So for example, is Brahman and/or the Hindu Trimurti, Allah of the Muslims, Ahura Mazda of the Persians, Zeus of the Greeks, the Three Pure Ones of the Daoists, the Great Spirit of the Native Americans, Baha of the Baha’is, Asshur of the Assyrians, Waheguru of the Sikhs, and the many other highest deities of various different faiths an expression of Yahweh but under different names? I have noticed that in the New Testament there are hymns to Zeus adapted to God by Paul and even in the Old Testament psalms and hymns originally for Baal or El of Canaan had been adapted to Yahweh.
The simple answer is NO they are not equal.
Many of those entities you mentioned had 'fathers" or “mothers”.
The GOD we worship is “Uncreated” has existed for all eternity.
HE also does not change, like the entities you mentioned.
GOD does not destroy. Not even the demons who are Angels who rebelled against HIM. Yet HE does not destroy them.
That cannot be said of many of the entities you mentioned.
GOD is pure love. There is no hatred in HIM. When you read in the Old Testament that man causes the “wrath of GOD” we need to understand we are or rather they were anthropomorphize the characteristics of GOD. In other words giving HIM our way of looking at things.
Hope this helps.
There are Wiccans who are also monotheists, but their one deity is the Goddess, the Queen of Witches, who works through spells and sex magick. Their deity is not our deity.
The answer is “sometimes” and “sort of”.
Like the above posters have said, there are some new or rebooted pagan theologies out there, and while they’re monotheistic, they’re not the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
In the case of the Moslems, they do worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but their theology departs from Christianity (ie they’re not trinitarian and they don’t want to be) that the answer is a very messy “sort of”.
What about the hymn to Zeus that St. Paul makes use of for the God of Abraham? (Acts 17:28). Yet Zeus is said to have a father and mother, Cronus and Rhea.
Paul is fitting the Greek’s partial understanding of the Highest God (the bits that are true) into His explanation as to why God is not a metal idol statue, but is Spirit in the case of the Father and Spirit and in human flesh in the case of Christ. But never an idol that the Greeks were worshipping. Paul is not saying that God and Zeus are compatible. Notice he says, “the divine being,” referring to whatever the true divine being is (which Paul knows is the One True God.) He does not say, “You have said of Zeus XYZ so Zeus is XYZ,” he says “You have said of your understanding of the divine being XYZ which proves that your statues cannot be the divine being, by your own reasoning.” The passage you are referring to is Acts 17:28-31
28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ 29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
Y’all might want to read Nostra Aetate for starters.
Then, from the CCC: ““Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible; see CCC 1260–61, 1283).”
So a blanket “no” to the question is perhaps less than nuanced. “Yes” to the question is correct as to Islam, contrary to the many opinions which have been expressed in other threads in these forums. As to other religions, there may be more than a scintilla of truth within them, but not necessarily sufficient to say “Yes” to the OP’s question.
The Church holds that baptism is necessary; but it still remains, that God’s laws bind us - but they do not bind God.
At the time of Adam and Eve, then later at the time of Noah and his Sons, there was only ‘I AM’, the one God.
Then came dispersal of peoples and imaginations of what is god piling on top of memories and on top of stories of who God really was, until the imaginations overtook and fully distilled knowledge of the one God in many areas of the world.
All religions developed (or, were corruptions) of the knowing of and about the one God, thus all will have some faint odor of right sacrificial smoke, yet they are just smoke.
It is the one God, who made certain he was fully known to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and now Himself personally to us in the person of his Son, born to his Servant Mary with her Faithful Husband Joseph.
Religion did not develop into monotheistic ideas; religion became and is becoming ever more corrupt with time.
God in person with Adam and Eve, with Noah, with Abraham, and with us is the only thing that keeps it alive from full corruption. Apart from this He abandons them, as Paul stated, to their foolishness and imaginings.
If you show a Moslem some Catholics adoring the Blessed Sacrament and ask him if he worships the same God they are worshipping, he will say firmly “no”
Hence why I said it’s messy
Just so long as it’s not Danny and Rhea (as in DeVito and Perlman)…
I’m sorry… all the deadly serious, life-or-death, heaven-or-hell, sober-as-a-judge things we have to discuss on these forums, in defense of the Faith and unto the salvation of souls, I just couldn’t resist this.
Imagining Danny DeVito as the father of Zeus makes me smile, and I hope it makes you smile too.
But just because you can have a wrong conception about God does not mean its not the same God? Neither Muslims nor Jews confess the Trinity yet we can agree they worship the same God. Some of the Israelites believed Asherah was Yahweh’s wife, or that Yahweh was the son of El, does that mean he is not the same Yahweh? People’s ideas about God can be wrong or pagan doesn’t mean in principle it’s not the same. I could tell you Plato historically inaccurate facts about Plato, that does not mean I’m not talking about the philosopher Plato.
Why would that necessarily be the case?
Because the people who invented the alternate names for God say so, and they are the ones who can say what a term means that they define.
Actually, it is the Church which can say so. And does, as noted above.
If that is the case, then the god they define in their holy books is explicitly not Jesus or the Trinity - they’ve made that clear. Shouldn’t we accept that?
You are right. They reject all but God the Father. But God the Father is clearly the same one that Christians worship.
The Bible says that those who reject God the Son cannot have God the Father: “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also” (I John 2:23)
Jesus also says: “No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me” (John 14:6)
Vat II - Nostre Aetate
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
The Holy Trinity is the creator of all ex nihilo, which is not even a idea in most religions. Note that Zeus is King not the creator for the Greeks.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins.
- Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism).
- Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him.
- Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism).
- According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism).
- Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism).
- Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism).
All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.