be added? I'm hoping the answer is on the order of two or three sentences. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For me it isn't a question of length but one of structure - placing Mormonism under the heading Christianity implies that both have claim on being an Abrahamic religion for similar reasons, when in fact the reasons are much different as Latter-day Saints believe that they are actually members of a tribe of Isreal and under the covenant that God made with Abraham. I agree that the article is getting long - maybe a different structure for all claimants would be helpful. Trödel 16:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think that Mormonism should go under Christianity, but I have no objection to subsections listing the differing views of different Christian sub-groups. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since the LDS church is a Christian religion (as long as "Christian" is being defined as a religion based on Christ's teachings), I think it's appropriate to categorize them as such... I've combined the "Mormonism" sub-section in the Religious Scriptures with the "Christianity" sub-section, and I've taken "Mormonism" out of the third paragraph of the article, where it was listed among those as being "other than Christian." I'm LDS, so feel free to call me on this, but I think it's NPOV. --TobyRush 15:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the Samaritans?

Samaritans have been left off the list. Why? According to the wikipedia's article there are 650 practicing Samaritans who trace their faith back to Abraham. They say they are the descendants of the Israelis who weren't enslaved in Babylon. So, their doctinal difference with Judaism date back 3,000 years. -- Geo Swan 03:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

650 people? You don't think these 650 people are being given enough prominence? Jayjg | (Talk) 17:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is evidence to suggest modern Samaritianism is more like pre-Exile Judaism than post-Exile Judaism is. It is an important part of the family tree. matturn 15:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Supreme Deity

The introductory paragraph to this section is inaccurate in all its parts.

  • Many Christians, Muslims, and Jews do not agree that their conceptions of God are sufficiently alike to validly state that they all worship the same God. This might even be the majority opinion.
  • Muslims and Jews do not "visualize" God at all.
  • Christians do not believe that "the Jewish God is only one aspect" of the Holy Trinity. The Persons of the Trinity are not "aspects", and the name "God" -- meaning one and the same God, not three individual Gods -- applies to all three equally. Csernica 09:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your points are valid. Also, statements about "Jews", "Muslims", and "Christians" tend to be weasel words; it's better to quote official religious positions, as stated in authoritative religious works, or official positions of various movements. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anon comment (by Rife) 24.13.147.214

Note by Rife(elitehackers.com...whoo...)

//Ok, first I'd like to point out that this page is being plagerized throughout the net.//

GFDL kinda makes plagiarism accusations moot, don't you think?--Polyparadigm 21:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my tremendously important sunday school, back whenever(2 years) ago, and correct me if this is false, all Abrahamic religeon developed from the tale of Abraham and Sarah, Allah's chosen two (Genesis 12:1-7). This fath then branched off when Sarah, now 90 years old, gave birth to Isaac, or "Laughter".

Later, after Sarah had died, Abraham set out to find his son a suitable wife. So on and so forth. Abraham's niece Rebekah came to a call. And this is how the religeons spread. Sorry for being kinda vague and possibly inacurate, if you would like to correct me, or have anything to say, you can get in contact with me at FreeRevolution[anti-spam]@gmail.[yaknow]com.

//Thanks, just thought I'd point this out, later all!one!!1!//

Yeah it does, it becomes obvios that sopmone copied text, and for original writings, that's not a good thing. -- Dbroadwell 03:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christianity and the Afterlife

Most Protestants don't believe in the concept of "mortal" sins (which is here implied as a universal Christian belief). I'm not sure if the Orthodox do either. The usual Protestant line is that if you're submitted to God at the point of death, you'll be saved. Some Pentecostals and Protestants believe that "once saved, always saved" - as long as you've dedicated your life to God at some point, you'll be ok.

I believe the scriptures only mention one mortal sin. It's mentioned two or three times in the gospels and epistles. It is a sin that, despite most theology and the general New Testament themes, cannot be forgiven. And that is denying the existance of the Holy Spirit... matturn 16:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are right that Protestants generally don't accept the distinction between mortal/grave/serious sins and venial/light sins.
But your second point isn't correct; you are confusing a variety of New Testament texts. Jesus says that anyone who "blasphemes against the Holy Spirit" will not be forgiven, "neither in this age nor in the age to come" (Matt 12:32, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10). The New Testament does not contain an explicit explanation of what "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" means. It certainly does not mean "denying the existence of the Holy Spirit", as you suggested. Generally, Catholic and Orthodox tradition understand this to mean this is the sin of refusing God's forgiveness. In other words, God's forgiveness is always offered, but God will allow you to refuse this forgiveness. Protestant interpretations of this passage vary quite a bit.
"Mortal" or "deadly" sin is mentioned elsewhere -- in 1 John 5:16-17. In this text, John writes that "There is such a thing as deadly [mortal ]sin.... All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly [mortal]." However, John does not specify what this mortal sin is. This is a matter of Biblical interpretation. In general, the Catholic and Orthodox churches interpret the Bible the way it was taught in the early church, while the Protestant churches interpret it the way it was taught in the Reformation, and there are thus differences of opinion on what "mortal sin" means. Lawrence King 05:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

How is Islam Abrahamic?

I understand (but cannot find in article) there is some supposed lineage from Ishmael to Islam - but do not see that in article. I also understand the link as being a supposed shared source for monotheism - is that in article?--JimWae 19:44, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

It's a good question, really. The story of Ibrahim tells almost the opposite story of Abraham. It is a different promise, and a different obedience - but both intended to obey God by sacrifice of their son. It's just that, Abraham is commended that he did not withhold his son "thy only son" (that is, the son on whom the promise rested, to bless Abraham and to make him a blessing). But, it's trendy and flattering to Islam, and the Muslims seem to bless themselves in the name of Abraham; so ... Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Excellent question. I have not attempted (and will not attempt to) edit the nuances and beliefs of other religions. But I am very very interested in learning the answer. --Noitall 18:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I think the fact that Abraham is considered the "first Muslim" by Muslims and the patriarch of the religion makes Islam Abrahamic. Although it may be a natural tendency for Christians and Christian polemicists to try and dissociate themselves from Islam, that does not change the facts. It may seem disconcerting to some Christians that Allah is not in fact a tribal Moon God and that Islam also accepts Jesus as a prophet and talks about his virgin birth. Regardless of how disturbed certain Christians are by the similarities between Islam and Christianity, I think all evidence points to Islam being an Abrahamic religion. Once again, though, I understand why people like Mkmcconn would find the inclusion of Islam in this term as "trendy and flattering for Muslims" with all that is going on in the world.Heraclius 04:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
No Abraham (Ibrahim) is considered to be a Hanif in Islam, which roughly means a monotheist who rejected the idolatry. He is often called Ibrahim Al Hanif in Islamic texts. Etymologically Abraham comes from the semitic words Aba : The father or the ancestor and Raham or Rahim : Literally The matrix. So symbolically and ethymologically he is in fact the initiator of the monotheism. So in fact Abrahamic religions is synonym with monotheist religion--Khalid hassani 03:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I might be mistaken but I think that Abel is considered the first Muslim. The difficulty here is, how can Abraham be pointed to as an issue of commonality, when he is a point of departure? It's like calling Islam "a messianic religion, like Christianity" - it points to a point of departure, as though it were an issue of commonality (that's probably overstating the analogy a bit). But anyway, there is a sense in which we don't have "Abraham in common", because we have very different versions of Abraham.
Anyway, I don't strongly object to the "Abrahamic religion" language being applied to Christianity. I just think that there is a tendency to exaggerate how much the two religions have in common, because of current events and the sense of urgency which rightly prevails, to appropriate every conceivable conciliatory point in order to ease tensions between communities. I don't think that father Abraham would be displeased by the effort to be at peace with all men, as far as we are able. Mkmcconn (Talk) 07:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Avraham is the "new name" of Avram. Avram means "great father", or idiomatically I suppose it could be translated as "over-arching ancestor", or "the one who begat us all [followers of the Abrahmic tradicion]"...Avraham, however, is generally regarded as a shortened form of "av racham" or "av rachaman", for "father of mercy", or "our father [God] is merciful". This understanding, especially considering the narrative that surrounds his renaming from Avram -> Avraham, makes a lot of sense. I don't want to quibble about Muslim interpretations of the idea since my people have been repudiating their claims relentlessly for the past 1300+ years, but figured it might be worthwhile inserting a Jewish perspective at this juncture... Tomer TALK 03:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

First Muslim

Incidentally, I had been told that Abraham being called the "first Muslim" is idiomatic. It doesn't mean "the original adherent to a creed". It's an idiomatic expression that means roughly, "I need no one to lead me, in order to obey. If commanded by God, I will be the first to submit myself to him". Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Lead - neutrality

I reworked the lead to reflect a related discussion in Christianity; aiming at neutrality, softening claims of continuity between these religions, pointing out the cause of controversy in use of this terminology, and more fully describing why Christianity is often called an Abrahamic religion. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

On Jesus' physical descent from Abraham

Noitall wrote : Not true at all (that Jesus was physically descended from Abraham_ - See VIRGIN Mary

Of course the Orthodox view is that Mary was a Virgin; but even discounting Joseph's seed, we still say that Jesus physically came from Mary, and Mary is a physical descendant of Abraham too. Of course, this is not of vital importance to Orthodox either, since his teachings do make it pretty clear that being a descendant of Abraham is not a free ticket nor a requirement into his Kingdom... Codex Sinaiticus 19:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not meant literally, but spiritually. "conceived of the virgin Mary from the Holy spirit" I accept that one of the minor demoninations preaches your views though (even though I do not know if this is in fact true). Even there, I think you might be confused. There certainly is a disagreement on how devine and how human He was when he came to earth (see Mary Magdalene argument). But coming to earth and rising back into heaven were Godly things, not human. And the association with an ancestor is tenuous at best, since there is disagreement as to the historicity of Abraham. The association with David and John the Baptist are far stronger, but both in the spiritual sense of the Jews being God's chosen people (and Jesus, of course, being a Jew) and preparing the way for His entry on earth. --Noitall 20:04, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am not in the least confused; I know what my Church teaches. It teaches that Christ has only one, undivided nature that is at once fully human and fully Divine. That is the difference with Chalcedonian churches, that all claim he had two entirely separated or schizophrenic natures. We say that his humanity and divinity had to be perfectly meshed into one nature, in order to have any effect. In other words, he didn't just visit his creation, he fully entered into and became a part of it. Also, there is no disagreement whatsoever within our church as to the historicity of Abraham, so again, this argument applies only to the other churches. Finally, Monophysite Christianity might be "one of the minor denominations" to you, but not so in all parts of the world; it is the oldest Church and the dominant or official religion in many countries, including Ethiopia, Eritrea, Armenia and Georgia, all of which became Christian even before the Roman Empire. Codex Sinaiticus 20:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I accept it. I had no idea where your expertise was coming from. I will look up the denomination because I have no knowledge of it. Do you have a decent link? --Noitall 07:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I have a problem with two statements in this passage. First:

"Christians do not generally believe in a literal lineage or covenant. They refer to the Old Testament for spiritual lessons, which speaks of the history of Judaism and the heritage and stories of Abraham, son Isaac, and Jacob (Israel)..."

To say that Christians do not believe in a literal lineage or covenant is absolutely false. The very first thing written in the New Testament (Matthew 1:1-17) specifically lists the geneology of Jesus starting with Abraham. It is a literal lineage to the fullest extent, and the majority of christians accept this account in the bible as an actual lineage.

As for Christians not believing in a covenant, well the fundamental basis for Christianity, and this is pretty much for all Catholic and Protestant denominations, is that Christ is the fullfillment of the covenant given to the Jews of the OT. The Old Testament is filled with examples of God talking about the covenant, and prophesies of the messiah that will fullfill that covenant. Therefore, the belief in the covenant is an absolutely necessary part of christiantity.

Also, saying that "Christians refer to the Old Testament for spiritual lessons" immediately proceeding the statement that (incorrectly) says that they do not believe in a literal covenant implies that Christians do not believe in the Old Testament literally, and just take it for good advice. Again, this is just not true. Christians believe in the absolute validity of the old testament, otherwise Jesus wouldn't mean anything. If the OT wasn't true, and was just a bunch of "spiritual teachings", then you wouldn't be able to determine that Jesus is the Messiah. In fact, Christians would say that one of the major purposes of the OT was to let the Jews know how to identify the Messiah when he comes, so that he could be recognised as the Christ when he did. Without believing the literal statements of the OT, such as he will be born of a virgin, he will be of the line of Abraham and David, he will be born in Bethlehem, etc, (all part of the lineage / covenant), plus other statements about events during the rest of his life and death, without these there would simply not be any Christianity.

Therefore my issue with this second text follows:

"Unlike the majority of Christian denominations, Monophysite Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian) Christians teach that Abraham was a physical ancestor of Christ, since they firmly hold that in addition to being Divine, Christ had to become fully human in order to save the world."

This text is a bit misleading. By physical ancestor, do you mean that Jesus had to receive genes from Joseph's sperm and Mary was not actually a virgin? If so, then your statement is partially true, but remember that most Christian denominations conclude that Jesus was 100% human, as well as 100% devine. So to say that the majority of christian denominations don't think Jesus was fully human would be innacurate. If "physical ancestor" does not require that mary was not a virgin, then your statement would be true of you said that the majority of christians believe it (see above).

Thanks, I'll be happy to edit the article or participate in some back-and-forth.

Oh, and I removed the statement "a figure which is not mathematically credible" from the Rastafarian Lineage section as well. I know basically nothing about Rastafarian beliefs, but to simply discount their beliefs like that, with an link to the "Mathematics" wikipedia article is nothing less than insulting to them and completely inappropriate. The article is about their beliefs, not whether you think they are true or not.

--adamsta


If you accept that adoption is a valid way into a linage, than using the bloodline found in Luke 3:23-38, Jesus is linked to Abraham. People like to read luke 3:23 as "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph." However,"so it was thought" could also have been translated as "as it was entered into the book." Meaning Joseph was under the law, Jesus' father. Regardless, a religion need not phsyically be linked to Abraham to an abrahamic religion, as long as it worships the God of Abraham. I welcome any differing opions l4apoc@yahoo.com

The halachic idea of adoption is very complex, and it would automatically exclude someone from holding such a significant position as "moshiach" in Israel. Also, according to most Christian doctrine (Catholic/Evangelic etc...) they claim that jesus was "fathered by G_d". This idea therefore negates the issue of lineage because if his father is "G_d" then why would there need to be any proof of lineage, and this would also disqualifies someone from being "moshiach." --Yehonaton 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a question: Where is the proof that "and Mary is a physical descendant of Abraham too" happened. I may have missed it in my "and he begat" studies but I dont think so. "Joshawa the king" (as it translates) was decended from Mary, yes, and Joseph from David (christ/king)'s line. If there is no record of Marys tie to Abraham then "jesus" is not (and could never be) a "christos". Moreover, why are we talking about decent here? Isn't this article suppost to be linking doctrine to Abraham? "Christians" existed before "jesus", so that shouldnt enter into discussion. --J. 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Um, there is no basis for claiming that "christians existed before jesus" - the term "christian is uniquely presented in translations because basically they had no idea how to translate "notzerim" from Hebrew. The term "christian" is an invented term, based upon the unique adherence of these few people who followed this person, I think Paul/Shaul is the first person who refers to followers as "christian" yet like I said above it is an invented word that has now become a title. Welcome info to the contray.--Yehonaton 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lineage

=== Explanation ===
Lineage is covenant between Abraham and God, passed from Father to Son, much as the 
crown would have been passed  from a King to a Prince.
=== Abraham ===
In Genesis, Abram entered into a covenant with God, and was renamed Abraham.

This entire section is practically meaningless. As adamsta says about one of its sections, with charming understatement, this text is a bit misleading. The use of terms is weird, "Lineage is covenant". No it isn't. And if that's the explanation for the presence of this sectiion, the section needs to be entirely re-written for factual accuracy and NPOV. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Inclusivity, the Coming, and feature bloat

The Iinclusivity section probably doesn't need to be here at all. It doesn't really have to do with the original purpose of the article, which is to talk about which faiths could be considered Abrahamic and why, and also the meaning of the word Abraham. Not to mention, the statement

Judaism historically accepted that each people had its own beliefs, of which theirs was simply more correct and required of them (but optional for other groups). It allows that others who follow their own beliefs will be judged on their righteousness and conduct no matter their actual religion.

This seems really wrong to me. What is the reference/justification for this statement?


Secondly, in The Coming section the text...

the Jewish concept of Messiah differs from the Christian concept in several significant ways despite the same term being applied to both

...should probably just be struck since it is a statement without any explanation given to support the claims of the statement. Let the users click on the supplied links to compare them.


Also, in general I wonder if this page is simply reinventing the wheel. This page is growing to include details (correct or not) about each religion that don't really need to be here, and are better kept on the respective religion pages, where the debate can continue in an environment where more and informed people are more likely to participate.

--Tom II 17:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've wondered about duplication myself. When I found this article, its structure was a side by side comparison of the various major abrahamic religions, area by area. I've tried to keep to that approach. But in that sense it paralleled "comparing judaism and christianity" type articles. Some definition of the purpose of the article might be useful, and perhaps even reduce each section to a brief summary of major difference areas with a "see other articles for more detail"? That my gut reaction.
As for other points:
  • The comment on judaism's approach to other religions, the 1st sentrence is original to the article unchanged, the 2nd sentence is very much the jewish view, ("All the righteous of all the nations shall have a place in the World to Come"), its never insisted others must come to be jewish or need to be or are called to be, though it does anticipate when messiah comes they will realise the truth of gods ways etc. But no "requirement to convert" is implied
The quote you just gave to me, which passage is it? I couldn't find that specific phrasing (doesn't mean it doesn't exist, because it depends on the translation). Anyway, the key word is righteous, which is very thologically important to mean that if you are righteous, you are essentially worthy of going to heaven for whatever reason, such as you had faith in YHWH (translated Yahweh, i.e. The Lord), as when Abrahams' faith was counted to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6). Thus, in the quote "All the righteous of all the nations shall have a place in the World to Come", one must be righteous to have a place in the World to Come. And the 'all nations' indicates that you don't have to be Jewish. HOWEVER, you DO have to believe in YHWH. That is a requirement of righteousness. Therefore, to say that people of other religions, paganism for example, will still go to the World to Come as long as they are a good pagan, is simply wrong. That quote says that other God-fearing peoples can go to heaven, not Baal-fearing or Isis-fearing or whatever. --Tom II 17:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've changed the text that I had a problem with in the article. I based my answer upon section #6 of this link: Ask Rabbi Simmons. I also added this to the references section. I noticed that there were no references given as of yet. What references were used when making this article??? --Tom II 14:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The messiahg explanation is in the relevant article. The difference between the jewish and christian perceptoions of messiah are very deep and very fundamental to understanding the difference between the two, given christianity's focus on salvation and redemption by the messiah.
FT2 08:19, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Apostasy in the Evangelism section

Anonymous Editor, don't you see that the reason that the "apostasy" issue is relevant here, is that Islam says that "there is no compulsion in religion". And yet, every Muslim is under compulsion to remain a Muslim. The balance is necessary in order to understand what is meant by "no compulsion". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes but there are other verses which are for Muslims. The exact context in which that line applies, is to force Islam onto non-Muslim individuals. That is why there is the additional the path of guidance stands out clear from error. And the Qur'an itself does not say that someone should be killed for that. It says: "But those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of faith never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray." (3:90) and "Those who blasphemed and back away from the ways of Allah and die as blasphemers, Allah shall not forgive them." (4:48)Also apostasy is a capital punishment only in certain countries. I still think it belongs in the apostasy article and should not be used in general in a small summary on evangelism in Islam, but I have still added it.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

About the forced conversions in Christianity, not all Churches say it is sinful. I know this first hand (I was once evangelical). --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The original sentence said that apostates were subject to penalties ranging from ostracism to death. It did not say that all apostates were to be killed. The paragraph should not invite the inference that Islam teaches that religion is a matter of free choice, free from coercion; or that this coercion preventing apostasy, and penalizing evangelists, is limited only to the fringe among a few Muslim countries. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Forced conversion

When you say that ALL Christian churches state evangelism is sinful that is both point of view and factually incorrect. There are several protestant groups that encourage it. Obviously you can not apply the definition you added to preachers like Pat Robertson or other extremists. I think adding "certain" for both the churches and the Muslim countries is fair and uniform between the two. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The sentence has never said "all Christian churches" - it states a norm, from which I am not aware of any notable exceptions. Although, if you look under a rock somewhere, I'm sure you can find somebody who wants to tell the world to convert or die. If Islam has any renegades who don't fit the norm, maybe you can understand what I'm saying. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Determining what "churches teach" isn't a matter of adding "preachers" here, or there, who say one thing or another. There are norms, and exceptions to norms. The norm for Christian churches of any consequence, is to teach that forced conversion is a sin. Now, name the the exceptions; but don't say "certain Christian churches" teach against forced conversion, which invites the inference that they are not the norm. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
No specific sources have been provided that say that the Catholic church has always deemed forced conversions "sinful" or any other church for this matter. Only present day sources have been given. I find it hard to believe that the "teaching" has always been that forcing people to convert to Christianity is "sinful" when the Catholic church has authorized them in many (and most) of the cases cited. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
That's right. Only present day sources need to be given, when they speak for the whole church. Vatican II is an authoritative council, and the teaching on the subject is spelled out in the document linked to - which addresses the tradition and the Biblical reasoning behind their conclusions. Papal encyclicals following Vatican II reiterate the theme of "human freedom and dignity" to the same effect. It is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Do you wish that it wasn't? As a Protestant, I can tell you that I thank God for this teaching, and have no desire to see it changed, and hope that all Catholics will adhere to it. I pray for the same thing with regard to Islam. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Good, I am glad you agree that the present source is given, because that indicates that the Catholic church did not necessarily always have this negative stance towards forced conversions and that this is a fairly recent decision. Therefore I propose that an edit be done to reflect this within the article. Something that indicates that condemning forced conversions as "sinful" is a recent decision by the catholic church and that there wasn't necessarily such a teaching when all the cited "allegations" of forced conversions of Muslims, Jews, native Americans, eastern orthodox, etc. took place. I too hope that Catholics and others will adhere to this teaching from now on, because so many people have suffered because of it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that what you need to appreciate is the Catholic idea that an understanding of a doctrine can develop without the doctrine changing. If you would interact with the document that has been referred to, and the encyclicals that affirm the same things, you should be able to see that the Church's understanding has developed, so that the Church is understood to have always taught that forced conversions are wrong, despite the fact that Catholics understood things differently at other times and places. What has changed is that there was no formal condemnation, in the past. What has not changed, is that forced conversions are a sin according to Roman Catholicism. If you'll get your mind around that, you can express the Catholic teaching without bias - pointing out the wrongs, and also describing what the Church says about those wrongs, and what in fact it does about them. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
But at the same time you should realise it also means that although the doctrine does not change, the understanding may infact change again in the future. It is possible that in 100 years time, that forced conversions will be condoned by Catholics. Critics at that time may point to the fact that it is condemned today, but supporters of forced conversions will be able to use your (Mark) exact same argument to state that it was simply an incorrect interpretation of the unchanging doctrine. -Chees 198.152.13.67 05:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

God; eternal, immortal, invisible

I'm not sure where to ask this question, since there's no specific WikiProject to turn to. I'm in the middle of a heated debate with an anonymous user at Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo#1 Tim 1:17 about the meaning of "eternal, immortal and invisible" in relation to "The God Of Abraham". Here's some of the dialog from that conversation.

but what makes it so unique from the other Abrahamic religions, yet alone important for including here? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The don't mean the same thing. end of discussion. This article is about a group you know nothing about, so it's best that you leave it alone. Stick to articles where you may have some knowledge of. 168.243.84.113

as well as this...

See above. God is immortal. The God article says so, so why must this as well? It is redundant in a language sort of way becuase it repeats a concept with a different word. To be clear, if we are talking about "the God of Abraham" (for lack of better word), we are talking about the same God. There's no difference between the Jewish God, the Christian God, nor even the Muslim Allah. Each religion is based on their view of God. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 09:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC) (08:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

Again displaying your ignorance of the subject matter. It may serve you to do a little research before making statements such as this. 168.243.84.113 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What are your views on this? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


Im not sure what the transliteration of "invisible" is but eternal and immortal are basically the same. Also, im not sure why you ask a thought on an argument between a closed minded individual and a freethinker. --J. 03:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

call for help

Would editors knowledgable about the Judeo-Christian ethic or tradition see my comment here: [1]? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote for significant overhaul

This article is very strange and rather bloated. It discusses theological issues that are treated more adequately elsewhere and don't fit under the title. For example, there is a huge section on the books of these vaious faiths. Also, the faiths are chosen for inclusion by means that are not uniform and the manner of inclusion is unequal.

The theological issues should be set aside. They are treated elsewhere and there should be links to those places, if necessary.

It seems to me that the one real criteria for inclusion into this article is that the founder of the religion is geneologically descended from Abraham.

There are at least four religions who's founders appear on Abraham's family tree. These all should be mentioned, with the documentation to back it up. This link from earlier was great (Matthew 1:1-17). What could even be better would be to take this account and others and construct a family tree, graphically, that is linked to the different religions. And perhaps even color-code it so that readers can tell which part comes from the Bible, and which from the Qu'ran an so on.

I wonder if this has been done already? I'll start looking around.LambaJan 05:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Opposed, that's quite arbitrary, and irrelevant- not to mention a theological issue to be set aside. The actual criterion is simply that the religion look backwards to Abraham for foundational guidance, ie from a common semitic tradition. -SM 2005-12-17 07:23:35
I respect your vote, but I don't respect the lack of a signature, or calling a rational logical argument arbitrary and irrelevant. All of the major Abrahamic religions can trace a bloodline descent, and this is consistant with the scriptural reading about the destiny of Abraham's descendents. If you want to disagree with my reading and say that for such and such reasons a literal reading is not appropriate then I'll listen to you. You haven't done that and you haven't actually argued that my position is arbitrary or irrelevant. Furthurmore, even if it's decided that your interpretation of the criteria for being considered Abrahamic is considered, there still needs to be an overhaul. There are entire sections of this article that have nothing to do with a religion's claim to being Abrahamic and there is unequal treatment of the claimants and some confusion regarding individual and shared claims. LambaJan 17:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I tend to forget signatures, then come back and fix them off the log later. As to your argument, I stand by my earlier comments- the article might do with an overhaul, but not for the reason you cite. The notion of Abrahamic religion is exogenous, not endogenous, and the point of a tradition's specific claim to a founder's lineal descent from Abraham is irrelevant to it. Perhaps you could help me out and cite which four religions you have in mind, and which you would think to exclude. -SM 18:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry about writing with an attacking tone, whether justified or not I felt compelled to defend myself. Thank you for sticking to your guns as it caused me to refine the expression of my position.

In any article, or argument, it's prudent to stick to the topic and to cover the points in a logically flowing manner. When I came upon this article I expected that it would explain the concept behind the term 'Abrahamic,' outline the criteria to be met for a religion to be considered, for instance: what I was complaining about earlier (btw: the four in mind are simply the ones mentioned in the article as having founders that can claim a bloodline descent from Abraham), and if there be more than one generally accepted criteria, then all outlined with applicables listed. This was done, but not clearly enough to set up the next expectation of the article: that it would give a paragraph to each applicable that is limited to the nature of and support for the claim. Instead of this the article goes into a comparative religion study that constitutes the majority of what the article is. If the article were renamed 'Comparative Study of Abrahamic Religions' then I would expect most of the content in here, but then it would still need to have an 'Abrahamic Religion' article to reference from. Only the first two sections of this article in its current form can qualify to be under that heading, and the logical flow of the argument needs to be refined because as it stands right now it starts with a definition that is brief and incomplete then jumps to generally accepted claiments without first discussing the criteria. This may sound like nitpicking to you, but left unaddressed the reader is expected to just trust the authors assessment of what is generally accepted and why, and without a reference to any part of the logical framework of the argument or an outside trusted source. I hope that, presented this way, you can appreciate my concern. LambaJan 21:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

First, it is impossible to say that any of these religions can claim a bloodlineal descent from Abraham. Second, the article doesn't even do so. Third- again- to which four religions are you referring (and what others would you exclude)? Fourth, the notion of Abrahamic religion is not even that of a founder's bloodlineal descent, and the notion of having to justify (or even make) a claim is irrelevant.
As to the idea of two articles, one being Abrahamic Religion, and the other Comparative Study of Abrahamic Religions, it is not without merit, but the bloodline principal is. Did you consider what I said about exogenous, not endogenous? These religions are studied together because of the several shared structural and traditional elements, not because of a specific claim, and certainly not because of that specific claim.
P.S. Don't get hung up on Matthew, he was coopting a heraldic style prevelant at the time partly for political purposes. =)
-SM 21:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I did get what you said about this being an exogenous construct, which is precisely why the article needs to walk the reader through it step-by-step. You are acting like I'm attacking content or something like that, I'm really trying to call for some assemblance of order. I don't want anything removed that isn't already better fitted somewhere else on the 'pedia. I wasn't calling for the creation of a new article because I'm reasonably (though admittedly not 100%) sure that the comparative religion is already represented in a more appropriate place, and I wasn't calling for my understanding to be the dominant one represented, or even to necessarily even be represented at all. I was using those as examples to explain my position on the lack of flow of logic and subsequent lack of equal representation. I _certainly_ was not calling to exclude any religion. My understanding, as I mentioned earlier, was written in the article:

According to the Bible, the patriarch Abraham (or Ibrahim, in Arabic) had eight sons by three wives: one (Ishmael) by his wife's servant Hagar, one (Isaac) by his wife Sarah, and six by another wife Keturah. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh, and other prominent figures all claim to be descendants of Abraham through one of these sons.

I refused to be pinned down on the ones I was mentioning because the specifics were only related to that line of reasoning and if one were to persue that line of reasoning then the final list may be different. Likewise, if one were to persue another line of reasoning that list would would be rendered irrelevant. As I said earlier, the problem is not in the criteria used to decide which religions are represented and to what degree, but in the fact that this criteria is not explained in terms of what it actually is and what manner of reasoning its foundation is. If this, that is Abrahamic religion,' as an exogenous construct, were explained, rather than 'Abrahamic religions,' the comparative religion study, then we wouldn't even be having this miscommunication. LambaJan 23:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, the criterion has been simply that the religion look backwards to Abrahamic tradition for foundational guidance, ie that they descend from a common semitic tradition. What further clarification are you arguing for, now that (I hope) we've set bloodlines aside? BTW, to say that the comparative elements of this article are somehow redundant of a general article on Comparative religion is to disregard what a narrow slice of human religious experience Abrahamic religion represents, whatever its internal diversity. -SM 21:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Support Vote to Overhaul / Split: When I first arrived at this article, I was looking for the answer to the question: "What is an Abrahamic faith?" The article addresses that question very well in the first two paragraphs, and perhaps the Patriarchs section. However, everything beyond that section (The Supreme Deity, Inclusivity, Religious Scriptures, The Coming, Afterlife, Worship, Circumcision, Food Restrictions, Evangelism) are all of a comparative nature and I believe they should all be separated from this particular article. This is better put into an article entitled something like "Comparison of Abrahamic Religions". However, even then, this same material covered found elsewhere, such as in the Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity article. --Tom II 17:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I also support a major overhaul of this article. I started to edit a bit the other day, but stopped; it's not clear that a lot of the comparative stuff really belongs there, and it's certainly the case that a lot of people will come here not knowing what an "Abrahamic religion" was in the first place. Perhaps much of the foregoing debate can be sidestepped by noting in the article text that it is a controversial term, with some narrowly defining it as "Judeo-Christian plus Muslim" (which is itself a fuzzy definition) and others defining it more broadly as "...". It is certainly the case that some claim the narrow definition, but this format allows everyone to add their own claim to Abrahamism. /blahedo (t) 02:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is a bit bloated and needs some trimming and refocusing. However, I also think that the overall structure is OK and the article is quite useful as is. (Especially if you check older versions and see how much it has improved over the last 1-2 years.) It does define what is "Abrahamic religion" (in the only way that is politically viable, namely a religion is Abrahamic if it claims to be). Then it tries to give the reader a clear ensemble view of those religions --- a view that is almost impossible to get by reading articles on individual faiths. What we should do is reduce the verbosity of some parags, and leave minor details to the proper pages --- but please let's not mangle the article for trivial excuses. A lot of hard work went into this text....
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 07:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment Jorge. I also quite like the definition. How about keeping those opening paragraphs rather similar to how they are, with little blurbs from each one about the texts and references to Abraham, making sure that the definition "namely a religion is Abrahamic if it claims to be" is implicit in the way the subject matter is treated. Then having one paragraph for each religion that focuses on the nature of their claim of being an Abrahamic religion, with a link to the religion's main article. If you don't want to simply cut this material, we could split it into 'Comparitive Study of Abrahamic Religions' and have a 'see:' at the beginning of that section.
This would considerably focus and trim down the article, which I think is necessary. That bit about geneology is a case in point. Without an explicit 'this is what it means to be an Abrahamic Religion' which isn't lost in a lot of off subject material, it's easy for the reader to miss the point of the article and, trying to logic out some sort of definition, come up with that one. I could have just as easily latched on to some other point and tried to make a logical framework out of it. Now that we seem to agree on a definition, lets use it, and narrow the focus of the article so that readers don't become confused. -LambaJan 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary vote to delete the article

Rather than overhauling this article, I would go for deleting the article altogether. The only unique contribution of this article is the definition of the term "Abrahamic religion". Other than that, the article just makes a cursory comparison of several aspects of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and goes like "Judaism says this, Christianity, says that, Islam says something else." All these issues, however, are treated extensively in the articles devoted to these three religions. I fail to see any need to combine several excerpts from those articles in one place. However, if this article is only about a term, then the Wikipedia policy is "do not create an entry merely to define a term." WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. So the appropriate decision should be to delete this article and, possibly, create the article "Abrahamic religion" in Wiktionary.

  • By the way, you need to put up a request for deletion if you really want this article to be deleted. joturner 22:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Pecher said on my talk page he created this section to just test the waters, to see what everyone would think about getting this article deleted before actually making a formal request. I think the idea of testing the waters doesn't make sense as that, essentially, is what the request for deletion is; a vote before the vote doesn't seem to make much sense. joturner 23:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not the way to delete an article and this article probably won't be deleted anyways. The term is very important and that it compares three religions is also helpful. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The article provides an "ensemble" view of the Abrahamic religions that cannot be easily obtained by reading their individual articles.
    Jorge Stolfi 08:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Concur with opposition above. Clearly, WP:NOT#Dictionary does not apply.
  • Oppose. It is useful to not only define the term but also to explore the similarities and differences among he religions that define its content.64.241.37.140 15:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, this article shows what those religions have in common, and that mainly du to historic and cultural factors those religions have taken different routes. It also shows a case of religious localisation as this happen with languages too--Khalid hassani 18:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Oppose. I think this article is bloated and needs to be trimmed or split, but there is a cause for its being here beyond merely defining a term. -LambaJan 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This article should show why certain religions are grouped as 'abrahamic'. To that purpose it should show in some detail what they have in common and how they differ. What should be represented therefore is a comparison of the main beliefs of these religions: who or what is God, relationship between God and humanity, Heaven and Hell, rules and sins, worship etc... and some history/development. What is not necessary is a detailed representation of the written sources of these similarities and differences. This is why I nominate for deletion the section "Religious scriptures" ! Reasons: -the main scriptures are already mentioned in other sections of the article -there are extensive sections on the scriptures within the main articles about the individual religions -there are main articles about the scriptures themselves —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.135.193.35 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Deletion - The very fact that some want this article deleted is an argument to keep it. If its a very difficult topic then it deserves much work rather than us giving up, sometimes its the difficult things that are most worthy of our attention. In my personal opinion this is a hot and difficult topic because part of the character of the "Abrahamic" traditions is to see themselves as unique, set-apart, special or to be more exact "Chose by God." They therefore want to repell any similarity with 'other' traditiions. This characteristic desire to seperate themselves is one of the most characteristic features of an Abrahamic tradition, something which certainly distinguishes them from the more tolerant and syncretic so-called "[Pagan]" traditions which joy in sharing an exchanging ideas about the divine. (I am obviously my self a pagan.) The term "Abrahamic" religion is therefore probably an afront to those who are most "Abrahamic" because they wish to have a special and unique stauts which is betrayed by the terms they often use to referr to themselves e.g.: "The Chosen people", "The Elect of God", "The Sanctified" etc... Non-Abrahamic religions have had no need for such special statuses but were fine just remaining humans and citizens. This seems to be a distinguishing characteristic between what is an "Abrahamic" and "Non-Abrahamic" religiion.Paul diffenderfer 15:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Deletion - This article seems to be very relevant, and is important, as it shows important similarities and differences between these closely related religions that cannot be adequately expressed in the individual religions' articles. Furthermore, as an Evangelical Christian, the term "Abrahamic" is not an offense, because we recognize both that Abraham was a great leader in the history of our faith, and as it was Abraham's children Isaac and Ishmael who are generally recognized as being the "fathers" of the split between the religions. (Isaac being the father of the Jews, and hence the Jewish and Christian faiths; Ishmael being the father of the Arabs, and hence the Muslim faith.) --64.113.94.58 23:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Deletion - This is a very useful and informative article. Ordinary Person 12:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Until now, I have no idea how the Bahá'í Faith is considered an Abrahamic religion. Can someone clarify?--Ariedartin 16:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, because they consider themselves to be. That alone is sufficient to meet the definition that seems to be being agreed upon. The fact that their inclusion needs clarification is another failing of the article in its current form.
Their claim comes from the fact that they trace the roots of their religion back to Abraham. That is, they see the Abrahamic religions as unfolding chapters (of sorts), of which they are the most recent. -LambaJan 21:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The Bahá'í Faith is "descended" from the Bábí Faith, which is in turn "descended" from Islam, an Abrahamic religion. -WikiMarshall 12:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, Bahá'ís believe that Bahá'u'lláh is descended of Abraham through Abraham's third wife Katurah, as well as by Sasan, wife of Cyrus, who was a daughter of Davidic lineage. Furthermore, Shoghi Effendi (Baha'u'llah's great-grandson) identifies Bahá'u'lláh as a descendent of Jesse, who is in turn descended from Abraham through Isaac. Bahá'u'lláh claimed a revelation in the same prophetic tradition as Noah, Abraham, Moses (and all the rest). Certainly beyond the average Bahá'í believing it without much research, there are lots of internal claims to prophetic inheritance from Abraham, both lineally and by tradition. Now Bahá'ís don't normally worry about this level of detail, but for those who are substantially interested... --Christian Edward Gruber 21:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a cite for this? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
In regards to Baha'i belief regarding Baha'u'llah's descendency from Abraham, see God Passes By, p. 94. Regarding Baha'u'llah's claimed revelation in the same prophetic tradition as Abraham see the Baha'i Britannica article from 1988 (only one I have). There's also a short statement from a Religion News Service article at [2]. -- Jeff3000 22:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
"Grew out of Islam" is supported, I'm not sure "Abrahamic religion" is directly supported. Thanks for the links. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Abraham on List of people known as father or mother of something

I recently added Abraham to the page List of people known as father or mother of something, noting that he has been called both "Father of Israel" and "Father of Islam". There are numerous sources for both. I also added Ishmael, who has been called "Father of the Arabs", and Paul of Tarsus, who has been called by various scholars "Father of Christianity".

Another user removed these changes[3], contesting that only within Islam has Abraham been considered a Father of Islam. He (or she) further contested that father means "founder", and that Muhammed should be called the Father of Islam. This list is not meant to be an exclusive one, and specifically states "that this does not always mean they invented, discovered or originated the thing with which they are associated, nor that they always have been or currently are considered a father or mother of it."

Anyone interested in this discussion, please contribute at Talk:List_of_people_known_as_father_or_mother_of_something#Religious_Figures. --Dforest 07:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

613 Commandments?

There's a section about Moses receiving the 613 commandments on Mount Sinai. I am personally confused --- in my Bible it says (Exodus 21) that Moses received 10 commandments on Mt. Sinai. Do Judaism or Islam say differently? If so, perhaps we should note the discrepancy..

Traditional Judaism believes that not just the 10 commandments were handed down at Sinai, but the entire Torah as well (+ the oral law, now emobodied in the Talmud and therefor no longer exclusively oral). A reading of the Torah reveals a total of 613 commandments (including keeping Kosher, etc) which include the traditional 10 commandments that Christains are familiar with. Incorrect 07:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the edit of 613 to 10. It is ironic that someone would make that edit to a section of the site without explanation. Incorrect 01:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

what is the behavior code the muslims follow? what commandments do they obbey?--T-man, the wise 09:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I think those differences should be key elements to this page, that's the trascendental stuff. Uh, and why did x-tians took of the other 603 commandments? did they (we) rewrote stuff from the Old-Testament? That doesn't make much sense.--T-man, the wise 09:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell, Christians believe that Jesus's coming, death, and resurrection signifies the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesy and the Law. Christians believe that with this fulfillment, the Law itself no longer applies in terms of one's path to salvation, and instead one "gets to heaven" only through true faith in Jesus. For example, wearing four tassels on your cloak or performing certain ritual washings no longer had any stock in your salvation (some of the 613 laws). Christians believe that this was explained in the OT and, once Jesus came, reiterated through Jesus' teachings and the other inspired books of the New Testament. Thus, the 613 laws were neither rewritten, deleted, nor replaced, but fulfilled. They were the guidebook for God's people to keep and live by until the Messiah would come. The 10 commandments remain as an excellent guideline for moral behavior, but again, if you were to break one of them, it does not guarantee Hell, nor does fulfillment of all 10 commandments lead to Heaven.--Tom II 17:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Romans 1:26?

"some scholars"? I think not. The interpretation of that passage referencing lesbianism has been pretty consistent from the beginning. The Apostle Paul is clearly meaning lesbianism. To be fair, we should mention that not all scholars (particularly modern ones) agree, but to suggest it is a fringe interpretation is simply incorrect and possibly the use of weasel words.

It is accurate, however, that the practice is not specifically condemned in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. I'm not familiar enough w/ the Qur'anic literature to make comment on that section.

Splitting this article

There was significant support for splitting this article, but since then things seem to have gone quiet. There is a clear need for an article about What is an Abrahamic religion? Which religions are generally claimed to be Abrahamic? and to some extent What are the core or distinguishing features of Abrahamic faiths? but which need not be an in depth piece of comparative religious study. Obviously it ought to say something about general trends Abrahamic faiths - it would be silly not to mention that they seem to be monotheistic, although of course even this is not clear cut (Muslims do not generally view Christians as true monotheists). There is no need to make this a Muslim-Christian comparison piece and I think there is significant support for this view expressed above. The article fails to address the key question of "what faiths are considered Islamic" and some instances like "Rastafari" get their first mention far too low down. It also fails to address the "what is an Abrahamic faith?" point well at all. I support those editors above who decided this needs a significant re-write. TheGrappler 20:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jewish evangelism

If this is a historical overview of all these religions, then the discussion of Jewish non-evangelism should include mention of the pre-modern period when Judaism was evangelical. If there's no room to be complete, perhaps the matter should be kept for a more specific page where there is room for the whole story. Dybryd 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this link acceptable for this article (link-owner, apologize, self-promotion):

Philosophy and religion - including Abrahamic religions: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrhum.htm Pvosta 10:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Need a close paren ) in the first paragraph

I'm not sure where to add it, but the first paragraph has more open parens "(" than close parens ")". The unclosed paren begins with "Abraham ("Father/Leader of many" Hebrew". Somebody close that paren! — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sikhs

Good to see Bahai's listed, however, shouldn't the Sikhs get a mention. They are after all a cross fertilisation between "Abrahamic" and "Dharmic" --MacRusgail 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Inquisition

Formally the Spanish inquisition only concerned it self with Jews or Muslims that claimed to be Christians and yet remained Jews or Muslims.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abrahamic_religions/Archive_1&oldid=1251429858"