Is the term "Judeo-Christianity" a false narrative?

[Herskerstad]

Yes, but only because the other Abrahamic religion in Islam isn't also put in the combo.

Islam is usually considered to be foreign because Muhammad set many unique rules. Most of Christianity has some kind of basis in Judaism, whereas Islam contains a lot of independent ideas.

And a lot inspired from non-Abrahamic religions to boot.

[Immoren]

Islam is usually considered to be foreign because Muhammad set many unique rules. Most of Christianity has some kind of basis in Judaism, whereas Islam contains a lot of independent ideas.

And a lot inspired from non-Abrahamic religions to boot.

Christianity?

[Putin the Bear King]

Islam is usually considered to be foreign because Muhammad set many unique rules. Most of Christianity has some kind of basis in Judaism, whereas Islam contains a lot of independent ideas.

And a lot inspired from non-Abrahamic religions to boot.

Hmm...

No, not really.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Islam is usually considered to be foreign because Muhammad set many unique rules. Most of Christianity has some kind of basis in Judaism, whereas Islam contains a lot of independent ideas.

And a lot inspired from non-Abrahamic religions to boot.

The point is, Islam, Judaism and Christianity all consider Abraham to be their common ancestor three that's why they are called "Abrahamic".

But, I agree that Judaism and Christianity just have a more lot of things in common while Islam seems to be a gritty reboot of the Judeo-Christian franchise.

[Herskerstad]

And a lot inspired from non-Abrahamic religions to boot.

Hmm...

No, not really.

The Kaaba which Muslims tend to pray 5 times a day towards has no archeological evidence that Abraham built it up. Abraham was not even in the same region and there is not a mention of Ishmael being close. There is, on the other hand, multiple attestments of from the pagans who used it as the largest idol among the idols in Mecca. There were pagans who kissed the black stone, nothing's new there. The Islamic symbol of the crescent pre-dates Islam significantly. Zoroastrians prayed five times a day and washed themselves, though calling that pagan might be wrong. Muhammad's tribe fasted during what we now consider Ramadan and Muhammad's tribe was pagan. Doing Tawaf during the pilgrimage to Mecca is a pre-islamic practice which Allah seemingly sanctions. Walking around the black stone 7 times was not unheard of either, as similar rituals were done to please Manat. The Islamic symbol of the crescent pre-dates Islam significantly and symbolized another diety.

Now I would not argue if there was one or two similarities, but not a whole host which Muhammad clearly would be influenced by. Waraka ibn Nawfal, the first who told Muhammad that he was a prophet. Was an Ebionite. A small heretical sect of christian which rejects Jesus as divine, but see him as the Messiah and Muhammad has a similar view on the faith, and even the quran mis-interprets the Christian orthodoxy of the time. Now, given all of this, it is fairly easy to lay down the hypothetical of Muhammad essentially adopting other practices into his religion. I could go into things that were taught in the first century of Islam such as the now infamous satanic verses, but as it stands, saying that Islam did not take influences from pagan religions is fairly easy to disprove given in particular sahih hadiths on the issues which addresses the 'spiritualization' of said practices.
.
Then again, this is kind of going off topic as it stands, but I'd be happy to take this into the Islamic discussion thread.

[Meryuma]

Jews killed Jesus

Jesus was a Jew killed by Romans working in concert with rival Jewish religious figures.

and forget the radicals, they were annoying in the 1st century, they are now.

The Christians were the radicals in the first century.

Yes, but only because the other Abrahamic religion in Islam isn't also put in the combo.

Islam is usually considered to be foreign because Muhammad set many unique rules. Most of Christianity has some kind of basis in Judaism, whereas Islam contains a lot of independent ideas.

Islam and Orthodox Judaism have more rules in common than Christianity and Orthodox Judaism.

That's not what muslims believe. They think figures such as Moses and Abraham were muslims, despite no evidence of such.

A lot of Christians believe that Moses and Abraham were Christian prophets.

Then again, the majority of Islamic historical scholars believe Alexander the Great was an Islamic prophet.

Source?

Zoroastrians prayed five times a day and washed themselves, though calling that pagan might be wrong.

Zoroastrians are pretty much the opposite of pagan. IIRC they were monotheists before the Hebrews were and definitely a strong influence on a lot of the Bible.

[Korintar]

Yes, but only because the other Abrahamic religion in Islam isn't also put in the combo.

I find Judeo-Christianity to be problematic, not least because of Christianity's radical departure from the strict monotheism of Judaism and Islam, which are also both religions of orthopraxy, whereas Christianity is a religion rooted in orthodoxy. Both Judaism and Islam both lay claim to being direct descendants of the patriarch Abraham through Isaac and Ishmael respectively. Furthermore, unlike Judaism, both Christianity and Islam affirm that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, the chosen one of God, whereas Judaism (admittedly excluding Messianic Jews, btw) regards him as merely an obscure heretical first century rabbi who may have said some good things but who is of ultimately little to no importance. I'd rather use the term "Greater Abrahamic Tradition"- which is inclusive of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Samaritans, Baha'i, Mormons, Druze, and Ahmadis

[Menassa]

Islam is usually considered to be foreign because Muhammad set many unique rules. Most of Christianity has some kind of basis in Judaism, whereas Islam contains a lot of independent ideas.

Islam and Orthodox Judaism have more rules in common than Christianity and Orthodox Judaism.

Orthodox Judaism and Orthodox Christianity however, are theologically similar in some respects.

[Ieperithem]

The term refers to the western system of values, which stem back to the time when if was composed almost exclusively of Christians and Jews.

[Menassa]

The term refers to the western system of values, which stem back to the time when if was composed almost exclusively of Christians and Jews.

Yeah? Like all those Jews... like all 10-13ish million of them?

[Bataviria]

Except that, replying to what other people say here, Islam is completely different than Christianity. The term Abrahamistic Culture would contradict itself.

[Totus Plebeium]

Yes, but only because the other Abrahamic religion in Islam isn't also put in the combo.

I find Judeo-Christianity to be problematic, not least because of Christianity's radical departure from the strict monotheism of Judaism and Islam, which are also both religions of orthopraxy, whereas Christianity is a religion rooted in orthodoxy. Both Judaism and Islam both lay claim to being direct descendants of the patriarch Abraham through Isaac and Ishmael respectively. Furthermore, unlike Judaism, both Christianity and Islam affirm that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, the chosen one of God, whereas Judaism (admittedly excluding Messianic Jews, btw) regards him as merely an obscure heretical first century rabbi who may have said some good things but who is of ultimately little to no importance. I'd rather use the term "Greater Abrahamic Tradition"- which is inclusive of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Samaritans, Baha'i, Mormons, Druze, and Ahmadis

The way Islam views Jesus as Messiah is different on how Christians view Jesus as Messiah. To Islam he his an anointed one; a prophet to save the Jews and convert them to Islam, not the son of god, not redeemer of the world, not to be worshiped. To Christians he is The Anointed One; Savior, Redeemer of the world, son of god, part of the Trinity. We are opposite on who Jesus is, To Christians he died on the Cross, to Muslims he was assumed to heaven. Though both believe that he will return, to Muslims he is to aid the new caliph to destroy the Antichrist, to Christians he is to wage war against the Antichrist

[Herskerstad]

A lot of Christians believe that Moses and Abraham were Christian prophets.

As in before the birth of Jesus Christ and even the term Christian? It would be one thing to see them as justified in the old law and thus figures that stands as clear servants of God, but it would be an entirely different thing to give them the title of a set of beliefs that were not even revealed to them. I would say it would be a dualistic issue to reefer to them as Christians as the term, ideology, Christology, doctrinal history would conflict with such in a literal sense. Furthermore, aside from Muhammad adding a term even later than that to them, you find an entirely mangled timeline on Jewish history sometimes getting it wrong with around a millennia which bodes ill for someone claiming to be a prophet.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_ ... _the_Quran

Largely due to the stories of the lord of the two-horned one which was popular in Arabia and predated Muhammad and made reference to Alexander the Great, and Muhammad using the term on describing this figure. Due to this contracting massively with the modern and researched view on Alexander who was by most accounts not heterosexual, and a clear pagan, there have been different interpretations relatively recently of it such as Cyrus the great, though, it would raise a question on what divides the east and the west as the well known straight at the time near Constantinople would be a natural east/west divide, and Cyrus certainly did not claim ruler-ship over Western Roman/Greek lands which would make the two horned one definition mute, but as a general strong view. Yes, he has been considered anything from a prophet to a friend of God in Islamic understanding. Cyrus is virtually the only alternative I can think of that would have some level of merit, but again, he was certainly no monotheist despite his friendship with the Jews.

Zoroastrians are pretty much the opposite of pagan. IIRC they were monotheists before the Hebrews were and definitely a strong influence on a lot of the Bible.

Zoroastrianistic natural paganism has been something I will admit I am no expert on. I do think it is fair to say that they view fire as a divine tool of cleansing rather than adopt it as a fire worship which would amount to paganism which is what I would conclude from my limited knowledge.

On it's monotheism however, that would be disputable. It neither denies the existence of other Gods and lesser deities kind of was incorporated later in their timeline. I would suspect Zoroastrian sects would define that better than I could. It would however be at the very least dualistic as they neither feature an almighty figure, but kind of a balance between the 'good' Ahura and the 'evil' Angra. Furthermore this would not correlate with the early Jewish view on Satan which would not correlate a counter-balance to God and certainly not a second Godhead of equitable power, despite the testing of Job. While modern Christians tend to see Satan as the personification of a counter balance to God, it is certainly no being of equitable power despite it's influence, but I've yet to find a single Zoroastrian parallel within early church history and trust me, there were plenty of Greek, neoplatonic influences that spawned various sects during that creation which is why I certainly doubt it's influence in creating any kind of core doctrine within the early Christian church.

I find that the Zoroastrian influence as a general statement tends to fail on creating a correlation as it lacks both the evidence and the distinguishing features stand out quite vividly from both examples. That's not to say it could possibly be without merit as far as the traditions go, but the Jewish structure was very, very rigid and resistant to outside influence if we take the Hellenistic and indeed Babylonian/Assyrian influence as an example. As far as Zoroastrian influence on Islam there are some direct parallels in traditions and rites that seem directly paralleled, but Islam had some direct parallels as far as traditions go which their scholars say Muhammad 'spiritualized', but the political influence of the Zoroastrians would be absolutely minimal. They were generally brutalized within the early caliphates and were a super minority by the time the Abbassids started looking into India.

It is an interesting topic, but at this point, I am respectfully putting it under a spoiler as it does not relate to the topic of the thread.