This post is addressed to all posters, not any particular one.
It is unfair or rather useless to compare different religions. That does not serve any purpose but creates only confusion in the minds of the people.
One can compare only such religions which were initiated around the same timeline and within the same demography. I think that Jainism and Buddhism are the only two examples existed in the world. Every religion is different from other in one sense or other at the face value. It has to be because their purposes were different because of the mindset of targeted audience. It is as simple as that. Thus, they should not be compared.
One may say that biology is not logical because it does not use numbers like physics. Yes, that is true but still both are sciences but they deal in different subjects altogether. Can we compare biology with physics?
That is precisely what happens when one compares Christianity and Buddhism with Islam and Judaism. Their contexts were entirely different thus they are bound to be different. This difference does not make those superior or inferior. They should be considered different only.
Coming back to OP that whether Christianity is different from Judaism and Islam or not.
Yes, it is different but not in the sense in which OP is suggesting. Even Judaism and Islam are different from each other. People should not take it otherwise but Christianity is not a complete religion. Means, it addresses limited issues (though, not limited to the extent of Buddhism) but related to the largest section of the society. Judaism is more spreaded than Christianity and being the final one, Islam the most.
Quran, even being the shortest scripture that any religion has put forth so far, spares no vertical of the life.
I do not remenber it exactly now but Quran is merely 1/3 or 1/4 of the Bible. And, unlike Vedas, Bible or Torah, it is neither a systamatic text nor bestowed in a one go upon Muhammad. It took 23 years to Quran to be completely bestowed.
The practice was such that, whenever Muhammad had to face a new thing or dellima of any kind, a verse of Quran was bestowed to Muhanmmad by Jibrael ( Gabrial). That is why Quran covers almost all verticals of the life.
Buddhism is just opposite in this regard. It was never meant to be a mass religion, in the first place. Its targeted audience was spiritual investigators and scholars. A common man cannot follow Buddhism in the true sense. The core of the Buddhism is serious meditation to such extent where there would be almost no place for any other thing in the life. Everyone cannot follow that route. the moral part of the Buddhism was nothing new. It was already there in the Hinduism existed that that time.
Secondly, the core of Christianity is faith in a particular form of the God. Christianity sticks strictly to it. Unlike Buddhism, it does not allow its adherents to try and test in person. That is just opposite to Buddhism. I wonder how some people see similarities between the two.
Yes, they are on the same path regarding the morality. But, which religion differs on moral issues? Does Islam or Judaism say that one should lie, cheat or ill treat others?
The point people tend to miss that Christianity and Buddhism were supplements to Judaism and Hinduism. They were not full fledged religions by any means. A complete religion has to address all verticals of the life, including the rules and regulations for the war to sitting on the toilet seat. And, there are only two religions which pass this benchmark; Hinduism (as a whole) and Abrahamic religions (as a whole).
Rest are merely subsets or minor amendments which came up from time to time. Popularity of any particular subset (Christianity) is not an ideal benchmark to judge whether it is a complete religion or not. And also, let us not confuse merely some kind of spiritual practice ( Buddhism) as an independent religion.
Faith is faith and philosophy is philosophy.
with love,
sanjay