The "Paraclete"

[SalamChristian]

Peace e'erbody! :)

So, some of you may have heard of the Muslim interpretation of the "paraclete" as a prophecy about Muhammad. When I first heard this, I thought it was interesting, but obviously was not compelled to post a thread about it. For those that don't know, the "paraclete" is interpreted by most Christians today to be the Holy Spirit.

However, the other day I was reading the work of early church father Tertullian (160-220 ad), and I was amazed to find that this esteemed church father believed the "Paraclete" was also a prophecy that referred to an actual person, to come after Jesus. Monatanus, another early Christian, actually claimed to be the "paraclete." If you want some references, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism

http://www.archive.org/stream/tertul...ge/26/mode/2up

^look on p. 27 of Tertullian's work to see the reference to the "paraclete."

In addition, I have been finding some compelling studies written by Western scholars arguing that the "paraclete" was intended to be mean a physical person, like Jesus. Here is a scan of relevant pages, underlines with notes, from Roman Catholic Priest Raymond Brown:

http://www.mostmerciful.com/paraclete.htm

As paraclete means comforter or legal advisor, and as he is also called the Spirit of Truth, anyone familiar with the Qu'ran or Islam sees certain connections. Islam is a very legalistic religion, especially considering that the Sunnah is considered an essential part of the faith. Also, nearly every surah of the Qu'ran opens by calling it the "clear book" and the clear Truth--this is one of the most common phrases I have found in the Qu'ran.

Lastly, in John's prophecies in "Revelations," about the things to come after Jesus, the first of these is the "white rider on a white horse." When I first read this, before I was in college and before I had even encountered Islam at all, I thought this was an obvious reference to Muhammad. I am not alone in this; it is quite common for Christians I speak with to interpret this as Muhammad. As John writes:

"So I looked, and here came a white horse! The one who rode it had a bow, and he was given a crown, and as a conqueror he rode out to conquer." Revelations 6:2

"Conquering" in Revelations is not portrayed as a bad thing at all. As it is written earlier "The one who conquers I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never depart from it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God (the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven from my God), and my new name as well." Revelations 3:12. Of course, this verse almost certainly refers to the specific Church John is writing to, but as you can see Conquering is repeatedly (both here and earlier in the letter) described as the most commendable of acts.

I want to know what you think (that's why I wrote the thread)! What are the thoughts of the Christians on the forum? What are the thoughts of the Muslims?

Peace

[Woodrow]

Very interesting thought. Before I add my own opinion I want to see what others think.

[MustafaMc]

Brother Woodrow, I agree. I find this post interesting and would like to hear what our Christian friends have to say as well as what you have to say.

[Woodrow]

Brother Woodrow, I agree. I find this post interesting and would like to hear what our Christian friends have to say as well as what you have to say.

Brother Mustafa,

I had been waiting to see if any Christian member would reply.But I most likely will not be on line much before Thursday. so I will add a few of my thoughts now.

The word Paraclete is of Greek origin and in English means advocate or helper. The word has no exact equivalent in Hebrew, but the Greek Jews considered a Paraclete to be a human intercessor of advocate or comforter. The Early Christians seen it as referring to a human advocate who was yet to come.

I find it interesting to see the evolution to have it refer to the "Holy Spirit". Interesting because in my view that would invalidate the "Sacrifice" of Jesus(as) on the cross. If Jesus(as) had died for man's sins and opened up the door to heaven, what need would their be for God to make a return visit and act as an intercessor? If the Trinity were real, what would be the logic in having a double visit to Earth by God, in two different forms and one of them being a comforter. Would not being freed from the fires of hell have been enough comfort?

Now, if as the Jews and early Christians believed and if the Paraclete was to be a man yet to come. The only one I see matching the prophecy/revelation is Muhammad (PBUH).

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[selsebil]

Assalaam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh,

Bediuzzaman Said Nursi RA explains in Risale-i Nur that there are many verses in Torah and Gospels which point out the prophethood of Muhammed PBUH.Just a few of them:

First: In the Psalms, there is the following verse:
O God, send to us after the period between prophets one who will establish an exemplary model.306
Here, “One who will establish an exemplary model” refers to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
A verse from the Gospels says:
The Messiah said: “I am leaving for my father and your father, so that He may send you the Paraclete,”307
that is, Ahmad Muhammad.
A second verse from the Gospels:
I ask from my Lord for the Paraclete that he may abide with you forever.308
Paraclete, meaning ‘the distinguisher of good from evil,’ is the name of our Prophet in those Books.
In several places in the Gospels, a prophet who will come after Jesus is referred to as “the Master of the World.” He is described as:
He will have with him a staff of iron with which he will fight, as will his people.318
This verse indicates that a prophet will come with a sword, charged with waging jihad. Qadib min hadid (literally, staff of iron) means sword. And so will be his community. In agreement with the Biblical verse mentioned above, and referring to it as well as some other verses, the following Qur’anic verse at the end of Sura al-Fath also states that his community, like him, will be commanded to wage jihad.
In the Fourth Chapter of the Book of Micah, are the following verses:
But in the last days it shall come to pass that the mountain of the House of God will be the most renowned one of all the mountains of the world, praised by all nations; people from all over the world will make pilgrimage there. “Come,” they will say to one another, “let us go up to the mountain of God and the House of God.”325
These verses obviously describe the most blessed mountain in the world, Mount ‘Arafat, and the worship and proclamations of “God is Most Great!” of those making the Hajj, who will flock there from all climes, and the Community of Muhammad, famous for the Divine Mercy it will receive.
Again, the Turkish translation of John’s Gospel, Chapter Fourteen verse twenty,327 says:
I shall not speak with you for much longer, for the ruler of the world is coming, and I am nothing compared with him.
Thus, the title Ruler of the World means Glory of the World. And the title of Glory of the World is one of the most famous of Muhammad the Arabian’s (Upon whom be blessings and peace) titles.
Again in John’s Gospel, Chapter Sixteen verse seven, it says:
But I am telling you the truth. My departure is but for your benefit. For, unless I depart, the Comforter will not come.328
Now see, who other than Muhammad the Arabian (Upon whom be blessings and peace) is the Ruler of the World and true consoler of men? Yes, the Glory of the World is he, and he is the one who will save transitory man from eternal extinction and thus comforts him.
Again, the eighth verse of Chapter Sixteen in John’s Gospel:
When he comes, he will give the world convincing evidence concerning its sin, its righteousness, and its judgement.329
Who other than Muhammad the Arabian (Upon whom be blessings and peace) has turned the world’s wrongdoing into righteousness, saved men from sin and associating partners with God, and transformed politics and world rule?
Also from the Gospel of John, the eleventh verse of Chapter Sixteen:
There is deliverance from judgement, for the Ruler of this World has already been judged.330
Here “the Ruler of the World” is certainly Ahmad Muhammad (Upon whom be blessings and peace), for he is known as the Master of Humanity.331
Also, in John’s Gospel, the thirteenth verse of Chapter Twelve:332
But when he, the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will guide you all to the truth, for he will not be presenting his own ideas, but will be passing onto you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future.333
This verse is explicit. Who apart from Muhammad the Arabian (Upon whom be blessings and peace) has called all men to the truth, whose every statement was based on Revelation, has spoken what he had heard from Gabriel, and informed man in detail about the resurrection of the dead and the Hereafter? Who other than he could do this?
Also, the Books of other prophets include names in Syriac and Hebrew that correspond to the various names of the Prophet (PBUH), such as Muhammad, Ahmad, Mukhtar. For example, in the scriptures of the Prophet Shu‘ayb, his name is Mushaffah,334 and means ‘Muhammad.’ In the Torah, he is mentioned as Munhamanna, which again means ‘Muhammad,’ and as Himyata,335 which means ‘the Prophet of al-Haram.’ In the Psalms, he is called al-Mukhtar.336 Again in the Torah, the name is al-Hatam al-Khatam.337 Both in the Torah and in the Psalms, it is Muqim al-Sunna,338 in the scriptures of Abraham and in the Torah, he is mentioned as Mazmaz,339 and again in the Torah, as Ahyad.

306. Yusuf Nabhani, Hujjat Allah ‘ala’l-‘Alamin 104, 115.

307. Halabi, al-Sirat al-Halabiya i, 352; Jisri, Risale-i Hamidiye (Turkish trans.) i, 250; Qastalani, al-Mawahib al-Ladunniya vi, 201.
308. ‘Ali al-Qari, Sharh al-Shifa’ i, 743; Yusuf Nabhani, Hujjat Allah ‘ala’l-‘Alamin 99; Jisri, Risale-i Hamidiye i, 255; Gospel of John, 14:16.
318. Yusuf Nabhani, Hujjat Allah ‘ala’l-‘Alamin 99, 114.

More information can be found at:

http://lightofquran.info/q5.htm

[Sol Invictus]

i wonder why we don't let the text interpret itself because frankly the majority of christians and jews did not believe that the paraclete was to be a human individual. but most importantly, we should let the text concerning the paraclete speak for itself rather than going on on a tangent when the matter is pretty clear when we analyze the text:

the paraclete is said to abide with christians forever. not only that but the world cannot see him nor hear him but he will live inside christians forever: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." John 14:16-17

notice that the disciples whom christ was talking to would experience the advent of the paraclete: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. John 15:27

furthermore, the comforter is to glorify christ seeing as his teaching will come from christ: "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you." John 16:7-14

considering all of the above, it is rather wrong to claim that christians supposed that the paraclete could be a human individual for there is no way that a human can abide in another person much less inside every christian. also the paraclete would be invisible, and he was to abide within the disciples of christ, montanus himself was only active after the original 12 disciples had died and so he could not fit the bill. that said, montanus did not claim that he was the paraclete but rather that he was a mouthpiece for the paraclete!

[SalamChristian]

First: In the Psalms, there is the following verse: O God, send to us after the period between prophets one who will establish an exemplary model.306 Here, “One who will establish an exemplary model” refers to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Can you give me verse and chapter numbers for all of the references you make in the Torah? It's difficult to consider your argument without being able to look at verses.

I shall not speak with you for much longer, for the ruler of the world is coming, and I am nothing compared with him. Thus, the title Ruler of the World means Glory of the World. And the title of Glory of the World is one of the most famous of Muhammad the Arabian’s (Upon whom be blessings and peace) titles.

What word in Hebrew/Arabic would be used here to signify "glory?"

There is deliverance from judgement, for the Ruler of this World has already been judged.330 Here “the Ruler of the World” is certainly Ahmad Muhammad (Upon whom be blessings and peace), for he is known as the Master of Humanity.331

How do you interpret John 14:30? "Hereafter I will not talk with you much for the ruler of this world is coming and he has nothing in me?"

Keep in mind that almost all Christians interpret "ruler of this world" to refer to Satan in those verses, so be prepared for me to ask you some tough questions later. :)

Peace brother

[Woodrow]

One may want to look further into the Writings of Tertullian:

Tertullian, Latin in full Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus (born c. 155, /160, Carthage [now in Tunisia]—died after 220, Carthage), important early Christian theologian, polemicist, and moralist who, as the initiator of ecclesiastical Latin, was instrumental in shaping the vocabulary and thought of Western Christianity

It is interesting to note that this early theologian and a main developer of today's Christian doctrine eventually became known as a heretic, but his writings are still the basic foundation of Christian interpretation of the Bible.

Tertullian as a Montanist

Sometime before 210 Tertullian left the orthodox church to join a new prophetic sectarian movement known as Montanism (founded by the 2nd-century Phrygian prophet Montanus), which had spread from Asia Minor to Africa. His own dissatisfaction with the laxity of contemporary Christians was congenial with the Montanist message of the imminent end of the world combined with a stringent and demanding moralism. Montanism stood in judgment on any compromise with the ways of the world, and Tertullian gave himself fully to the defense of the new movement as its most articulate spokesman. Even the Montanists, however, were not rigorous enough for Tertullian. He eventually broke with them to found his own sect, a group that existed until the 5th century in Africa. According to tradition, he lived to be an old man. His last writings date from approximately 220, but the date of his death is unknown.

Source for the above quotes: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...as-a-Montanist

Montanism was accepted as legitimate Christian teaching by even Augastine. It was later Church doctrine writers that decided it was heretical. Today it seems there is a swing back to seeing it as having been legitimate Christianity.

Montanism originated in Asia Minor, the theatre of many movements of the church in this period; yet not in Ephesus or any large city, but in some insignificant villages of the province of Phrygia, once the home of a sensuously mystic and dreamy nature-religion, where Paul and his pupils had planted congregations at Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis.759 The movement was started about the middle of the second century during the reign of Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius, by a certain Montanus.760 He was, according to hostile accounts, before his conversion, a mutilated priest of Cybele, with no special talents nor culture, but burning with fanatical zeal. He fell into somnambulistic ecstasies, and considered himself the inspired organ of the promised Paraclete or Advocate, the Helper and Comforter in these last times of distress. His adversaries wrongly inferred from the use of the first person for the Holy Spirit in his oracles, that he made himself directly the Paraclete, or, according to Epiphanius, even God the Father. Connected with him were two prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla, who left their husbands. During the bloody persecutions under the Antonines, which raged in Asia Minor, and caused the death of Polycarp (155), all three went forth as prophets and reformers of the Christian life, and proclaimed the near approach of the age of the Holy Spirit and of the millennial reign in Pepuza, a small village of Phrygia, upon which the new Jerusalem was to come down. Scenes took place similar to those under the preaching of the first Quakers, and the glossolalia and prophesying in the Irvingite congregations. The frantic movement soon far exceeded the intention of its authors, spread to Rome and North Africa, and threw the whole church into commotion. It gave rise to the first Synods which are mentioned after the apostolic age.

SOURCE

I do agree that it is probable that the allegations he called himself the paraclete were erroneous as I made bold. However if you note in what I made red the belief of the time seems to be the "Holy spirit" was yet to come trinitarian belief seems to have still been in it's infancy and not fully accepted. I find any reference that the "holy Spirit" is the Paraclete, to be a bit vague and not conclusive.

[SalamChristian]

the paraclete is said to abide with christians forever.

very, very good point.

montanus did not claim that he was the paraclete but rather that he was a mouthpiece for the paraclete!

Are you sure he wasn't claiming to speak not for himself, but whatsoever he heard?

because it neither sees him nor knows him.

I would really like to hear the opinion of our Muslims brothers on this one. How can this be Muhammad?

for he lives with you and will be in you

Hmm. I have a thought about this one, but now is not the time. Perhaps I will share it later.

Peace

[Sol Invictus]

One may want to look further into the Writings of Tertullian:
It is interesting to note that this early theologian and a main developer of today's Christian doctrine eventually became known as a heretic, but his writings are still the basic foundation of Christian interpretation of the Bible.

i would then have to ask where at all tertullian was pronounced to be a heretic.

Source for the above quotes: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...as-a-Montanist

Montanism was accepted as legitimate Christian teaching by even Augastine. It was later Church doctrine writers that decided it was heretical. Today it seems there is a swing back to seeing it as having been legitimate Christianity.

initially montanism was simply analogous to the present-day charismatic movement and montanus himself did not leave behind any writings. as i remember it, it was mostly the individuals who came after him who really took the movement in another direction.

SOURCE
I do agree that it is probable that the allegations he called himself the paraclete were erroneous as I made bold. However if you note in what I made red the belief of the time seems to be the "Holy spirit" was yet to come trinitarian belief seems to have still been in it's infancy and not fully accepted. I find any reference that the "holy Spirit" is the Paraclete, to be a bit vague and not conclusive.

i would have to ask you how the section you have in red could at all be used as an argument against the trinitarian understanding. even if the age of the holy spirit is to be seen as an age where the holy spirit is first delved out to believers this could still not be seen as an argument against christianity. perhaps merely as an objection to the date of pentecost.

that said if the following: "All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." --- JOHN 14:25, 26 can at all be considered as vague then certainly the belief that the paraclete of the bible could at all refer to muhammad is baseless.

[Sol Invictus]

Are you sure he wasn't claiming to speak not for himself, but whatsoever he heard?

no, at most montanus claimed to have a higher degree of and even exclusive knowledge which stemmed from the holy spirit but he did not consider himself to be the holy spirit. if this were the present, he would be a teacher in the charismatic movement.

[SalamChristian]

the belief of the time seems to be the "Holy spirit" was yet to come trinitarian belief seems to have still been in it's infancy and not fully accepted

Tertullian, the same guy we are quoting, also invented the term Trinity. Or, at least he was the first person to write it down that we know of. That being said, the trinity Tertullian believed in certainly is not the same trinity many Christians believe in today.

[SalamChristian]

no, at most montanus claimed to have a higher degree of and even exclusive knowledge which stemmed from the holy spirit but he did not consider himself to be the holy spirit.

Can you drop some quotes/links plz? I dropped a to sources which say Montanus claimed to be the "paraclete" and the Holy Ghost above. :) It's kind of hard for me to cite you in future conversations.

[SalamChristian]

if this were the present, he would be a teacher in the charismatic movement.

Hmm. In Acts the early church is made to look a lot like the charismatic movement. Paul frequently talks about early churches speaking in tongues too much. I'm not sure if I buy this. If he was simply a charismatic, why would he have been rejected? As I read Acts and Paul's letters, most all of the early churches were charismatics.

[Fivesolas]

What Sol Invictus answered with is a sound reply. I am not sure how much more can be added to it. I will say this though. Without researching what Tertullian thought, or Montanus, I hardly see how it is relevant. Neither Tertullian and certainly not Montanus carry any apostolic authority nor are their writings Scripture. Therefore, while there may be some points of historical interest, to know what is meant by the Paraclete in Scripture, we must consult the Scripture. I think Sol did a good and sufficient job in showing that no human being could ever be the paraclete spoken of by the Lord Jesus.

This may help you for your research: The word Paracletos is found five times in the Greek of the KJV of the Bible. (my research tools at the moment don't include the Critical Text). It is translated in the KJV 4 times as Comforter and 1 time as advocate. Here are the references: John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, 1 John 2:1.

The legal assistant idea is not as a lawgiver, but rather as a legal advocate. Someone who intercedes.

John 14:26 makes it plain that the Helper/Paracletos is the Holy Spirit. The article modifying the word is "ho" G3588 in the Strongs, and is the definite article here. Basically, it undoutbably refers to THE Holy Spirit. Therefore, the case would have to be made that Mohammed is THE Holy Spirit. Biblically speaking this is absurd.

[Fivesolas]

Hmm. In Acts the early church is made to look a lot like the charismatic movement. Paul frequently talks about early churches speaking in tongues too much. I'm not sure if I buy this. If he was simply a charismatic, why would he have been rejected? As I read Acts and Paul's letters, most all of the early churches were charismatics.

Salam,

It would be a mistake to equate the operation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit seen in the books of Acts and spoken of in Paul's letters to the Corinthians with the modern Charismatic movement.

[Sol Invictus]

Can you drop some quotes/links plz? I dropped a to sources which say Montanus claimed to be the "paraclete" and the Holy Ghost above. :) It's kind of hard for me to cite you in future conversations.

this is from the catholic encyclopedia when speaking of montanists:

The prophets did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but described themselves as possessed by God and spoke in His Person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," said Montanus (Didymus, "De Trin.", III, xli); and again: "I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into to man", and "neither an angel, nor an ambassador, but I, the Lord, the Father, am come" (Epiphanius, "Hær.", xlviii, 11). And Maximilla said: "Hear not me, but hear Christ" (ibid.); and: "I am driven off from among the sheep like a wolf [that is, a false prophet--cf. Matthew 7:15]; I am not a wolf, but I am speech, and spirit, and power." This possession by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was incapable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Montanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Hær.", xlviii, 4).

while the above does indeed sound heretical, it should be noted that neither montanists nor montanus claimed to be the holy spirit, or god, but rather being possessed by these. furthermore, one will note that the holy spirit is identified as the Lord God which bears witness to a trinitarian understanding.

here is an excellent article on the matter with other sources: http://www.tertullian.org/montanism.htm#3

[Fivesolas]

Tertullian, the same guy we are quoting, also invented the term Trinity. Or, at least he was the first person to write it down that we know of. That being said, the trinity Tertullian believed in certainly is not the same trinity many Christians believe in today.

Salam,

If you study the arguments and context in which Tertullian wrote, it is plain that he was contending against Modalism. He was also senstive to Polytheism and trying to assure the Christians that they indeed were monotheists. To say that the doctrine that Tertullian advocated with regard to the Trinity is different from what is understood by orthodoxy today is historically untenable and conjectural. You might be able to show the view that holds a hierarchial view in Tertullian's understanding of the Trinity, but his belief was clearly that there is one God eternally existing in three Persons. Now, it may be said of Tertullian that he did not hold to the eternal Sonship of Jesus, making a difference between Jesus being in the beginning the Word/Logos and "becoming" the Son at His incarnation. But this is hardly a different trinity.

[SalamChristian]

Now, it may be said of Tertullian that he did not hold to the eternal Sonship of Jesus, making a difference between Jesus being in the beginning the Word/Logos and "becoming" the Son at His incarnation. But this is hardly a different trinity.

He is agreed upon to be a subordination. Most sources point out that the logical endpoint of his trinity was the Aryan-Athanasian controversy which ended with the trinity which he advocated being deemed heretical.

[SalamChristian]

*Subordinationist*--that is what I meant to say. Tertullian is agreed upon to be a subordinationist. No doubt.

[SalamChristian]

If you study the arguments and context in which Tertullian wrote, it is plain that he was contending against Modalism.

I have studied them, which is why I ran into these interesting observations that started this thread. :) Of course he is contending against Modalism. But in the process, he makes the argument by pointing out that Jesus is clearly subordinated to the Father.

[SalamChristian]

his belief was clearly that there is one God eternally existing in three Persons.

I said he believed in a trinity, didn't I? lol. I just made the point that his trinity is different than the one most Christians follow today. He was a subordinationist. That is considered a heresy by most of us. :)

But we are REALLY getting off topic, aren't we? The question was about the Paraclete and the interpretations that Christians and Muslims have of it, respectively. I was hoping maybe we could have a cool discussion/debate on this thread about it and hear what our Muslim brothers have to say, instead of this turning into yet another discussion of the trinity (MustafaMC I am including you in this too hahaha)....

[Fivesolas]

I said he believed in a trinity, didn't I? lol. I just made the point that his trinity is different than the one most Christians follow today. He was a subordinationist. That is considered a heresy by most of us. :)

But we are REALLY getting off topic, aren't we? The question was about the Paraclete and the interpretations that Christians and Muslims have of it, respectively. I was hoping maybe we could have a cool discussion/debate on this thread about it and hear what our Muslim brothers have to say, instead of this turning into yet another discussion of the trinity (MustafaMC I am including you in this too hahaha)....

I agree that it is off-topic, or a side trail. That's why I think the Scriptures themselves are sufficient without considering Tertullian or any other early Christian writings.

And I think what has been said regarding the texts from John with regard to the Paracletos is plain that He can only be the Holy Spirit, not a human being. Agreed?

[SalamChristian]

is plain that He can only be the Holy Spirit, not a human being.

I'm not completely convinced. Why does Jesus have to leave before the "Paraclete" can come? The Holy Spirit plainly is in the world while Jesus is there, in the Gospels. Doesn't this preclude the Holy Spirit from even possibly being the "paraclete?"

As for being a human being, obviously we have pointed out that this interpretation is problematic. Nonetheless, to conclude it is the Holy Spirit would require reconciling the above points.

[Fivesolas]

I'm not completely convinced. Why does Jesus have to leave before the "Paraclete" can come? The Holy Spirit plainly is in the world while Jesus is there, in the Gospels. Doesn't this preclude the Holy Spirit from even possibly being the "paraclete?"

As for being a human being, obviously we have pointed out that this interpretation is problematic. Nonetheless, to conclude it is the Holy Spirit would require reconciling the above points.

Salam,

What needs to be recognized is what the Scripture says. John 14:26 KJV:

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

The word comforter here is paracletos. The text says the paracletos IS the Holy Spirit. To conclude that the paracletos is the Holy Spirit is to take this verse for what it says.

Can you see now that the text is plain and clear?

[SalamChristian]

Right, I have been considering this verse too, obviously.

The text says the paracletos IS the Holy Spirit. To conclude that the paracletos is the Holy Spirit is to take this verse for what it says.

I'm testing every nook and cranny here for a hole, to make sure that you are water-tight and your interpretation doesn't sink. :) Ok, so it says "parakletos," the spirit the holy in the text. Good point. Could "hagios" simply mean set-apart/different?

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/40.htm

I don't speak Greek, but I do try to look at my Bible very critically by looking at Greek side-by-sides and at multiple senses of words. So, what's your argument?

Peace

[Fivesolas]

Right, I have been considering this verse too, obviously.


I'm testing every nook and cranny here for a hole, to make sure that you are water-tight and your interpretation doesn't sink. :) Ok, so it says "parakletos," the spirit the holy in the text. Good point. Could "hagios" simply mean set-apart/different?


I don't speak Greek, but I do try to look at my Bible very critically by looking at Greek side-by-sides and at multiple senses of words. So, what's your argument?

Peace

Here is the transliteration of the text:

"ho de parakletos to pneuma to hagion ho pempsei ho pater en to onmati mou ekeinos humas didaxei panta kai hupomnesei humas panta ha eipon humin." This is from an online Greek-interlinear NT.

Concerning your comment about the meaning of words, nearly every word in any language has multiple meantings. Most words has a semantic range. Therefore, the precise meaning of a word must be derived from its context. The basic definitional meaning of the word is not always going to be enough. And when dealing with ancient languages, we have to take into account historical considerations.

The phrase "Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost" is

παράκλητος τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον
parakeltos ho pneuma ho hagios


the word "ho" which looks like "To" in Greek is the definate article. So, the transation is correct. The text, is in fact, saying that the Parakletos is the Holy Spirit. What does this tell us as to its meaning? First, that the parakletos is holy. Second, that the parakletos is spirit. But the terms are joined, so it is the Holy Spirit.

What you would do to be certain about the meaning here is look at "hagios pneuma" throughout the NT. Look at out its used. This is called the Usus Loquendi in hermeneutics if your interested. What we do is start with the immediate context, then broaden the scope. The Greek word pneuma is a clear example of this. Consider John 3:8

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

The word pneuma here is translated at wind and as spirit, but it is the same word. The greek word for wind is pneuma and the greek word for spirit is pneuma. We need the context to determine which meaning is correct. For our purpose, we would want to trace "Holy Ghost" in the NT. Can this phrase be used in another sense than of the Spirit of God?

I found its occurance 89 times in the KJV. One of the most significant would be Matthew 28:19 which is recorded the commandment from Jesus to His disciples to baptize the believers in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Here are some other signifcant occurances:

Mark 12:36 - It is written here that David spoke by the Holy Spirit, referring to the Psalms.
Luke 1:35 - It was the Holy Spirit that came upon Mary and overshadowed her so that she might concieve.
Luke 12:10 - The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed.
Acts 2:33 - The Holy Spirit is the promise Jesus made to be given to the believers. What happened on the day of Pentecost was the fulfillment of that promise.

I could go on and on. Here is what is observed:

1. The Holy Spirit is not a flesh and blood person.
2. The Promise seen in John regarding the Holy Spirit is declared fulfilled at the day of Pentecost.

There is no way, biblically speaking, and considering the uses of the word Holy and Spirit together as we find them in John 14:26 that what was spoken of and prophesied by the Lord Jesus is anything other than the Spirit of God.

[Sol Invictus]

I'm not completely convinced. Why does Jesus have to leave before the "Paraclete" can come? The Holy Spirit plainly is in the world while Jesus is there, in the Gospels. Doesn't this preclude the Holy Spirit from even possibly being the "paraclete?"

As for being a human being, obviously we have pointed out that this interpretation is problematic. Nonetheless, to conclude it is the Holy Spirit would require reconciling the above points.

hey salam,

i think that the fact that the paraclete cannot be seen and indwells individuals aptly demonstrates that he is not human. let us not forget that jesus explicitly says that this individual is the holy spirit so unless we are to begin denying scripture then we must come to the same conclusion as christ. to your question concerning how the paraclete could be the holy spirit when quite clearly the holy spirit is already in the world, we must turn to john 14:16-17:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

the point christ is making is that the holy spirit will begin indwelling believers (forever). jesus himself notes that the holy spirit is already in the world but now he will also live within believers. that said, i believe that we have properly reconciled the points. i should also add that i await to see a different explanation that can harmonize all the factors.

[Fivesolas]

I wanted to add that I am novice at Koine Greek. I have learned to utilize the available tools out there, but have not yet been formally trained in Greek. One does not have to know the language to make use of the tools available, but one does have to know how to use the tools.

[SalamChristian]

i await to see a different explanation that can harmonize all the factors.

Me too! That's why I made the thread lol.

for he lives with you and will be in you.

I'll go ahead and give you the interpretation I had entertained, Sol, because I'm not seeing many Muslims commenting on this thread currently. A central concept of Islam is the Ummah--Muhammad establishes the safe community for believers. "en" here could be interpreted as within, and (from my noobie knowledge of Greek) would be feasible and would refer to the Ummah.

the word "ho" which looks like "To" in Greek is the definate article. So, the transation is correct. The text, is in fact, saying that the Parakletos is the Holy Spirit. What does this tell us as to its meaning? First, that the parakletos is holy. Second, that the parakletos is spirit. But the terms are joined, so it is the Holy Spirit. What you would do to be certain about the meaning here is look at "hagios pneuma" throughout the NT.

I had entertained that, and I think that this hermeneutic is like 99% accurate. Certainly hagia refers almost always to a holiness attributed only to Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. There are, however, some exceptions:

http://biblos.com/luke/2-23.htm

I wanted to add that I am novice at Koine Greek. I have learned to utilize the available tools out there, but have not yet been formally trained in Greek. One does not have to know the language to make use of the tools available, but one does have to know how to use the tools.

I try to use the tools too. I wouldn't mind hearing what you use to search for occurences of phrases, however. I can search for occurences of specific words on biblos, but how do you do entire phrases?

Peace

[Fivesolas]

Me too! That's why I made the thread lol.



I'll go ahead and give you the interpretation I had entertained, Sol, because I'm not seeing many Muslims commenting on this thread currently. A central concept of Islam is the Ummah--Muhammad establishes the safe community for believers. "en" here could be interpreted as within, and (from my noobie knowledge of Greek) would be feasible and would refer to the Ummah.




I had entertained that, and I think that this hermeneutic is like 99% accurate. Certainly hagia refers almost always to a holiness attributed only to Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. There are, however, some exceptions:




I try to use the tools too. I wouldn't mind hearing what you use to search for occurences of phrases, however. I can search for occurences of specific words on biblos, but how do you do entire phrases?

Peace

Use Biblegateway to search for phrases, or you can use blueletterbible. Blueletterbible allows you to track a greek word.

Really, at this point, it seems to me that someone seeking another sense of who the paracletos is seeking a sense other than the plain sense. Between me and Sol we have soundly exegeted the text. At this point, I would be interested in hearing where our exegesis was not done properly. If it was done properly, then what is preventing you from receiving the word of God?

[missy]

Salam,
I haven't read the entire thread....but b4 dat i wanna ask the Christians what "prophet" is being referred to in John 1:25??
"And they questioned him, “Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that Prophet?”"

Isn't it Muhammad PBUH ??

[Fivesolas]

Salam,
I haven't read the entire thread....but b4 dat i wanna ask the Christians what "prophet" is being referred to in John 1:25??
"And they questioned him, “Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that Prophet?”"

Isn't it Muhammad PBUH ??

Should the question be asked first, why you think this would be referring to Muhammed?

I don't think it does at all. Since the auidence here is Jewish, why do you think the Jews would expect a prophet from Arabia? The real question here is what was in the mind of the Jews at that time who were asking the question? Can we know? We should also not assume that the Jew's expectation or thoughts were correct.

But I will give you my opinion. I would expect that they are asking if John is that prophet spoken of in Deut 18:15 and verse 18. I think they were asking John if he was that prophet that Moses spoke of.

[missy]

But I will give you my opinion. I would expect that they are asking if John is that prophet spoken of in Deut 18:15 and verse 18. I think they were asking John if he was that prophet that Moses spoke of.

they meant him i.e. Jesus (Prophet that Moses spoke of in Deut 18:15) when they said 'the Christ'......didn't they?!?

[Sol Invictus]

Salam,
I haven't read the entire thread....but b4 dat i wanna ask the Christians what "prophet" is being referred to in John 1:25??
"And they questioned him, “Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that Prophet?”"

Isn't it Muhammad PBUH ??

yes, the gospels are quite clear that not everything that the jews believed about the messiah (or that prophet, if you'd like) is correct. i'd also like to know how deuteronomy 18 can be used to refer to a people outside of israel when if we look at it in context, god promises to raise up prophets (and particularly "that prophet") within the nation of israel and not outside of it. furthermore, the book of deuteronomy actually tells us what "a prophet like unto moses" actually means and so this would also have to be brought up in one's answer to the question of who this prophet is. once more, i would very much like to see how the muslim understanding of things can harmonize all the factors.

[Fivesolas]

they meant him i.e. Jesus (Prophet that Moses spoke of in Deut 18:15) when they said 'the Christ'......didn't they?!?

If I understand your question correctly, the Jews were asking John who he (John) was. Priests and Levites were sent to ask John who he made himself out to be, v.19. John denied being the Messiah. Then they asked if he was Elijah, and he answered no. Then they asked if he was that prophet. And he answered no.

It may be that some of the jews thought of the Messiah as different from the prophet spoken of by Moses. This then is really a question of what the mindset and expectations/beliefs were of priests and Levites at the time of Christ. I will have to do some digging to find that out.

[SalamChristian]

Alright, here is a NEW THOUGHT to add to our discussion. I am not done thinking about this yet, so I am going to prod everybody to deal with these questions a little more:

Gabriel reveals the Qu'ran to Muhammad (pbuh). I am reading some Muslim websites which argue very adamantly that the Holy Spirit and Gabriel are one and the same in the Qu'ran. The names for Gabriel in Arabic are: "'Ruhhil-Qudus' (Holy Spirit),
'Ruuhanaa' (Our Spirit), 'Ruuhul-'Amiin' (The Honest Spirit) and 'Al-Ruh' (The Spirit)"

Here are some intriguing verses from the Qu'ran which fit right into our discussion and push the argument onto a new level :) :

[2:97] Say, "Anyone who opposes Gabriel should know that he has brought
down this (Quran) into your heart, in accordance with GOD's will, confirming
previous scriptures, and providing guidance and good news for the believers."

Providing guidance and good news (comfort) for believers only, brought down by the figure identified as the Holy Spirit. Also, the word Qu'ran is not in the actual text, which is why it is in parentheses. This makes it fit with our understanding of the Holy Spirit.

[16:102] Say, "The Holy Spirit has brought it (Quran) down from your Lord, truthfully, to assure those who believe, and to provide a beacon and good news for the submitters."

[2:87] We gave Moses the scripture, and subsequent to him we sent other messengers, and we gave Jesus, son of Mary, profound miracles and supported him with the Holy Spirit. Is it not a fact that every time a messenger went to you with anything you disliked, your ego caused you to be arrogant? Some of them you rejected, and some of them you killed.

[2:253] These messengers; we blessed some of them more than others. For
example, GOD spoke to one, and we raised some of them to higher ranks.
And we gave Jesus, son of Mary, profound miracles and supported him
with the Holy Spirit.

Here is the Muslim website I read about the Holy Spirit/Gabriel connection on:

http://www.---------------/jesus/holy_spirit.html

Tell me, Christians, do you think it is exegetically possible? Tell me, Muslims, where are you? Loool, just kidding. But srsly, we want to hear your opinions!

Peace

[Fivesolas]

Salam,

It is not exegetically possible to equate the Holy Spirit with Gabriel.

Now, what is interesting is that in that Surah 2:97 we are told that what was revealed to Muhammed confirmed the previous Scriptures...obviously the Old and New Testaments. I have also learned from the Qur'an that what the Christians had in their hands at the time was uncorrupted, and we all know that we have MSS dating from before the lifetime of Muhammed.

No one on this board is so uninformed to not know the serious contradictions between the BIble and the Qur'an. I am not sure how the revelations of Mohammed confirm what in is the previous Scriptures. They seem to very plainly contradict it.

But back to the point, no, saying that the angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit is not exegetically possible.

[Sol Invictus]

no, the angel gabriel couldn't possibly be the holy spirit. the bible identifies the holy spirit as the comforter, the spirit of god and the spirit of christ, and once again as indwelling believers etc. ---these are all things which aren't true of gabriel.

since however we're making slight comments on the quranic citations above, i should also add that it is particularly interesting that the author of the qur'an seemed to possess some notion of the importance of the holy spirit within christianity yet never do we find a repudiation of a trinity consisting of the father, the son, and the holy spirit within the qur'an. any time the doctrine of the trinity is attacked it is formulated as the father, the son, and mary or in a different heretical manner that trinitarians would rightly condemn themselves. furthermore, we know that at least by the time of muhammad (if we are to suppose that the trinity was a deviation from the true teachings of the bible), the doctrine of the trinity was cemented in the christian religion and so it is very interesting that the qur'an is silent when it comes to a proper articulation of the trinity. is it the case that the author of the qur'an was unaware that the trinity consisted of the father, son, and holy spirit, or rather that he knew of this but chose not to condemn it? if then christians are never condemned in the qur'an for believing in a trinity consisting of the father, the son, and the holy spirit when this was the prevailing belief of christians (both now and at the time of muhammad) this makes for some very interesting food for thought.

but back to the topic, gabriel is not the holy spirit.

[SalamChristian]

no, the angel gabriel couldn't possibly be the holy spirit. the bible identifies the holy spirit as the comforter, the spirit of god and the spirit of christ, and once again as indwelling believers etc. ---these are all things which aren't true of gabriel.

So, you're saying that because the Bible doesn't SPECIFICALLY spell out to you that Gabriel is the Holy Spirit, you are going to reject it entirely and call it impossible? :~)

Well, let every man be proven wrong and God be proven true! :) I am going to test all of you again, and formulate here an argument that Gabriel is the Holy Spirit of the Bible:

I have been reading that Tertullian included the Book of Enoch as scripture? Apparently Jude quotes it, too? This is from Enoch 1, 40:8-9

8After this I besought the angel of peace, who proceeded with me, to explain all that was concealed. I said to him, Who are those whom I have seen on the four sides, and who words I have heard and written down? He replied, The first is the merciful, the patient, the holy Michael.
9The second is he who presides over every suffering and every affliction of the sons of men, the holy Raphael. The third, who presides over all that is powerful, is Gabriel. And the fourth, who presides over repentance, and the hope of those who will inherit eternal life, is Phanuel. These are the four angels of the most high God, and their four voices, which at that time I heard.


Sounds like it could be the Holy Spirit?


Another really interesting section comes from Enoch II. Enoch II is, of course, less supported by MSS. Many slavic editions exist. However, in 2009 coptic fragments were found of this later part of Enoch which date to perhaps 500 AD, most likely 900 AD. Check out this quote!


"And the Lord summoned me, and said to me: Enoch, sit down on my left with Gabriel." Enoch II, 24:1


So Gabriel sits at the Left hand of the Father, and Jesus sits at the right? Sounds like a trinity to me!

the bible identifies the holy spirit as the comforter

It also identifies him as Advocate, specifically in the legal sense. One who convicts the world of their sin. I am reading that Jewish exegetes argued millenia ago that "Of those three, it was Gabriel who destroyed Sodom in a rain of fire (Gen. R. 50:2; B.M. 86b)."

This is from the Yalkut Shimoni (Jewish exegesis), which is only in Hebrew online. I suppose we would have to get a hard-copy in English to find out what their particular exegetical interpretation was. But, seeing as this was written by Hebrew-speaking Jews centuries ago, I must concede that they might see linguistic nuances that we don't :~)

Oh, and as for the comforter part, the Jewish exegetes have something to say on that, too:

He can also function as a guardian angel; he nursed the infant Abraham through his finger, protected Israel in Egypt, and aided the infant Moses (Yalkut Exodus; Sot. 12b).

Hmm, and aren't we told that it was the Holy Spirit in Exodus, too? This is just a thought..

Peace my brothers, May the Truth come.

[SalamChristian]

Oh, and why don't we man up? Don't many of us Trinitarians argue that when we see 3 "angelic" figures together in the Old Testament, they are the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Have you never heard this interp of Genesis 19? Why then can the Holy Spirit not take a physical form?

Lol. So are we going to conclude that the Gospel is the revelation of Jesus, the Old Testament the revelation of the Father, and the Qu'ran the revelation of the Holy Spirit? Hahahaha, this is becoming a very interesting thread. I can't wait to hear what everyone else has to respond to these arguments.

[MustafaMc]

How can John 16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." in any way, shape or form refer to the 3rd Person of the Trinity when he 'speaks not of his own, but rather what he hears'. If the Holy Spirit is God, then wouldn't He most certainly 'speak of His own'. It is obvious to anyone who knows anything about Islam that Muhammad (saaws) claimed from the very 1st verse to recite only what was revealed to him.

Now all of you Christians out there, please sit down because I don't want you to pass out in shock and hurt yourselves.

I believe that the Good News spoken of in the NT was the prophecy in John about the coming of Muhammad as the seal of Prophets sent with the final revelation not to Israel alone but to all of mankind til the end of time.

[SalamChristian]

I believe that the Good News spoken of in the NT was the prophecy in John about the coming of Muhammad as the seal of Prophets sent with the final revelation not to Israel alone but to all of mankind til the end of time.

lol. That's cool, I dig your honesty. :) No hate, brother, only peace and love.

I believe that, if any of the Qu'ran be true (and I admit that, because I don't speak arabic, it might be true), most Muslims today must certainly be misinterpreting Sura 4:157. Jesus was crucified, Judas was hung on a tree. Qatalna=****ation; final death. Salab=hanging on a tree, such that the backbone is broken (as some arabic-speakers I have read have pointed out). Jesus was neither ****ed nor was he hung on a tree, nor were his bones broken (as our gospel is clear to point out). :)

Salaam Alaikum

[SalamChristian]

claimed from the very 1st verse to recite only what was revealed to him.

also, I know this. Don't think that I didn't see the connection. Muhammad (pbuh) was also illiterate, which makes the point even more. The "unlettered prophet" as the Qu'ran refers to him. This was one of the reasons that I posted this thread, because I saw this connection as well, and I simply had not said it yet because I was hoping one of my Muslim brothers like you would see it and be inspired to write a longer response to this article :)

Peace brother

[Sol Invictus]

sorry salam, i'll get to your post either today or tomorrow. i simply had to respond to this one first.

How can John 16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." in any way, shape or form refer to the 3rd Person of the Trinity when he 'speaks not of his own, but rather what he hears'. If the Holy Spirit is God, then wouldn't He most certainly 'speak of His own'. It is obvious to anyone who knows anything about Islam that Muhammad (saaws) claimed from the very 1st verse to recite only what was revealed to him.

Now all of you Christians out there, please sit down because I don't want you to pass out in shock and hurt yourselves.

I believe that the Good News spoken of in the NT was the prophecy in John about the coming of Muhammad as the seal of Prophets sent with the final revelation not to Israel alone but to all of mankind til the end of time.

let me first mention that the above is completely unjustified and does nothing to harmonize all the evidence. instead you merely pick one factor from the list and claim that the individual spoken of here has to be the islamic prophet when quite clearly christ gave a series of things which the holy spirit would do. let us not forget that the lord christ expressly identified the comforter as being the holy spirit (john 14:26). this in itself shows your position to be untenable if we are to go by what the text says but let us continue for the sake of argument. jesus says that the holy spirit was to be given to the very disciples he was speaking with and not over 500 years later to the arabs. let us not forget that he would abide within the disciples forever and that these already knew him (john 16:17). i'm sure that muslims do not believe that muhammad indwelled the disciples of christ or that they even knew him. the holy spirit would be sent in the name of christ (john 16:13) and his task would be to bring glory to christ (john 16:14). once again, muslims don't believe that muhammad came in the name of jesus nor that his task was to bring glory to the lord jesus. now, in your post you simply ignore all of the above and choose to latch on to simply a single factor and then claim that it is muhammad who is spoken of here when clearly when the context is viewed without being selective of what is examined, we can be sure that it is the holy spirit who is spoken of here.

now, your bible citation is quite easily answered when one understands that herein the christ is portraying an image of instruction where the individual in question expressly speaks the words of his instructor. this is a human analogy to show that the holy spirit would speak from god and whatever he said would be true.

to be quite honest, there is nothing shocking about your post save your claim that the prophecy could refer to muhammad without actually interacting with all the factors. once again you simply ignore all the other factors to cement your presuppositions that the christ is speaking of muhammad. now i do not mind that you believe that the islamic jesus spoke concerning muhammad and given that you believe in the qur'an, this is completely justified but to claim that the passage in the bible refers to muhammad while it clearly does not (and you do nothing to show that it does) is not honest. please begin to interact with all the evidence.

edit: let's not forget that if merely john 16:13 is what is needed to identify the identity of the paraclete then why couldn't this refer to the manichean prophet mani who also claimed to be the paraclete and the seal of the prophets and by implication to not speak on his own accord. so in hindsight, muhammad was not the first to make this claim.

[SalamChristian]

once again, muslims don't believe that muhammad came in the name of jesus nor that his task was to bring glory to . . . jesus.

Hmm. I think this is true, but check out this cool verse I read today in Al-Fath about the Ummah:

Yusuf Ali (sprinkled with a little Shakir):
"On their foreheads are their marks, being the traces of their prostration. This is the similitude in the Torah; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes itself strong, then becomes thick and establishes its roots (filling) the sower with wonder and delight."

For those who know their Bible, this is an obvious reference to 3 sections. In Exodus, God says that the Jews will after Exodus be commanded to wear the marks of God on their foreheads (and also in the Shema/Deuteronomy). Also, this is an obvious reference to the parable of the sower. And what does the sower sow in our Gospel? The Word! Aka the Gospel & also Jesus. :) Cross-reference this with the prophecies from Revelations about the "Conquerer" that I mentioned earlier, and consider that in John's Revelations conquerors are always those church leaders who have victory over sin, and where does that leave us? Seems like this ayat in the Qu'ran might be saying that Muhammad has established the true temple of Jesus Christ and God the Father. Haha....

By the way, when I was laughing earlier, let me make it clear that I am not laughing at anyone in particular on this forum. I am not laughing at Muslims. I am not laughing at Christians. Hell, I'm not even laughing at myself. I am laughing at all of us, and how little we understand! Certainly God is most great, and all glory is to him! That's something we can all agree on lolol.

Peace

[MustafaMc]

lol. That's cool, I dig your honesty. :)

That was my personal belief and not one that I have been taught.

... most Muslims today must certainly be misinterpreting Sura 4:157.

The Gracious Quran translation of the meaning into English reads "...However, they did not kill him. Nor did they crucify him. Rather, it was made to appear to them as so.... Yet for certainty they did not kill him!" The Majestic Quran reads, "...They slew him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them ... certainly they slew him not." I accept these words as accurate translation of the Arabic and as being the Truth regarding Jesus (as). It is interesting to me how this single ayat effectively negates the central tenet of Christianity and, if true, leaves it as a house built on sinking sand.

Ponder on 1 Corinthians 15:14-15 "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised." If Jesus did not die, then how can he be raised from the dead?

[Sol Invictus]

your post still does not harmonize all the factors concerning the the comfortor. furthermore, when the text says that the holy spirit will come in the name of jesus it means that he will be sent by christ. muslims do not believe that muhammad was sent by christ and so your point dos not work. furthermore, identifying muhammad with the conqueror in revelation would actually be insulting for muslims when they look at the context. the preceding chapter to the one concerning the four horsemen of the apocalypse claims that no individual in the world (no human, angel whatever) was worthy to open the seal and only christ was found worthy. this clearly puts the christ in a higher position than anyone else. furthermore, the thematic context of the conqueror is not a good one. he is one of four horsemen of the apocalypse and is accompanied by war, hunger and death and so one can clearly get the sense that the unit which these 4 form is not one of goodness. let us not even mention that the white rider comes at the command of christ and once more, muslims would not take kindly to that. your whole point is that to conquer has a good connotation and so could apply to muhammad (i have to say that i have never seen this interpretation before and i would ask why then it would have to refer to muhammad? many different individuals could fit the title of a conqueror etc.) but you forget that to rule also carries a good connotation but satan is referred to as the ruler of this world. furthermore, he can pretend to be an angel of light and so the fact that the conqueror appears in white does not make him any less evil given that the unit he makes up is one of evil. let us not forget that he only wears one crown and christ when he shows up is wearing multiple crowns. once again the christ is portrayed as above everyone else. so no, you are not in fact doing muslims a favour by trying to identify the conqueror with muhammad but rather it would be more like an insult.

many individuals have claimed to receive express teachings from an angel, but the bible clearly tells us to only believe in the gospel and even warns against people who would claim to receive new revelations from an angel seeing as the devil can masquerade as an angel of light and in the history of religion, quite a few individuals have claimed to have been instructed by an angel with new revelation.

i should also note that muslims could not agree with "the Qu'ran might be saying that Muhammad has established the true temple of Jesus Christ and God the Father". for one thing, in the muslim understanding the true temple would not be that of jesus and the father but only that of the father. let us not forget that the qur'an is adamant that allah is not a father--even in the figurative sense. nowhere in the qur'an does he refer to himself as a father figure and to give him this title is actually innovation in the religion of islam. if i were a muslim i would not speak concerning allah in a manner in which he has never spoken of himself. i know that you're not, but i'm simply saying that we should at least present the muslim deity as he presents himself and not suppose that we can speak where he has remained silent.

[Sol Invictus]

It is interesting to me how this single ayat effectively negates the central tenet of Christianity and, if true, leaves it as a house built on sinking sand.

not that interesting when one remembers that christianity was around in the time of muhammad and it isn't impossible to suppose that he learnt or came into contact with the fundamental tenets of christianity from some source in his travels. it isn't miraculous to be able to deny the fundamental tenet of christianity when for hundreds of years the fundamental tenet of christianity was available for everyone to know and to speak about. what is even more interesting than the argument in your post is the following bible verses (and the many others like it):

No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. --- 1 John 2:23 NIV

If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. --- 1 John 4:15 NIV

Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. --- John 5:22-23 NIV

the above clearly repudiates islam hundreds of years before its inception and that is even a greater feat than repudiating a religion merely after it has come into being.

that said mustafa, are you at all willing to show us an argument which touches upon all the evidence for as to why the islamic prophet should be understood as the paraclete?

[SalamChristian]

Ponder on 1 Corinthians 15:14-15 "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised." If Jesus did not die, then how can he be raised from the dead?

HAHA! The purpose of this verse is to REMIND US of the LAST DAY and that ALLAH (swt) most certainly will RAISE US from the dead, and that he will JUDGE. This is a central conviction of Islam. The context of this verse is that some Christians have been MISLED (by a sectarian, surely! and those who create sects surely will be among the losers.) to believe that there will be no LAST DAY, and Paul is correcting them and reminding them to remember the last day.

Also, you should know that the word here used for "raise" means to "raise upwards (directionally) from sleep," and the most similar word in Arabic is "tawaffa," which is used in the Qu'ran to describe what Allah (swt) did to Jesus.

Check out this interpretation of the Hadith that the hated Qadianis (who I am quite sure none of our Muslim brothers on this board are) of the "tawaffa" usage in the bible:

http://thecult.info/blog/2010/03/20/...ng-of-tawaffa/

Of course, I think the Ahmaddiyas are craaaazy, and I'm sure anyone else on this board probably does too. Nonetheless, their argument that the Qu'ran allows from crucifixion is very compelling and you would benefit from reading it. **For those who don't know, the Qadianis are a nutty split-off from the Muslims whose founder claims to have known Jesus and that he already came back; they reside in Pakistan**

There are other translations which translate the verses to allow for crucifixion. Crucifixion is a latin word, stavros is a greek word, and those who argue that Salab literally has the exact same meaning and roots is not familiar with the words. Moreover, they must realizing that they are interpreting, and this is tafsir, not inherent in the words. Certainly, contextually you can argue that Salab means crucifixion, but it's not inherent. The same words is used to describe Pharaoh's threat to his priests, and Pharaoh is called the "Lord of Stakes," leading one to believe that "salab" may actually refer to some kind of impalement. Indeed, this makes the most sense, historically, biblically, qu'ranically, and physically. You can't cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides and crucify somebody--it neither fits the definition nor is it physically possible :)

Peace brother

[SalamChristian]

furthermore, the thematic context of the conqueror is not a good one. he is one of four horsemen of the apocalypse and is accompanied by war, hunger and death and so one can clearly get the sense that the unit which these 4 form is not one of goodness.

Did you not hear all of the points I made about "conquerers" being all over Revelations, and being a title of great praise in all of the other verses it is mentioned? In 3:21 Jesus even says that "to him that conquers I will grant him to sit with me in my throne." Pretty honorable place to be, wouldn't you say?

many individuals have claimed to receive express teachings from an angel, but the bible clearly tells us to only believe in the gospel and even warns against people who would claim to receive new revelations from an angel seeing as the devil can masquerade as an angel of light and in the history of religion, quite a few individuals have claimed to have been instructed by an angel with new revelation.

You mean like John? I mean, when I make that connection, I am only making it to the latter part of your statement. Obviously I don't believe that Revelations was inspired by the devil. But you must realize that John's revelations qualifies for every one of the negative characteristics which you judge and dismiss the Qu'ran by. In fact, Revelations claims to be inspired by "the angel" sent from Jesus and also "the Spirit." Hmm...Holy Spirit connection here too?

let us not forget that the qur'an is adamant that allah is not a father--even in the figurative sense.

I don't know. I talked to some Muslims on another thread on here the other day, and they seemed to allow it in the figurative sense. Of course, they were quick to point out that in some senses of the words (and the one in which it is usually used), it is false.

Peace

[SalamChristian]

In 3:21 Jesus even says that "to him that conquers I will grant him to sit with me in my throne." Pretty honorable place to be, wouldn't you say?

Actually, I didn't realize it when I posted it, but there is another interesting connection here. One of the most famous ayah in the Qu'ran is the Throne Verse...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_255

huh. So In this verse Allah (swt) says that his throne extends over the heaven and the earth, and that is where we are. And indeed Revelations describes the throne of God as being established on earth as Jesus does his will. And, if we take the Holy Spirit to be the one doing the talking, as a literal interpretation would perhaps lead us to do, then...I lead you to decide what this means lol. I'm going to bed! Time for sleep, and perhaps Allah tawaffaitani, right? I sure hope so.

Peace

[MustafaMc]

Can any one give me a single example where the Holy Spirit spoke and what words were used in what language? If the Holy Spirit is God, then wouldn't He speak of His own and not what He heard from someone else?

He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears

[Sol Invictus]

Did you not hear all of the points I made about "conquerers" being all over Revelations, and being a title of great praise in all of the other verses it is mentioned? In 3:21 Jesus even says that "to him that conquers I will grant him to sit with me in my throne." Pretty honorable place to be, wouldn't you say?

i did read what you had written but i don't think that it's tenable. notice that all over the book of revelation the saints conquer through their belief in christ and not through making war. in fact, they're the ones who are losing their lives! this brings us back to the book of john where christ claims to have overcome the world as he is going to his death. jesus warns that the saints will endure suffering and will lose their lives and be despised by all men but it is in their faith in him that they will overcome the world. in the epistle of john christians overcome the world through the one who is in them and once again not through making war. once we view what overcoming actually means your point proves untenable. let us not forget that the thematic unit of the conqueror is not a good one. war, hunger and death come on his heals and he forms a unit with these. in your post you simply ignore these and continue to claim that the conqueror is good when you forget that the beast conquers all tongues and peoples as well. so no, you have yet to prove your point. let's not even forget that your point is insulting to muslims! once one begins to see how the conqueror is spoken of and how christ is spoken of anyone can see that christ is far above this individual. even your revelation 3:21 reference is a slap to the face to muslims. jesus granting people places in god's kingdom as if it were his own! this clearly teaches his superiority to anyone else. i have to ask you salam if you think that what you're saying is actual pleasing to muslims, at most it's like a backhanded compliment.

You mean like John? I mean, when I make that connection, I am only making it to the latter part of your statement. Obviously I don't believe that Revelations was inspired by the devil. But you must realize that John's revelations qualifies for every one of the negative characteristics which you judge and dismiss the Qu'ran by. In fact, Revelations claims to be inspired by "the angel" sent from Jesus and also "the Spirit." Hmm...Holy Spirit connection here too?

i'm surprised that you would bring john up. should we forget that the bible testifies to his truth? should we forget that he was recognized by the apostles as speaking the truth? frankly outside of the bible there is no proof that the holy spirit has spoken to anyone and any message that an individual brings forth must be examined in what god has revealed in the bible. we are told not to believe every spirit. furthermore, the bible is quite clear that he who denies the son does not have the father either. so the islamic prophet fails the test.

I don't know. I talked to some Muslims on another thread on here the other day, and they seemed to allow it in the figurative sense. Of course, they were quick to point out that in some senses of the words (and the one in which it is usually used), it is false.

instead of believing what some muslims would say can you find me a single verse in the qur'an wherein allah addresses himself as a father? let us not forget that he repudiated the jews and christians for believing themselves to be the sons of god and we know that both these groups did not believe in a literal sonship but merely a figurative one. so those muslims who go around calling allah a father are actually innovating in their religion and saying things concerning allah which he has never affirmed but denied. once again, if at all we are going to speak of other religions we should at least present them as they are presented in their holy book.

Can any one give me a single example where the Holy Spirit spoke and what words were used in what language? If the Holy Spirit is God, then wouldn't He speak of His own and not what He heard from someone else?

He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears

i'm amazed that you would ignore my point and continue to assert your own opinion when this doesn't even follow the text. how can the holy spirit not be the paraclete when the very text calls him the paraclete! it's like me claiming that the qur'an is completely vague on who the last messenger is. can we at least come to a standard of honesty here? how will you deny that teh holy spirit is the paraclete when the text itself says that he is and gives repeated proof that he can't be human. was muhammad sent by jesus? is he invisible? did he indwell the disciples of christ, is he within us forever? please let's get serious here because at this point it's fairly obvious that you choose to ignore all of this information.

hmm, i don't know how much of the bible you have actually read because it's fairly easy to give you proof of the holy spirit speaking:

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” --- Acts 13:2 NIV

that said, can you begin to show us evidence for why muhammad is the individual spoken of in the gospel of john without ignoring all of the things said of this individual?

huh. So In this verse Allah (swt) says that his throne extends over the heaven and the earth, and that is where we are. And indeed Revelations describes the throne of God as being established on earth as Jesus does his will. And, if we take the Holy Spirit to be the one doing the talking, as a literal interpretation would perhaps lead us to do, then...I lead you to decide what this means lol. I'm going to bed! Time for sleep, and perhaps Allah tawaffaitani, right? I sure hope so.

hmm, in your bid to harmonize the bible and the qur'an you fail to take either of them as seriously as they present themselves. the bible says that jesus sits on the very throne of god. clearly in the quoted context throne refers to god's dominion and rule and any christian can agree with that but muslims and christians cannot agree when the question becomes "whose kingdom is it?" the bible is quite clear that the kingdom of god belongs to christ and no muslim could agree to that. plus you take it for granted that muslims and christians should take each others holy books as having come from god. sure muslims believe that the bible is from god but certainly not the "current" bible we have. that said, when the fundamental doctrines are in clear contradiction that one of them is simply not true and to somehow ignore this fact cheapens both books. please, let us present these books as they present themselves and the qur'an and the bible are quite clear in the fact that they are exclusive.

[selsebil]

Can you give me verse and chapter numbers for all of the references you make in the Torah? It's difficult to consider your argument without being able to look at verses.

1. The words of the Torah, the Bible, and the Psalms do not have the miraculousness of those of the Qur’an. They have also been translated again and again, and a great many alien words have become intermingled with them. Also, the words of commentators and their false interpretations have been confused with their verses. In addition, the distortions of the ignorant and the hostile have been incorporated into them. In these ways, the corruptions and alterations have multiplied in those Books.
2.In fact, Shaykh Rahmat Allah al-Hindi, the well-known scholar, proved to Jewish and Christian scholars and priests thousands of corruptions in them, and silenced them. Nevertheless, despite these corruptions, in our times the celebrated Husayn Jisri (May God have mercy on him) extracted one hundred and ten indications to the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH), and included them in his Risalat al-Hamidiya.
3.I can quote some of them:
"I ask from my Lord for the Paraclete that he may abide with you forever." Gospel of John, 14:16.
A verse from the Torah says:
"Verily God told Abraham that Hagar -the mother of Isma‘il- will bear children. There will emerge from her sons one whose hand will be above all, and the hands of all will be opened to him in reverence. " Genesis, Chap. 16.
"O Prophet, verily We have sent you as a witness, a bearer of glad tidings, a warner and a protection for the unlettered. You are My bondsman, and I have named you ‘the Reliant on God.’ You shall not be harsh, stern, and clamorous in the market places, nor shall you requite evil with evil, but instead pardon and forgive. God shall not take you unto Himself until you straighten a crooked people by causing them to say, “No god but God.” Isaiah, chap. 42
"In the Thirty-Third Chapter of the Fifth Book of the Torah, there is the following verse:
The Lord came from Sinai, rose up unto us from Sa‘ir, and shined forth from Mount Paran.
In this verse, with the phrase “the Lord came from Sinai,” the prophethood of Moses is mentioned; with the phrase “rose up unto us from Sa‘ir” (Sa‘ir being a mountain near Damascus), the prophethood of Jesus is indicated. And the phrase “He shined forth from Mount Paran (the Paran Mountains being the mountains of Hijaz), gives tidings of the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH), all will agree.




What word in Hebrew/Arabic would be used here to signify "glory?"

Glory of World is " Fakhr al-Alemeen" in Arabic.



How do you interpret John 14:30? "Hereafter I will not talk with you much for the ruler of this world is coming and he has nothing in me?"

Keep in mind that almost all Christians interpret "ruler of this world" to refer to Satan in those verses, so be prepared for me to ask you some tough questions later. :)

Peace brother

This is just an interpretation. Let's just think: Is Jesus talking about a new Prophet or Satan in this verse ? How can Satan be the ruler of the world? And why does Jesus foretell about that?

Peace:)

[Woodrow]

your post still does not harmonize all the factors concerning the the comfortor. furthermore, when the text says that the holy spirit will come in the name of jesus it means that he will be sent by christ. muslims do not believe that muhammad was sent by christ and so your point dos not work. furthermore, identifying muhammad with the conqueror in revelation would actually be insulting for muslims when they look at the context. the preceding chapter to the one concerning the four horsemen of the apocalypse claims that no individual in the world (no human, angel whatever) was worthy to open the seal and only christ was found worthy. this clearly puts the christ in a higher position than anyone else. furthermore, the thematic context of the conqueror is not a good one. he is one of four horsemen of the apocalypse and is accompanied by war, hunger and death and so one can clearly get the sense that the unit which these 4 form is not one of goodness. let us not even mention that the white rider comes at the command of christ and once more, muslims would not take kindly to that. your whole point is that to conquer has a good connotation and so could apply to muhammad (i have to say that i have never seen this interpretation before and i would ask why then it would have to refer to muhammad? many different individuals could fit the title of a conqueror etc.) but you forget that to rule also carries a good connotation but satan is referred to as the ruler of this world. furthermore, he can pretend to be an angel of light and so the fact that the conqueror appears in white does not make him any less evil given that the unit he makes up is one of evil. let us not forget that he only wears one crown and christ when he shows up is wearing multiple crowns. once again the christ is portrayed as above everyone else. so no, you are not in fact doing muslims a favour by trying to identify the conqueror with muhammad but rather it would be more like an insult.




i should also note that muslims could not agree with "the Qu'ran might be saying that Muhammad has established the true temple of Jesus Christ and God the Father". for one thing, in the muslim understanding the true temple would not be that of jesus and the father but only that of the father. let us not forget that the qur'an is adamant that allah is not a father--even in the figurative sense. nowhere in the qur'an does he refer to himself as a father figure and to give him this title is actually innovation in the religion of islam. if i were a muslim i would not speak concerning allah in a manner in which he has never spoken of himself. i know that you're not, but i'm simply saying that we should at least present the muslim deity as he presents himself and not suppose that we can speak where he has remained silent.

many individuals have claimed to receive express teachings from an angel, but the bible clearly tells us to only believe in the gospel and even warns against people who would claim to receive new revelations from an angel seeing as the devil can masquerade as an angel of light and in the history of religion, quite a few individuals have claimed to have been instructed by an angel with new revelation.

Worth repeating as that is how we see Paul.

Yes there have been and will continue to be false Prophets and erroneous speakers. It is very difficult to separate what is self evident and obvious to one person, often is not that way to another.

While we do believe Muhammad(PBUH) is the Paraclete spoken of in the Bible, I do understand that a non-Muslim will not see it as such. I believe that to be able to see it as such a person would first need to believe that Muhammad(PBUH) is truly the final Prophet(PBUH) and the Qur'an is the true word of Allaah(swt).

[Fivesolas]

Worth repeating as that is how we see Paul.

Yes there have been and will continue to be false Prophets and erroneous speakers. It is very difficult to separate what is self evident and obvious to one person, often is not that way to another.

While we do believe Muhammad(PBUH) is the Paraclete spoken of in the Bible, I do understand that a non-Muslim will not see it as such. I believe that to be able to see it as such a person would first need to believe that Muhammad(PBUH) is truly the final Prophet(PBUH) and the Qur'an is the true word of Allaah(swt).

I appreciate your honesty in the last statement you made here. But you must understand, my recent reading of the Qur'an has focused on what the Qur'an says concerning the Old and New Testaments. One of the things I find most facinating is that the author of the Qur'an appeals to Jews and Christians to consult their own Scriptures to verify what Mohammed was preaching. The Qur'an claims to confirm what is written in the Old and New Testaments.

Furthermore, from the Qur'an, there is not a hint that the text of both the Old and New Testaments were corrupted. It does say that the Jews misinterpreted their Scriptures and tried to keep back information from the people, but it does not say that the text itself was corrupted. How could it be saying that if the Qur'an itself tells "the People of the Book" to search their own texts? Would you have Allah telling people to search a corrupted text for verification of Islam? That doesn't make sense.

Sol has rightly pointed out that Islam and Mohammed came 600 years after Christ. Jesus warned Christians that there would arise false prophets and false teachers in the last days. When the apostles came preaching Christ to the Jews in Berea in the 1st century, they searched the Scriptures to see if the things spoken of by the apostles was true. We have done the same thing with the message of Islam. It is the seed of deception to suggest that one must first accept the message and messenger before one can see whether or not it is true. This suggestion is absurd. It could apply to any truth claim from any so-called prophet.

It is rather far more reasonable to accept that the Old and New Testaments are accurate records of the words of the prophets and apostles. If the Qur'an is a revelation from God, then it would confirm what was written before. We all know that it does not. The only recourse the believer in Islam has then is to try to discredit the Bible and suggest that everything should be interpreted by Islam.

[SalamChristian]

let's not even forget that your point is insulting to muslims! once one begins to see how the conqueror is spoken of

No way! Just because the "conqueror" carries a weapon, that would insult Muslims? lol, you are reading your OWN values into someone else's response. Like I said, "conquerors" are spoken well of repeatedly in previous chapters, and the Spirit even says that he will share his throne with the one who conquers, as I quoted above. That is a very honorable place to be. Just because the other horsemen are lame, does that mean the first one has to be? Hardly! The fifth seal is pretty cool. I wouldn't mind being a part of that. And seeing as the second horse is War, I think they would actually see a lot of wisdom in it. First comes Muhammad (pbuh), then comes persecution and war. :)

he repudiated the jews and christians for believing themselves to be the sons of god and we know that both these groups did not believe in a literal sonship but merely a figurative one

Most of the Christians I speak to are literal about sonship. I don't know about the Jews though; never asked.

the bible says that jesus sits on the very throne of god. clearly in the quoted context throne refers to god's dominion and rule and any christian can agree with that but muslims and christians cannot agree when the question becomes "whose kingdom is it?"

Muslims believe in a temporary reign of Christ in his Kingdom. Christians as well believe in the "Millenial Reign," after which God the Father himself sits on the Throne. Read Tertullian, as has been frequently quoted in this thread. He is very adamant that the son sits on the Throne only until the Father comes, after which he subjects himself to the father and the Father sits on the throne. You should also re-read Revelations with this verse in mind (which Tertullian is astute to point out):

"then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. " 1 Corinthians 15

And what does God say when he is on the Throne in Revelations? "The one who conquers will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son." Revelations 21:7

You might argue that this verse refers to Jesus, but that doesn't "harmonize" the second verse. It seems, then, that it refers to all believers.

SO, I'm not convinced that Muslims wouldn't accept this. In fact, it seems to me that they could accept it, but certainly not your interpretation. :)

Peace

[SalamChristian]

This is just an interpretation. Let's just think: Is Jesus talking about a new Prophet or Satan in this verse ? How can Satan be the ruler of the world? And why does Jesus foretell about that?

Haha, fair enough. I am open minded and considering your interpretation.

What word in Hebrew/Arabic would be used here to signify "glory?" Glory of World is " Fakhr al-Alemeen" in Arabic.

So, does this also mean "Ruler of the World," like you said in your first post? And is this one of the titles of Muhammad (pbuh)?

Peace

[Fivesolas]

Salam,

"Most of the Christians I speak to are literal about sonship. I don't know about the Jews though; never asked."

This topic is the sonship of the believers. It is off topic to this thread, but a good topic. Might I suggest starting one?

I have been reading your replies to Sol with an open mind. I do not see how you in your last reply actually addressed what he shared with regard to Christians being conquerors. While we can show how people in the name of Christ took up arms against others, it cannot be shown biblically that a Christian has a duty to fight carnally. Without question Christians are soldiers. Without question we are in a battle. But the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty in God to the pullnig down strongholds and any thoughts that exalt themselves against the knowledge of Christ.

We are battle ready. Our feet are shod with the Gospel of peace. We have put in the breastplate of righteousness. We have taken up the shield of faith. We have gird our waist with the truth. And we have taken up the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God. And we overcome this world by the blood of the Lamb, our testimony of Jesus, and that we do not love our lives, even unto death.

Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

[Woodrow]

Tertullian, the same guy we are quoting, also invented the term Trinity. Or, at least he was the first person to write it down that we know of. That being said, the trinity Tertullian believed in certainly is not the same trinity many Christians believe in today.

Interesting, what would account for concepts of the Trinity changing from what he wrote. I do agree He was the first write out a concept of the trinity. Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220 AD) I wonder what year he wrote his ideas about the Trinity.

You are aware that his ideas were considered heresy at the time, but these heretical ideas becamd for foundation for the "Official" concept of the Trinity.

[Sol Invictus]

No way! Just because the "conqueror" carries a weapon, that would insult Muslims? lol, you are reading your OWN values into someone else's response. Like I said, "conquerors" are spoken well of repeatedly in previous chapters, and the Spirit even says that he will share his throne with the one who conquers, as I quoted above. That is a very honorable place to be. Just because the other horsemen are lame, does that mean the first one has to be? Hardly! The fifth seal is pretty cool. I wouldn't mind being a part of that. And seeing as the second horse is War, I think they would actually see a lot of wisdom in it. First comes Muhammad (pbuh), then comes persecution and war. :)

i'm sure muslims would love the idea that persecution and war come at the wake of muhammad. you once gain ignore the thematic unit not to mention that christ is still in a higher position than muhammad if we take him to be the conqueror! the conqueror comes at the discretion of christ. christ commads him "come" and he appears. whatever the case, it cannot be argued that the christ is higher in position than the conqueror and is in fact the one who actually ushers in the kingdom of god. the kingdom of god is not ushered in by the conqueror and if this were to refer to muhammad then muslims would once again take issue to this seeing as they do believe that muhammad ushered the rule of god etc.

Most of the Christians I speak to are literal about sonship. I don't know about the Jews though; never asked.

that's a fairly easy thing to claim but where is your proof? can you give us respectable christian sources which claim that christians are the literal sons of god? do most christians believe that god entered into a sexual union with their mother in order to produce them? i can easily claim that most muslims i speak to worship muhammad but this in no way is justified nor could i back this up from authentic muslim sources. so please get to proving your point.

Muslims believe in a temporary reign of Christ in his Kingdom. Christians as well believe in the "Millenial Reign," after which God the Father himself sits on the Throne. Read Tertullian, as has been frequently quoted in this thread. He is very adamant that the son sits on the Throne only until the Father comes, after which he subjects himself to the father and the Father sits on the throne. You should also re-read Revelations with this verse in mind (which Tertullian is astute to point out):

"then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. " 1 Corinthians 15

And what does God say when he is on the Throne in Revelations? "The one who conquers will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son." Revelations 21:7

note that at the end of revelation christ sits on the very throne of god (while god is himself present on the throne) and no one else does. god and christ are described as the temple in the holy city of jerusalem and no one else is. there will be no need for a sun because the glory of god and christ will illuminate the earth and no one else. god calls himself the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end and christ later on says the very same things about himself and no one else does likewise. the angels in heaven worship both christ and god but no one else do they worship. now given all of the above, let us suppose that the book of revelation still speaks of muhammad being the conqueror. you would still ask muslims to accept a prophet who is subservient to christ. that is a slap in the face to muslims and islam! how many crowns is the conqueror wearing and how many crowns does christ wear? does the book of revelation say that the conqueror ushers in god's kingdom or is it christ? let us not even mention that muslims do not believe that god would make them his sons even figuratively! the question then becomes, what exactly are you trying to do with your post because it is quite clear that your argument only works if we ignore large parts of the bible and the qur'an. in your bid to unite both these books you readily sacrifice that which makes them distinct and the fundamental teachings which set them apart.

nowhere does the book of revelation claim that the son sits on the throne of god only until the father comes:

1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever. ---revelation 22:1-5 NIV

the text is quite clear that the single throne belongs to god and christ! furthermore, his servants will need no light of the sun or of a lamp because god himself will be their light but notice that in the chapter directly preceding this one christ and god are referred to as the lights of the city. not only does the text insinuate that christ is himself god but it says that he sits on the throne of god while god is himself on the throne. is this true of any other individual within this book? once again you are not presenting the book of revelation appropriately and in trying to make muslims accept the idea that muhammad is the conqueror (notice that the conqueror does even conquer the world for god but it is christ) you actually want them to accept that christ is far higher than muhammad and that he will sit in the very throne of god while muhammad and the rest will serve him.

You might argue that this verse refers to Jesus, but that doesn't "harmonize" the second verse. It seems, then, that it refers to all believers.

SO, I'm not convinced that Muslims wouldn't accept this. In fact, it seems to me that they could accept it, but certainly not your interpretation. :)

Peace

you forget that tertullian believed in subordination within the trinity and this could in fact harmonize this verse (i tend to lean towards subordination as well). let us also remember that the single throne of god is called the throne of god and that of christ and not that of any other believer! god and christ are the light of the city and christ claims the very prerogatives of god ("i am the alpha and the omega"). the angels worship him in the same breath that they worship god. salam, who are you kidding here? are you seriously going to tell me that christ is not elevated far above the conqueror? i would very much like for muslims to accept the gospel but i do not believe that your method is true to the text nor is even a compliment to muslims. what in fact are you trying to do because in your argument you take neither the bible nor qur'an seriously in what they say about themselves. this should not be a case of whether one could accept something but whether our respective holy books are in harmony with your argument? both muslims and christians will readily admit that your argument could not be true. once more i do wish for muslims to believe what christians believe, but not at the expense of truth.

be that as it may, i am convinced that muslims will not accept it and it would in fact be an insult both to muhammad and the muslim deity for them to believe such a thing and if i am wrong i would very much like for muslims to correct me.

edit: i have just read fivesolas' post and i must concur, especially with the revelation 12:11 reference. the conquering comes from holding fast to the faith in the blood of jesus even unto death. once again a muslim could not agree to this. with that, the book of revelation itself has explained what conquering means and as such the white horseman is not a figure representing good but fits more properly with the thematic context of evil.

edit2: i just want to let you know that i'm not in fact angry or trying to insult you salam. i do enjoy such discussions and although i sincerely believe you to be wrong, i'm doing all of this in peace and charity and if it does seem like i've misspoken, then i sincerely apologize.

[Fivesolas]

Can any one give me a single example where the Holy Spirit spoke and what words were used in what language? If the Holy Spirit is God, then wouldn't He speak of His own and not what He heard from someone else?

He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears

MustafaMc,

One of the tools that might be helpful for you is to use biblegateway or another online Bible search engine that allows you to do key word searches. For example, when I search for the phrase "Holy Ghost" using the KJV (King James Version) of the Bible, I find that phrase appearing 89 times in the New Testament. It appears most frequently in the book of Acts. What you could do is look through those different passages to test your hypothesis.

I do this with the Qur'an. I have not found a good key word searcher yet, but I have found the Qur'an online. So, when I have a question or a hear a claim made about the Qur'an's message, I go to the Qur'an and check it out.

If you search a modern translation, such as the NKJV, NASB, ESV, or NIV, then use the phrase "holy spirit" If you think the Holy Spirit is Gabriel, then substitute in your mind the word Gabriel for every instance you find the phrase "holy spirit" and see how it works....you could also treat the Bible as a whole, and do this for the OT as well. Here are some examples:

Psalm 51:11 "Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Gabriel from me."

Matt 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Gabriel."

Mark 1:8 "I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Gabriel."

Luke 11:13 "If you then, who are evil, now how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Gabriel to those who ask him!"

I simply inserted Gabriel to where I found the phrase Gabriel. Doesn't make much sense does it...

"If the Holy Spirit is God, then wouldn't He speak of His own and not what He heard from someone else?"

Why not asked the question, "If the Holy Spirit is God, then how is this explained within the trinitarian vewpoint that He does not speak of His own, but whatever He hears He speaks."

Why would I re-phrase the question? But it would be improper to ask that it be answered from a Modalist viewpoint. It must be granted to the trinitarian to reason from his/her viewpoint, and not anothers. Agree?

[SalamChristian]

I have been reading your replies to Sol with an open mind. I do not see how you in your last reply actually addressed what he shared with regard to Christians being conquerors.

What I saw was in regards to Muslims being conquerors, not Christians? Did I miss something? I just re-read his post again, and the conquering stuff is all about his opinion that it is an insult to Muslims, as far as I can see. BUT, I will respond to your concerns about this subject.

While we can show how people in the name of Christ took up arms against others, it cannot be shown biblically that a Christian has a duty to fight carnally.

We are battle ready. Our feet are shod with the Gospel of peace.

we do not love our lives, even unto death.

Fair enough. There are some warriors who would say the same thing.

This is a serious failing that I see in Christian Theology, in my opinion. We wobble back and forth between pacifism and acceptance of violence, and we are too easily swayed. You are aware that Nazi Germany made use of Romans 13 to take power? You are aware that many Lutheran ministers in Nazi Germany got on board with Hitler and started theologically arguing that it was the duty of Germans to support their government? Of course, there were Christian heroes--there were those Preachers who refused to stop speaking out against the government, even after they were jailed by the Nazis. You are aware that the Pope made diplomatic deals with Napoleon, Mussolini, and Hitler, and that he used his authority as Pope to support them theologically?

This is why the Republican Party gets the most Christian support in America. They are able to sway the public via theological manipulation. This is why a significant portion of Christians vote on one moral issue in America--abortion. And which party panders to it? The same one that has consistently started violent wars over the last 50 years! From Guatemala to Iran 1953 to Chiapas to Nicaragua to Somalia--and the list goes on. And what was the prime motivation in EVERY one of these cases I mentioned? Profit. Shameless profit. Lol. Weaaaaaak. "You cannot serve two masters. You cannot love both God and Money."

Actually, however, I would argue that there are theological under-pinnings for self-defense biblically. If our hand sins, we are to cut it off. If our eye sins, we are to pluck it out. If our brother sins, we are to remove him from among us, and treat him like a "gentile" or "tax collector." If someone won't leave us alone, and won't leave our peaceful organization when we ask them to, then we probably ought to cut them off.

Also, I believe this is definitely off-topic, but I didn't bring it up. I simply responded to your question. And I'm not too strict about staying on topic anyway--if somebody has a question, I figure go ahead and answer it. :)

Peace, Shalom

[SalamChristian]

I simply inserted Gabriel to where I found the phrase Gabriel. Doesn't make much sense does it...

If you take out the article it's fine. Imagine, if I were to say who is "the holiest son of Israel?" Would you say "the Jesus?" No, lol. We don't do that with names.

You are aware that his ideas were considered heresy at the time, but these heretical ideas becamd for foundation for the "Official" concept of the Trinity.

Didn't you just agree that his trinity was different than the one accepted today? So, his trinity is not the "official" trinity. Foundation, perhaps. The same?--nope.

Woodrow, Mustufa, & the other Muslims on this thread, a question:

Do think that the "paraclete" could be referring to Gabriel, who gives the Qu'ran to Muhammad (pbuh), and not Muhammad? Yes? No? Maybe?

Peace

[Fivesolas]

"If you take out the article it's fine. Imagine, if I were to say who is "the holiest son of Israel?" Would you say "the Jesus?" No, lol. We don't do that with names."

You can only make this assertion if you ignore the text of Scripture. You can take the article out. I am not making the point that it just doesn't read well. You have yet to interact with the text of Scripture. Until you do, I will conclude that you cannot answer and are unable to cope with the text. Quoting Tertullian does not constitute actually dealing with the Scripture. How is it that Gabriel is with us, and in us for ever...if Gabriel is the Holy Spirit?

Come on Salam, let's get some real interaction with the text.

[Sol Invictus]

salamchristian, i believe that you may have missed my post. it is number 62 i believe.

[Woodrow]

Woodrow, Mustufa, & the other Muslims on this thread, a question:

Do think that the "paraclete" could be referring to Gabriel, who gives the Qu'ran to Muhammad (pbuh), and not Muhammad? Yes? No? Maybe?

Peace

No because Jibreel is an Angel, with no self will or freedom of choice. The Angels have no choice except perfect obedience to Allaah(swt).

No matter who we believe the Paraclete to be I think we can agree the Paraclete has freedom of choice and that eliminates an Angel from being the Paraclete.

-

[SalamChristian]

How is it that Gabriel is with us, and in us for ever...if Gabriel is the Holy Spirit? Come on Salam, let's get some real interaction with the text.

When we think about the Holy Spirit, we say that it is in all of us. It is in many places at once, and is not constrained by any limits. That's basic Holy Spirit theology. The burden of proof is not on ME to prove that it is impossible. It is on YOU. It is not specified as impossible in the text, and you are rejecting it solely on the basis of distaste, not that it is textually impossible. This means that you are isogetically reading your distaste for particular interpretations into the text, and not even specifying what natural basis you might have for making such an isogetical reading (and I am honest enough to realize that everyone isogetically reads into the text--it's called translation).

The fact that you have not yet proven that it is impossible is apparent in your speech. This is why you keep saying "how is it possible" instead of proving how it is not possible. If the holy spirit is in all of us (and in the Father), then it is not constrained by limits. Nothing in this precludes it from also taking physical form.

Moreover, you and I both know that there are preachers who have argued that when we see "3 figures" in the OT, they are F, S, HS. Look at Genesis 19--you have surely heard this interpretation. We need to grow some balls and conviction and realize that if a textual interpretation can be true when we like it and are familiar with it, it can also be true when it seems strange and unfamiliar. You who accept bodily incarnation of the Holy Spirit in the OT figures reject it when I link it to the Qu'ran. What's the basis for this inconstancy?

You can only make this assertion if you ignore the text of Scripture. You can take the article out. I am not making the point that it just doesn't read well.

I'm saying that you are not conscious of simple linguistic rules--the ones you yourself follow in your own language when you speak and which (as far as I know) all languages follow. I don't know of any languages which exhibit personal names with articles, and certainly I have no reason to believe that Aramaic does this.

Q:"Who is the king?" A:"George V"
Q: "Who is the president?" A: "Barack Obama"
Q: "Who is the Holy Spirit?" A: "Gabriel"

These are all linguistically correct responses. If we were to replace the names of these improper noun referents with their respective Proper nouns, the linguistically correct rendering is:

"George V is the king."
"Gabriel is the Holy Spirit."

Notice how we don't say "The Gabriel is the Holy Spirit," because that is incorrect according to basic grammatical rules.

Or, if you were given a worksheet by a teacher which had these sentences:

"The president speaks softly and carries a big stick."
Fill in the blank with the proper name answer to the question:
"___________ speaks softly and carries a big stick."

Answer? I'll tell you what it's not! It's not "The Teddy Roosevelt!"

Lol. This is called Universal Grammar. And, unless someone shows me that proper names have an article in Aramaic, I'm rejecting your interpretation as unawareness of the basic rules of grammar which we all follow. One of my majors here at school is English and I am done with it. I have taken linguistics courses and courses on textual criticism and the theory of textual criticism, and what I have written above is firmly based in linguistic and literary theory and knowledge of the way language works. If you apply your same rules of interpretation to your daily speaking and reading, you will find out that you will no longer be able to coherently respond to or understand any language you interact with.

Peace

[Sol Invictus]

No because Jibreel is an Angel, with no self will or freedom of choice. The Angels have no choice except perfect obedience to Allaah(swt).

No matter who we believe the Paraclete to be I think we can agree the Paraclete has freedom of choice and that eliminates an Angel from being the Paraclete.

-

salam, this all the more shows that if muslims and christians are to take seriously the claims of their repective religions, then they could not arrive at your conclusion much less go along with your argument. while your intent is to be commended, your method forces you to simply ignore a wide spectrum of truth claims which both these holy books say concerning themselves.

that said, could anyone tell me in what way tertullian's trinity differs from the one we have today? i'm sorry I was under the impression that we still believed in the father, the son, and the holy spirit.

[SalamChristian]

No matter who we believe the Paraclete to be I think we can agree the Paraclete has freedom of choice and that eliminates an Angel from being the Paraclete.

He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears

Didn't we already establish this? If he only speaks what he hears, and not on his own, doesn't that fit your idea of an Angel as perfectly submissive anyway? And isn't that how the "paraclete" is described?

No because Jibreel is an Angel, with no self will or freedom of choice. The Angels have no choice except perfect obedience to Allaah(swt).

Good point. I'm not going to argue with this, because it would sidetrack us. However, I just would like to drop in one quick thought about this. Iblis. Some scholars say that he is a "fallen Angel." Sura 7:11 leads me to believe he was a fallen angel. Allah (swt) commands the angels to prostrate to Adam, and Iblis refuses. Of course, you will probably say he is a Jinn.

salam, this all the more shows that if muslims and christians are to take seriously the claims of their repective religions, then they could not arrive at your conclusion much less go along with your argument.

Theology and Tafsir are not concrete, immoveable structures. They are man-made and what is man-made can be destroyed by God. :) There are a wide range of opinions and interpretations, both among Muslims and Christians. There are many denominations both within Christianity and Islam, and neither is homogeneous. What you believe is Islam and what you believe is Muslim is your perception--and surely one which is not comprehensive! I doubt there is even a Muslim in this world who has a comprehensive view of what every Muslim believes. The same goes for the Christian community.

that said, could anyone tell me in what way tertullian's trinity differs from the one we have today? i'm sorry I was under the impression that we still believed in the father, the son, and the holy spirit.

It has been said. Scroll up ^

Peace

[SalamChristian]

i just want to let you know that i'm not in fact angry or trying to insult you salam. i do enjoy such discussions and although i sincerely believe you to be wrong, i'm doing all of this in peace and charity and if it does seem like i've misspoken, then i sincerely apologize.

No worries, brother! I don't distrust you, and I have forgiven you already for any small phrases which might seem superficially to be offensive. :) I enjoy this discussion too! And, of course, I am really enjoying pushing everybody to think more critically!

Peace

[Sol Invictus]

hey Salam, i'm not at home right now but could you please answer my post (#62).

as far as subordination is concerned it does not give you a different trinity. it still consists of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. i for one do not think that subordination is completely unbiblical and would very much like to see some arguments to the contrary when you get around to answering my post.

[SalamChristian]

as far as subordination is concerned it does not give you a different trinity.

Subordination is considered one of the 3 great heresies of trinitarianism, along with modalism. The position of the church has been anti-subordinationist since the Aryan-Athanasian controversy. Church historians of Tertullian point out that this heresy is the logical endpoint of his theology. Today, the position of the church is considered by many to be predominately anti-subordinationist, as "subordinationist influences" have been creeping into the church, as they say. If you want to argue that heresies are not different than orthodox stances, be my guest.

If you don't see subordination as being a heresy at all, I recommend you google some of this stuff. James R. White's book "The Forgotten Trinity" has a wonderful diagram of the 3 big trinity heresies: modalism, polytheism, and subordinationism. If you have trouble finding stuff, I will help you (as long as you are actually trying to look).

could you please answer my post (#62).

Yes, I will answer it. The theme is not necessarily bad--you are reading it into the text. Like I said, seal # 5 is pretty darn cool, and I wouldn't mind if that was about ME. In fact, I would be honored. Also, the Qu'ranic verses I quoted quite a bit earlier in this thread say that God liked some prophets more than others. I'm not saying that a Muslim would accept that God liked Isa more than Muhammad, but in my modest reading of the Qu'ran I am not seeing it as exegetically impossible. Of course, there are lot of people who would doubtless get angry for me saying this, but my first loyalty is to the scripture, and to giving those texts which claim to be scripture a chance to be interpreted as truth.

We claim that Jesus has literal sonship. As far as I understand, Muslims do not. From what I perceive, they believe he is God's Word blown into Mary's womb, as John's Gospel also contends, but that this does not imply sexual union.

The Throne belongs to God and Christ, but if the Holy Spirit from God promises that he who conquers (meaning all believers who conquer) will be able to sit on the throne, then wouldn't this be fitting? Again, my exegesis of those two verses in Revelations show that an interpretation that "he who conquers" refers in a neutral tone to any believer, and that this is the preferred interpretation unless another arises. That it is the Throne of Christ and God as well does not disprove the interpretation, because, as I said, these verses also have God promising to share his throne with believers.

both muslims and christians will readily admit that your argument could not be true.

I have made it a lot farther than any of us expected on creativity and an open mind. Lol. A lot farther than I expected, too. Who knows the Truth? Only God! Let God be proven true and every man be proven false!

Peace brothers

P.S. I hope none of you get mad at me for being very critically minded! I just don't reject or accept someone else's viewpoint as conclusively proven without, well, conclusive proof!

[Fivesolas]

When we think about the Holy Spirit, we say that it is in all of us. It is in many places at once, and is not constrained by any limits. That's basic Holy Spirit theology. The burden of proof is not on ME to prove that it is impossible. It is on YOU. It is not specified as impossible in the text, and you are rejecting it solely on the basis of distaste, not that it is textually impossible. This means that you are isogetically reading your distaste for particular interpretations into the text, and not even specifying what natural basis you might have for making such an isogetical reading (and I am honest enough to realize that everyone isogetically reads into the text--it's called translation).

It is not a matter of distaste Salam. It is a matter of textual integrity. Now, I have reviewed the 89 places in the NT that the phrase "Holy Ghost" appears. What I am telling you is that what is spoken of the Holy Ghost cannot apply to an angelic being. Jesus was not anointed with Gabriel, we are not commanded to baptize disciples in the name of the Father, Son, and Gabriel, Christians are not indwelt and sealed by Gabriel. Gabriel is not promised to be with us and in us forever.

I am showing you that it is textually impossible. There is not a hint from the NT or OT that the Spirit of God is Gabriel. It you that has brought this idea to the discussion, so, actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove the assertion, not for me to prove its not possible.

Concerning your linquistic argument, its irrelevant to the discussion. We are not discussing how language works. We are discussing what the Bible says.

Let me make this clear to everyone. I will use your illustration:

Q: "Who is the Holy Spirit?" A: "Gabriel"

Is this liquistically possible/correct? Of course. So is this:

Q: "Who is the Holy Spirit?" A: Mickey Mouse
Q "Who is the Holy Spirit?" A: Geoge W. Bush
Q: "Who is the Holy Spirit?" A: Santa Clause

All of these are linquistically possible. But this has no bearing on the content or truthfulness of their statements.

So, while you may have some training in liquistics, how about we get back to exegesis and start dealing with the text of Scripture. Linguistics is a part of good biblical hermeneutics. And I have had some training in that...

I am willing to use the whole Bible. I suggest we look at all the salient passages related to the Holy Spirit and Gabriel.

Gabriel: Daniel 8:16, 9:20-21, Luke 1:19, Luke 1:26

"Holy Ghost" - 89 occurances from Matthrew - Jude.

[JPR]

that said, could anyone tell me in what way tertullian's trinity differs from the one we have today? i'm sorry I was under the impression that we still believed in the father, the son, and the holy spirit

Tertullian's belief of the trinity is the same as we do now. From the book I'm reading from the original post, Tertullian is showing that Praxeas was teaching that Jesus was God Himself, thus why he says "...and crucified the Father" (p.27). The reason why he writes "He put the Paraclete to flight" (p.27) is shown in the sentence just before "he drove out prophecy and brought in heresy". So he definitely thought that the Paraclete was amongst them as the Holy Spirit and allowing them to "prophecize" or however you want to interpret it, and the heresy he talks about is that Jesus was God Himself "...and crucified the Father".

I'm also going to quote from page 29 because I think Tertullian view on the Paraclete is very "to the point" for this discussion:

"...who afterwards, according to His promise, sent from the Father the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the Faith of the who believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

There, Tertullian view of the trinity is made very clear, for any who doubted what the earlier meaning of the trinity is, and what the Paraclete was, and is. Therefore I don't think that saying that the Paraclete is Muhammad is very plausible, according to Tertullian, because, well, muslims don't believe in the Son, Father or the Holy Spirit!

[SalamChristian]

Tertullian's belief of the trinity is the same as we do now.

Nope. It's subordinationist. He is anti-modalist, sure. But the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not apply to theological heresies, lol. Look at the footnotes in the book, they point out that Montanus has declared he is the "paraclete," and they make this connection between Tertullian and Montanus. Look up Tertullian's relation to Montanus. Tertullian accepted Montanus' claims to have a special access to the prophecies of the "paraclete," or to be the paraclete, or whichever of these two possibilities was the true case.

I don't think that saying that the Paraclete is Muhammad is very plausible

Okay, but what about Gabriel?

muslims don't believe in the Son, Father or the Holy Spirit!

what exactly do you mean by this phrase? crucifixion? Messiahship? Muslims certainly believe that Jesus is Messiah. From what I understand, they believe the Holy Spirit exists. And they believe the Father exists, but they refuse to call him Father, and call him Allah (swt) instead. A name is a name.

Peace

[SalamChristian]

believe in the Son, Father or the Holy Spirit

I would also like to point out that, if you think this means professing the concept of "trinity," you are way off base. Certainly saying "I believe the trinity," was never a biblical requirement for salvation. It wasn't until Athanasius in the 4th century that the church decided that those who don't believe in the trinity are certainly ****ed to hell. Many critics have rejected this as haughtiness and holier-than-thou condescension. John Wesley rejected this creed on the basis that it was too self-assured about who was going to hell and who isn't. C.S. Lewis rejected it for similar reasons.

Peace

[Fivesolas]

Subordinationism is a heresy concerning the Trinity. Subordinationism (Jesus is different in nature than the Father) should not be confused with subordination (the Son submitting to the Father). Subordinationism is a heresy concerning the Father and Son, though sometimes the Holy Spirit is included. The error has different forms, but it is primarily the teaching that the Son is not eternal and divine (Arian Subordinationism), and is, therefore, not equal to the Father in being and attributes. This is, of course, wrong and it is in contrast to the biblical doctrine of the Economic Trinity (relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) which does not deny their equality of nature and attributes. Another form of Subordinationism states that though the Son is divine, he is not equal to the Father in being, attributes, and rank. This error was rejected at the Council of Nicea. Essentially subordinationism states that the Son is inferior to the Father.

Subordinationism is not the same as Christ's subordination to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28) which concerns Jesus' continued state of being a man (1 Tim. 2:5) by which he lives forever to intercede for us as a high priest (Heb. 6:20; 7:25).

The above is taken from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, or CARM. I know Matt Slick, the founder of the ministry. So, even though this isn't referenced, I trust the source. This should clear up some things with regard to subordinationism.

[Fivesolas]

I would also like to point out that, if you think this means professing the concept of "trinity," you are way off base. Certainly saying "I believe the trinity," was never a biblical requirement for salvation. It wasn't until Athanasius in the 4th century that the church decided that those who don't believe in the trinity are certainly ****ed to hell. Many critics have rejected this as haughtiness and holier-than-thou condescension. John Wesley rejected this creed on the basis that it was too self-assured about who was going to hell and who isn't. C.S. Lewis rejected it for similar reasons.

Peace

It is not historically correct to suggest the doctrine of the Trinity was invented post-apostolic. It was simply dealt with in-depth by the 4th century. Why? Like most cases, apostolic doctrine was being challenged by heresies. Since the advent of the Christian church, I don't think there has been a single doctrine of our faith that hasn't been challenged.

Praise the Lord

[SalamChristian]

Doesn't clear up anything, except that I haven't been consistently using "subordinationist" lol.

If you want to use these terms, fine. According to these terms, Tertullian is a subordinationist. He views Christ as "external" to the father. A simple Google search would show you that this is overwhelmingly the opinion of Tertullian:

http://www.google.com/search?q=tertu...2bef87f4123836

9/10 of those links at least talk about Tertullian being a subordinationist, a forerunner of subordinationist ideology, or some variation thereof. All you had to do was make the effort to consider my point long enough to type the phrase in Google to see that I am backed up by a lot of credited people, lol. You have to work with me here if you want to truly hear me. I can't make you hear me if you shut me out from the start.

As for Tertullian's use of the "economic" metaphor, it is biblical. "economic" = "oikos" + "nomos" in Greek. Rules of the House. The metaphor that Christ consistently uses in the gospel is of him being "in the house" of the Father. However, the "equal" clause does not follow from either Tertullian's teachings or the "oikos" metaphor.

Like I showed you, look at all of those links. Look at that overwhelming majority witnessing to Tertullian's subordinationist trinity. A quote from the first link there, published by the Princeton Theological Seminary:

"No doubt Tertullian's subordinationism is very marked. Though he conceives of the prolate Logos and Spirit as truly God, they are, in his view, God at the periphery of his being, going forth, in a certain reduction of deity, for the world-work"

It is not historically correct to suggest the doctrine of the Trinity was invented post-apostolic. It was simply dealt with in-depth by the 4th century.

Your point is my point. To claim that Tertullian is referring to the trinity in the phrase "believe in the son, father, and holy spirit" is ludicrous, because it was not dealt with in-depth until the 4th century. It was not a ****able offense until then, so certainly Tertullian isn't implying ****ation for not believing in the trinity? No, he must be implying ****ation for not believing the gospel, the Father's power, and the immanence of the Holy Spirit, or something to that effect. It's called historical criticism, people, and it is important!

Peace

[YieldedOne]

Frankly, I've always wondered how the "holy spirit" can be interpreted to be an angel (Gabriel). One of the main Old Testament prophesies was about God's Spirit being "poured out" upon all peoples in the consummation of all things.


Ezekiel 36
“Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God."


Joel 2
“And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
29 Even on the male and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit.

Then there's Peter QUOTING Joel 2 in Acts...
When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested [1] on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15 For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:

17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18 even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
20 the sun shall be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood,
before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.
21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

------------------------

Absolutely none of these passages make any sense if God's "Spirit" is nothing more than an created angel (Gabriel).

Just my thought.

[JPR]

Look at the footnotes in the book, they point out that Montanus has declared he is the "paraclete," and they make this connection between Tertullian and Montanus. Look up Tertullian's relation to Montanus. Tertullian accepted Montanus' claims to have a special access to the prophecies of the "paraclete," or to be the paraclete, or whichever of these two possibilities was the true case.

The footnote in the book point to the description Tertullian made about the "carnal men", or catholics, as opposed to Montanists who are spiritual. Could you point me where, in the book, he refers to Montanus? To me, Tertullian is saying that you can have the Holy Spirit, Paraclete, only if you believe in God as the Father, Son and Spirit. Basically believe what Jesus said, that's why I said his view is the same as ours, in the text I read.

Okay, but what about Gabriel?

Woodrow made a good comment that the Paraclete should have free will. Tertullian says : "...them who believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."


What I meant by "Father, Son and Spirit" is exactly that: christian belief (since Tertullian was christian) of all that the Sonship means (crucifixion, Messiah, Son of God). If we start picking and choosing different definitions for christian beliefs outside the Bible, then what good is it? So because muslims don't believe in crucifixion and that Jesus was the Son of God, but agree he was the Messiah, then they can't believe in the same Jesus we do!

About muslims believing in the Spirit, you mean the Paraclete being Muhammad or in the Spirit? It can't be the same Spirit as we believe in because that would make them polytheists (to their view).

As for the Father, well, if He has no Son, then He's not really a Father?

So far on this Forum and a bit everywhere I looked, I saw muslims call God a three-headed beast, call us polytheists, that we are doomed, that Allah is One, and try to find contradictions in the Bible about the Oneness of God and how the trinity is a blasphemy. I, for one, wouldn't ascribe them any of our beliefs! But I agree that this subject is like walking on eggs, the thin line between heresy and countless injurious commentaries.

[SalamChristian]

the sentence just before "he drove out prophecy and brought in heresy".

Again, this is actually probably a reference to Montanus. Montanus' claimed to have written down the "new prophecy" from the "paraclete" Apparently Montanus wrote the book "the New Prophecy" which required stricter morality than other Christian communities, and claimed he either was the Holy Spirit, or had received it as a prophecy directly from the Holy Spirit. How much more similar to the Qu'ran could this be, lol?

[SalamChristian]

Could you point me where, in the book, he refers to Montanus?

The footnote and reference are on p. 27, like I said at the beginning of this thread. It clearly says "Remember that Montanus has accepted the title 'Paraclete.'"

Look at my comment that I just posted, and you will see how there is significant textual evidence that Tertullian was referring to Montanus. Also, google anything about Tertullian and Montanus, and you will see that Tertullian was a staunch supporter of Montanus. He is recorded as having written 7 books in support of Montanus. I believe it is Eusebius who records this fact about Tertullian.

Peace

[SalamChristian]

Frankly, I've always wondered how the "holy spirit" can be interpreted to be an angel (Gabriel).

Where do you see Revelation coming from? It is referred to in the text as both coming from the Angel sent by Jesus and also the Spirit.

One of the main Old Testament prophesies was about God's Spirit being "poured out" upon all peoples in the consummation of all things.

Again, why do we a assume that if Spirit takes a liquid-like, invisible form in people, it can't also take another form elsewhere? A lack of imagination? Is that truly the only barrier to this?

Again, how is it that Revelations is described as being a prophecy both from the Angel from Jesus and the Spirit "Pneuma". Not just a Spirit, but THE Spirit. Pneuma, as people have already pointed out in this thread, refers to a liquid-like substance--wind, breath. Not only this, but it is written that the Angel testified to everything that he saw concerning the word of God (Jesus). These are all characteristics of the Holy Spirit, and the "paraclete." And, moreover, they claim that The Spirit and the Angel from Christ are the same thing!

Peace

P.S. I have a lot of work to do. I won't have the chance to respond for awhile. There is so much information in this thread, however, that I know there are plenty of new ideas for people to argue about while I'm gone.

[SalamChristian]

One last thing!

I saw muslims call . . . that Allah is One . . . I, for one, wouldn't ascribe them any of our beliefs!

Allah is One, dude. You aren't accepting the Gospel of Jesus if you deny this, for he makes it clear that you must believe the "Lord your God is One" to be saved. So there is one belief that we share with the Muslims. :) Let the hate out of your heart, brother.

everywhere I looked, I saw Muslims . . . try to find contradictions in the Bible

Cool. So you are angry at the Muslims for this. But this is MY thread, and I submitted an idea that is neither an orthodox Christian view nor an orthodox Muslim view for discussion, to see if it could bridge the worlds exegetically. So prove me wrong with the text or with some kind of criticism relating to the text, and leave finger pointing at our Muslim brothers's behavior for somewhere else.

Peace

[Fivesolas]

In the interest of getting back on topic, I think we have established that the Comforter spoken of in the Gospel of John is not a reference to Mohammed.

I think it has been sufficiently shown, from the Scriptures, that Mohammed is not the Comforter spoken of by John.

The Comforter is the Holy Spirit, not Mohammed.

[Sol Invictus]

Subordination is considered one of the 3 great heresies of trinitarianism, along with modalism. The position of the church has been anti-subordinationist since the Aryan-Athanasian controversy. Church historians of Tertullian point out that this heresy is the logical endpoint of his theology. Today, the position of the church is considered by many to be predominately anti-subordinationist, as "subordinationist influences" have been creeping into the church, as they say. If you want to argue that heresies are not different than orthodox stances, be my guest.

i believe that it has already been mentioned but there two different types of subordination---one of which is biblical while the other is not. one is functional subordination and the other ontological subordination. the bible is quite clear that the son is functionally subordinate to the father (i.e. the father sent the son, the son came to do the will of the father, the son in being found a man made himself a servant of the father) this in no way means that the members of the trinity are not equal in nature but rather that they are distinct in role. hence the titles of the father, the so, and the holy spirit. the subordination which the church condemned is of a subordination in being. one which posits that the members of the trinity are not equal in essence and that the father is the true god etc. this is what we find in the theology of jehovah's witnesses and mormons for example.

We claim that Jesus has literal sonship.

no, we claim that the son is truly the son of teh father but not that he has literal sonship. literal sonship entails biology in that the son would be a union of god and a consort (as it is misunderstood in the qur'an). our sonship while truly real, is more figurative.

The Throne belongs to God and Christ, but if the Holy Spirit from God promises that he who conquers (meaning all believers who conquer) will be able to sit on the throne, then wouldn't this be fitting? Again, my exegesis of those two verses in Revelations show that an interpretation that "he who conquers" refers in a neutral tone to any believer, and that this is the preferred interpretation unless another arises. That it is the Throne of Christ and God as well does not disprove the interpretation, because, as I said, these verses also have God promising to share his throne with believers.

no, the conquerors do not sit on the throne of god at all. the conquerors become incorporated into the family of god and thus become co-rulers in the sense that they are part of the ruling family. it is christ who is the first-born among many brothers who rules with the father and sits on his throne. when god says that he will share his throne with believers it is far more probable to take it to mean dominion in that the believers will become part of the ruling family and will be even higher than angels. look at the very book you cite. it ends with christ and god being seated on the single throne and everyone else serving them (i hate to use this language but do so only to emphasize the distinction between christ and the other two members of the trinity)! nowhere are the believers worshiped by the angels. they do not become the temple of the city nor do they provide the light which illuminates all the world. the river of life flows from the single throne of christ and god and not from anywhere else. do you not see how exclusive these descriptions are? god says that he is the alpha and the omega and christ says that he is the alpha and the omega! god sits on his throne and christ sits on the very same throne! the kingdom is that of god and of the lamb! god is worshiped and christ is worshiped in the same breath! nowhere do you find a single instance of the believers sitting on god's throne, in fact they will serve christ:

1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever. ---revelation 22:1-5 NIV

once more sharing god's throne refers to his dominion in that the believers enter god's family and thus effectively become part of the ruling family. the expression of reigning with christ does not mean sitting on god's throne.

if we are to return to the point about conquering, here is what the bible says concerning the beast:

The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world. ---Revelation 13:5-8 NIV

notice that the beast conquers through making war. the saints of god conquer through losing their lives to the beast. there is no greater glory one can give to god than to hold fast to what they have received from him to the death. so this verse shows you that the link you wished to assert is untenable. it is only the beast who conquers through war and not the saints. furthermore, given that the thematic unit of the conqueror is one of evil (how can you say that his association with, war, hunger and death is not evil?), this only further reinforces my point.

concering the claim that a revelation might have been given to muhammad, we must see if his claims align with those in the bible. it is interesting that you keep trying to make links between the qur'an and the bible and find any similarities between these so as to try to unify these two texts when you ignore the most important fact! does the islamic prophet acknowledge the son?

No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. --- 1 John 2:23 NIV

If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. --- 1 John 4:15 NIV

Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. --- John 5:22-23 NIV

now salam, what will you believe? if the bible is true then muhammad could not be from god because he does not acknowledge the son. in fact, whoever the source of the qur'an really is, they are quite adamant that they do not acknowledge the father either and as such they couldn't be from him. the bible is very clear about how to tell whether things are from god and this has to do with whether these revelations conform to what god has already revealed:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! --- Galatians 6:6-9 NIV

from the above you can see that from the very beginning people have tried to pervert the gospel and from the words above we can at least imply that the claim that an angel had spoken to an individual with new revelation was not unheard of during the time of the apostles (nor in our modern-day seeing as joseph smith made the very same claim!). islam does not present us with the same gospel and as such cannot be from the same source as the bible. i must once again reiterate that your method is one in which we have to ignore the truth claims that both the bible and the qur'an make about themselves. i would not even want to be more theologically united with muslims when this would come at the cost of sacrificing the integrity of our respective holy books. you either have christianity or islam, you do not have christianity-lite and islam-lite (well, that is if you're not a baha'i). it's all or nothing.

[SalamChristian]

In the interest of getting back on topic, I think we have established that the Comforter spoken of in the Gospel of John is not a reference to Mohammed . . . The Comforter is the Holy Spirit, not Mohammed.

I would have to agree. Unless someone comes up with a new exegesis or verses I didn't expect, I am not seeing the "paraclete" as Muhammad.

Gabriel, however, we have not disproven. The argument that Gabriel may be the Holy Spirit stands. From the arguments that are currently on the thread, the possibility looks rather compelling to me. And seeing as the Qu'ran is revealed from Gabriel into the hearts of believers, and that it provides legal guidance and discernment as well as comfort and claims to be the Book of Truth and the Clear Book so frequently, the evidence for this exegesis as it stands in this thread is compelling. The argument that the Holy Spirit cannot both take angelic and pneumatic form has been shown to derive from a lack of imagination, not from certain textual contradictions, so far.

Moreover, It is quite possible that the Conqueror and White-clothed horseman on a white horse of the first seal of Revelations may be Muhammad, exegetically speaking. Muhammad was all of these things. He also owned bows. Ishmael is also identified in Genesis as being the "archer of Paran," and one of our Muslim sisters on the board has pointed out her interpretation that Paran is a symbol for Muhammad.

Also, the same sister has identified the "Ruler of the World" as being one of Muhammad's titles in Arabic.

As I see it, we still need to exegetically resolve these issues for the debate to be resolved. As I am reading it, there is a possibility Gabriel is the "paraclete," who revealed the Qu'ran to Muhammad, like he revealed Revelations to John. Moreover, it is possible Muhammad is the conqueror foretold of in Revelations 6 and elsewhere, as I read the texts, and that this is actually a commendable title and not a pejorative one. Lastly, as I am reading all of the texts as a whole (Revelations, Qu'ran, Gospels, Exodus), it seems Muhammad is contending he establishes the true community of believers, the Ummah, and that the Qu'ran connects this to the Parable of the Sower of the Word and God's calling of Israel out of Diaspora.

Prove it wrong! Or prove it right! Somebody, lol. What are your thoughts?

Peace

[Sol Invictus]

Also, the same sister has identified the "Ruler of the World" as being one of Muhammad's titles in Arabic.

As I see it, we still need to exegetically resolve these issues for the debate to be resolved. As I am reading it, there is a possibility Gabriel is the "paraclete," who revealed the Qu'ran to Muhammad, like he revealed Revelations to John. Moreover, it is possible Muhammad is the conqueror foretold of in Revelations 6 and elsewhere, as I read the texts, and that this is actually a commendable title and not a pejorative one. Lastly, as I am reading all of the texts as a whole (Revelations, Qu'ran, Gospels, Exodus), it seems Muhammad is contending he establishes the true community of believers, the Ummah, and that the Qu'ran connects this to the Parable of the Sower of the Word and God's calling of Israel out of Diaspora.

umm wait, the conqueror isn't conquering anything for god. if in fact he came to conquer the world for god then he failed because it is christ who goes to conquer the world from the beast and that is when the angels in heaven celebrate that the kingdom of earth has become that of god. what is actually far more interesting is the fact that the conqueror does conquer the world, yet at the end it is christ who has to conquer the world for god's sake. we know that the beast also conquers the world and rouses it's inhabitants to make war on god. christ comes down and destroys the army of the beast. from my reading, it seems that the conqueror and the beast are the same individual. both conquer through the use of war (while the saints conquer through giving their lives) both achieve victory and rule. if both of them rule and yet the christ has to rescue the world from the rule of the devil, then it can only mean that both of these are evil and in fact the same person. let us also not forget that the conqueror is followed by evil and the rule of the beast is a disaster where war, hunger and death break out on the whole world. this is perfectly in keeping with war, hunger, and death coming at the heels of the conqueror. so no, you have not shown that the conqueror is a good figure at all. once again in identifying him with muhammad you have slapped all the muslims on this board in the face.

[Fivesolas]

I submitted for a new thread on the Holy Spirit. Hopefully it gets approved.

[SalamChristian]

I submitted for a new thread on the Holy Spirit. Hopefully it gets approved.

Cool. I will pay attention to it. I probably won't post anymore. This is draining energy from me lol.

Sol,

I have read all of your posts and taken your points into consideration. I am going to re-read Revelations sometime in the near future, and consider your points. I do not see your points as being conclusive proof of anything. The debate, as I see it, is a question of probabilities. Either you argue the conqueror probably is or probably isn't Muhammad, based on vague "thematic" uncertainties, or argue that Gabriel is or isn't the Holy Spirit also based on vague metaphors and peripheral verses.

I will leave you with this verse:

"And to the one who conquers and who continues in my deeds until the end, I will give him authority over the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod and like clay jar's he will brake them to pieces, just as I have received the right to rule from my Father" Revelations 2: 26-8

The text indicates that the "conqueror" is not Christ, but he will receive authority from Christ over his flock and he will rule them with an "iron rod." The verb for "rule them" here is actually "shepherd them," making even more overt references to the people of Christ.

I will keep my eyes pealed for the new thread, and pay attention to what people have to say.

Peace

[Grace Seeker]

Just want to applaude those members participating in this thread for being able to disagree with one another's ideas without becoming disagreeable and resorting to personal attacks. Would that more threads were dialogues of this kind.

[MustafaMc]

MustafaMc,

One of the tools that might be helpful for you is to use biblegateway or another online Bible search engine that allows you to do key word searches. For example, when I search for the phrase "Holy Ghost" using the KJV (King James Version) of the Bible, I find that phrase appearing 89 times in the New Testament. It appears most frequently in the book of Acts. What you could do is look through those different passages to test your hypothesis.

I do this with the Qur'an. I have not found a good key word searcher yet, but I have found the Qur'an online. So, when I have a question or a hear a claim made about the Qur'an's message, I go to the Qur'an and check it out.

If you search a modern translation, such as the NKJV, NASB, ESV, or NIV, then use the phrase "holy spirit" If you think the Holy Spirit is Gabriel, then substitute in your mind the word Gabriel for every instance you find the phrase "holy spirit" and see how it works....you could also treat the Bible as a whole, and do this for the OT as well. Here are some examples:

Psalm 51:11 "Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Gabriel from me."

Matt 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Gabriel."

Mark 1:8 "I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Gabriel."

Luke 11:13 "If you then, who are evil, now how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Gabriel to those who ask him!"

I simply inserted Gabriel to where I found the phrase Gabriel. Doesn't make much sense does it...

Have you ever heard of a 'red herring'?

"If the Holy Spirit is God, then wouldn't He speak of His own and not what He heard from someone else?"

Why not asked the question, "If the Holy Spirit is God, then how is this explained within the trinitarian vewpoint that He does not speak of His own, but whatever He hears He speaks."

Why would I re-phrase the question? But it would be improper to ask that it be answered from a Modalist viewpoint. It must be granted to the trinitarian to reason from his/her viewpoint, and not anothers. Agree?

You made absolutely no sense to me on this. I have a challenge for you: Give me a single word that the Holy Spirit is quoted as saying anywhere in the NT.

I am well aware of biblegateway.com and use it often. A good Islamic search engine is http://www.searchtruth.com/

[MustafaMc]

It is rather far more reasonable to accept that the Old and New Testaments are accurate records of the words of the prophets and apostles.

Do you honestly think that is a true statement?

[Sol Invictus]

I have a challenge for you: Give me a single word that the Holy Spirit is quoted as saying anywhere in the NT.

you must have missed my post mustafa, here is an excerpt:

hmm, i don't know how much of the bible you have actually read because it's fairly easy to give you proof of the holy spirit speaking:

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” --- Acts 13:2 NIV

notice how he speaks with authority. it is he that has called barnabas and saul and he who commands believers.

Just want to applaude those members participating in this thread for being able to disagree with one another's ideas without becoming disagreeable and resorting to personal attacks. Would that more threads were dialogues of this kind.

indeed it is greatly refreshing to be able to carry on such a discussion without a recourse to insults. if we cannot come to an agreement with one another then at the very least we should uphold a sense of mutual respect and charity. i had almost gotten used to being insulted for my particular opinion when posting here and so this change in atmosphere is extremely appreciated.

that said, this was a good discussion.

[MustafaMc]

Do think that the "paraclete" could be referring to Gabriel, who gives the Qu'ran to Muhammad (pbuh), and not Muhammad? Yes? No? Maybe?

I could see how one could make a case for that as Gabriel conveyed the Message from Allah (swt) to Muhammad (saaws); however, I don't see that Gabriel was sent to mankind, but rather to Muhammad (saaws). Muhammad (saaws) is the one who taught his companions all things and his teachings remain with us today.

[SalamChristian]

Peace my Muslim and Christian brothers,

Sol, Grace Seeker:

I am also glad that we had such a fruitful discussion. While both I and Sol made very forceful comments, I believe we both made them out of love for each other and an honest desire to correct each other and learn from dialogue. We both reassured each other of this periodically, as did others on the forum. I also would like to commend our Muslim brothers and especially the Muslim sister who was very nice and provided numerous verses in her response.

I could see how one could make a case for that as Gabriel conveyed the Message from Allah (swt) to Muhammad (saaws)

Hallelujah! Allahu Akbar! I am glad I finally got through to one of my Muslim brothers. I hope that this thought bears fruit for one of us in our studies.

his teachings remain with us today.

In the Qu'ran, which are the exact words provided by Gabriel. In fact, wasn't the Qu'ran only memorized in the early years, and the believers were told to memorize it by heart, so that it wasn't misinterpreted/misunderstood? I'm not sure that Muhammad (pbuh) did any interpreting of the Qu'ran. It is the "clear book," alif lam ra. All he had to do was apply it to his life and believe it, and that is all.

Also, Sol, I do want to show you respect and answer one question of yours that was certainly a very significant one. You brought up the requirement in the Gospels that someone cannot have the father unless they believe in the Son. Here is my response:

That specific statement refers to believing in the Messiaship of Jesus--believing that he is Christ, he came with the message of God (Gospel), and he is not just another guy who died. We established that this is a possible interpretation of the phrase "son of God" in the Gospels on another thread. At the time of Jesus (and even today), the Jews are expecting a Messiah (annointed one) who will be the chosen, unique son of God. All of those beliefs are arguably met by Muhammad (pbuh) and the Qu'ran. The Islamic Jesus (pbuh) is the Messiah (the annointed one a.k.a the Christ), he is God's Word blown into Mary, he lived a sinless life, and after his time on earth God took him up to him (tawaffa).

Peace everybody

[SalamChristian]

Mustafa

Do you honestly think that is a true statement?

I think that it is a true statement. In fact, I think that the OT, NT, and Qu'ran can be reconciled, based on my current reading. Of course, I don't speak arabic, so my opinion might not mean much to a lot of people out there. But, I have read a whooooole lot of articles on Sura 4:157, and I think that, if that ayah is indeed currently misinterpreted, then a correct interpretation could potentially cause everything else to line up.

I have currently read only a modest 1/3 of the Qu'ran. :) It has been revealing so far, though, I must admit.

However, let's keep broad-based rejections of each others Holy books out of this discussion. It has been a fruitful, peaceful, thoughtful debate so far. I believe that it has opened up minds to reinterpreting their respective scriptures with an honest heart, and let's keep it that way!

Peace

[MustafaMc]

So far on this Forum and a bit everywhere I looked, I saw muslims call God a three-headed beast, call us polytheists, that we are doomed, that Allah is One, and try to find contradictions in the Bible about the Oneness of God and how the trinity is a blasphemy. I, for one, wouldn't ascribe them any of our beliefs! But I agree that this subject is like walking on eggs, the thin line between heresy and countless injurious commentaries.

May I ask, "Is English your first language?" The reason I ask is because I can't follow what you are trying to say. You are correct that Allah (subhana wa ta ala) is One God and, yes, I (as a Muslim) believe that Christians ascribe partners with Allah (swt) in saying that Jesus (alayhi salam) was the Son of God and at the same time God in human flesh. I believe that this is a most grievous sin to ascribe partners or equals with Allah (swt) which I call 'shirk'. However, don't lose hope in the Mercy of Allah (swt) because He can forgive even that if you will repent of it before your death.

[MustafaMc]

you must have missed my post mustafa, here is an excerpt:

Good, I learned something tonight!

[MustafaMc]

I think that it is a true statement.

In that case, how can both versions of the Lord's Prayer be accurate in relaying what Jesus actually said?

I have currently read only a modest 1/3 of the Qu'ran. :) It has been revealing so far, though, I must admit.

Which translation are you reading? I have 7 different ones and believe that the Gracious Quran translated by Ahmad Zaki Hammad is best.

However, let's keep broad-based rejections of each others Holy books out of this discussion. It has been a fruitful, peaceful, thoughtful debate so far. I believe that it has opened up minds to reinterpreting their respective scriptures with an honest heart, and let's keep it that way!

Peace

My question was a fair one to challenge a statement that I do not believe is true.

[SalamChristian]

In that case, how can both versions of the Lord's Prayer be accurate in relaying what Jesus actually said?

They both have the same meaning. The grammatical details are not important to the meaning of the text. :) Jesus also makes it clear that it is the thought that counts, and God knows what you are going to pray before you pray it to him. As long as you have the idea right, you are accurate unto Jesus' teachings.

Lastly, they are technically in agreement, one just doesn't capture all the same moments that the other one does. I heard Theologian N.T. Wright describe the Gospels like this: it's like a movie, some parts are edited by the director, but you know that all of the parts are true.

That is how the Gospels work. They are snapshots, but that does not make them untrue. The Qu'ran is different in format, because it is not a human account, but one literally written by an Angel. God does not send multiple Angels to provide the same account, he only sends one, so there is only one account.

[MustafaMc]

They both have the same meaning. The grammatical details are not important to the meaning of the text. :) Jesus also makes it clear that it is the thought that counts, and God knows what you are going to pray before you pray it to him. As long as you have the idea right, you are accurate unto Jesus' teachings.

That is really beside that point that they are not ACCURATE. Since either one added some words or the other took some away, there is no question but that they are both NOT accurate, for that matter there is no evidence that either of them are accurate and precisely what Jesus (as) said to his disciples. If there is a single instances where the NT can be shown to be INACCURATE, there is no way that the NT in general can be claimed to be accurate. I am sorry but getting it close and conveying the meaning just isn't good enough. We can't play horse-shoes with the Word of God. If words were added or taken away in a single instance then one can't have confidence the same wasn't done in more critical verses such as say John 3:16.

Lastly, they are technically in agreement, one just doesn't capture all the same moments that the other one does. I heard Theologian N.T. Wright describe the Gospels like this: it's like a movie, some parts are edited by the director, but you know that all of the parts are true.

Do you really know that the Bible truly captures and accurately conveys even the meaning of what Jesus (as) said? Did Jesus (as) really say what he is quoted as saying in Mark 16:15-18 or did some scribe take literary license and add them because he knew what Jesus meant and should have said?

That is how the Gospels work. They are snapshots, but that does not make them untrue. The Qu'ran is different in format, because it is not a human account, but one literally written by an Angel. God does not send multiple Angels to provide the same account, he only sends one, so there is only one account.

Wrong. The Quran was not written by an angel, but rather conveyed from Allah (swt) through Jibrael to Muhammad (saaws). And, no, Jibrael did not convey a message to Saul on the road to Damascus, nor is there evidence that he did so to John on the Isle of Patmos.

[Fivesolas]

Have you ever heard of a 'red herring'? You made absolutely no sense to me on this. I have a challenge for you: Give me a single word that the Holy Spirit is quoted as saying anywhere in the NT.

I am well aware of biblegateway.com and use it often. A good Islamic search engine is http://www.searchtruth.com/

Hello,

To answer you question, yes, I know what a red herring is. Is this your understanding of one: "A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue." I did not intend my post to take us off-topic or one that is irrelevant. Your question to Sol is to find a place where the Holy Spirit speaks, and I was suggesting, basically, you would have found it by using a phrase search. Since the topic related to the allegation that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel, I suggested look at the OT and NT Scriptures and inserting Gabriel as the object. My hope was that you would see it doesn't fit.

Sol gave you an example from the NT of the Holy Spirit speaking. Also consider:

Acts 1:16 "Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus." Commentary: It is the Holy Spirit speaking by the mouth of David. Acts 2:4 confirms how the Holy Spirit gives believers "utterance" so it is not them who are speaking of themselves, but by the Holy Spirit.

Acts 13:2 "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." Commentary: This is the example Sol gave you. Pretty clear is it not?

Acts 20:23 "Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me." Commentary: Obviously the Holy Spirit was speaking, most likely by the mouth of His disciples, to speak regarding the sufferings Paul was to endure.

Acts 21:11 "And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." Commentary: This is amazingly similar to the biblical "thus saith the Lord.." and is clear to any reader that it is the Holy Spirit speaking and giving a prophecy.

Acts 28:25 "And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers," Commentary: This text is equating that what was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah was, in fact, the Holy Spirit speaking.

1 Corinthians 2:13 "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." Commentary: The Holy Spirit teaches men.

Hebrews 3:7 "Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice," Commentary: This is a reference to a Psalm from the OT, regarding the speaking to be the Holy Spirit has said.

1 Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" Commentary: That the Holy Spirit speaks to men should be abundantly clear now.

The Holy Spirit speaks, teaches, convicts, rebukes, forbids, et. At the very least I think you can conclude that this is the record of the NT.

[Fivesolas]

Do you honestly think that is a true statement?

Yes, I do. With good reason. But a discussion of the reliability of the biblical text would be off-topic here. But I am glad to discuss it anytime.

[Fivesolas]

They both have the same meaning. The grammatical details are not important to the meaning of the text. :) Jesus also makes it clear that it is the thought that counts, and God knows what you are going to pray before you pray it to him. As long as you have the idea right, you are accurate unto Jesus' teachings.

Lastly, they are technically in agreement, one just doesn't capture all the same moments that the other one does. I heard Theologian N.T. Wright describe the Gospels like this: it's like a movie, some parts are edited by the director, but you know that all of the parts are true.

That is how the Gospels work. They are snapshots, but that does not make them untrue. The Qu'ran is different in format, because it is not a human account, but one literally written by an Angel. God does not send multiple Angels to provide the same account, he only sends one, so there is only one account.

At some point, or not, I would like to challenge this view you have Salam, with all sincerity and humility. If you accept both Old and New Testaments as accurate and true, then there is no reconcilation of them with the Qur'an. But that would take this thread off-topic.

[Khalil_Allah]

This is one of the best points of debate for Muslims and Christians because it gets right at the heart of our differences.

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful." 7.157.

Some say that "parakletos" in Greek can be translated to Aramaic as "Ahmad." This is a slam dunk for Muslims if it is true, but I'm no etymologist. That would basically replace "comforter" or "advocate," or whatever the particular version says, as "ahmad." aHMaD, muHaMmaD. But again, I don't know.

What I do know is that Muhammad's life and his claims are far greater evidence that he is the Paraclete Jesus described than any notion of the "Holy Spirit" being the Paraclete. The Qur'an says "whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel." Look in any version of the Bible, John 14-16, and you find this "comforter," "advocate," "helper," or whatever and he 1) speaks words not his own, 2) testifies about Jesus, 3) teaches/guides mankind, 4) stays with mankind forever.

Take these 4 descriptions and go to a Muslim. Do not mention the Bible or Qur'an or anything, and ask the Muslim who you are describing. It is my guess that 9 out of 10 Muslims will immediately believe you are describing Muhammad. Do the same to a Christian, and you will find a varied array of answers. Generally, they settle on the "Holy Spirit." It is a part of the Trinity that lives inside each Christian who testifies to the crucifixion and that Jesus died for our sins. Something along these lines. But where is any proof that the holy spirit speaks words not his own, testifies about Jesus, teaches and guides mankind, and stays with mankind forever? I mean real, rational proof. There is none.

I have zero doubt that the physical manifestation of this Paraclete is Muhammad, the mercy to mankind, the last of God's messengers. He spoke what was revealed to him (he could not read or write and grew up in a pagan society). He testified to Jesus' prophethood and that Jesus is the Messiah who will return to lead the believers (Muslims are to follow Jesus if he returns during their lifetimes). There is no question as to whether Muhammad was a teacher and a guide for mankind. And, lastly, Muhammad's life has been preserved like no life before or after in detailed, accurate records and accounts of his sayings and actions. Muslims are commanded to love Muhammad more than any other and, as such, they preserve the true account of his life, and will until there are none left.

Just think about all he did and what all he claimed. Browse through the Wikipedia article on him. The man was miraculous in ways different than Jesus, but he reiterated the message of Jesus. If that is not enough, then open any Bible to John 14-16, and you will find his description, as promised in the Qur'an. Christians, this message is for you:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful." 7.157.

[Fivesolas]

Do you really know that the Bible truly captures and accurately conveys even the meaning of what Jesus (as) said? Did Jesus (as) really say what he is quoted as saying in Mark 16:15-18 or did some scribe take literary license and add them because he knew what Jesus meant and should have said?

MustafaMc,

This is a question of Textual Criticism. I would suggest starting a thread on that subject.

[Khalil_Allah]

This is the Bayyinah

[Fivesolas]

What I do know is that Muhammad's life and his claims are far greater evidence that he is the Paraclete Jesus described than any notion of the "Holy Spirit" being the Paraclete. The Qur'an says "whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel." Look in any version of the Bible, John 14-16, and you find this "comforter," "advocate," "helper," or whatever and he 1) speaks words not his own, 2) testifies about Jesus, 3) teaches/guides mankind, 4) stays with mankind forever.

Khalil,

Good reply, and I am glad you quoted this Surah. In my opinion you have done what the Qur'an tells you to say to the Christians..."Go to your own texts!" Bravo. Since you believe this is Allah telling us to do this, I have to conclude that Allah would not direct me to a corrupted text. Therefore, John 14-16 are the authentic, preserved words of Jesus.

Beginning in Chapter 14 we find this with regard to the Comforter:

1. 14:16 - He would be given to those to whom He was speaking to (and all believers in Jesus) and would be with them forever. This cannot be Mohammed because the Christians for the first 600 years had no knowledge of Mohammed or Islam.
2. 14:17 - He is the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot receive him because it does not see Him. The world does not know Him, but the disciple knew Him. He was dwelling with them and would be in them. This cannot be Mohammed. The world did see him. Mohammed was not living with the disciples at that time, nor is there any notion that Mohammed would indwell Christians.
3. 14:18 - Jesus said, "I will not leave you comfortless. I will come to you." This Christ said right after He promised to send the Comforter. Here Christ is equating the Comforter with Himself.
4. 14:26 - The Comforter is identified in this text as the Holy Spirit, not Mohammed. Muslims have contended that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel. If I accept that the Comforter is Mohammed, and accept what this text is saying, then the only conclusion is that Mohammed is Gabriel. Rather, Mohammed is not the Comforter spoken of by the Lord Jesus. In this text, the Holy Spirit comes in the name of Jesus. Mohammed did not come in the name of Jesus. Nor did Mohammed bring to remembrence all things that Jesus said.
5. 15:26 - The Comforter is sent from the Father, is the Spirit of Truth, and proceeds from the Father, and testifies of Jesus. It cannot be said that Mohammed was sent by the Father, is the Spirit of Truth, and proceeds from the Father. Nor did Mohammed bear the testimony of Jesus Christ.
6. 16:7 - The Comforter is sent by Jesus. Mohammed never claimed to be sent by Jesus.
7. 16:8 - The Comforter reproves the world of sin because they do not believe in Jesus, of righteousness because Jesus was raised from the dead, and of judgement because Satan is judged. Mohammed did not reference and center all things around Christ Jesus. THe Comforter does.
8. 16:13-14 - The Comforter glorifies Jesus. Mohammed did not glorify Jesus.

We cannot pick and choose sections of John 14-16 so that in our minds we may try to apply it to Mohammed. We must take the whole, and all points. It should be abundantly clear that the things spoken of by Jesus concerning the Comforter could never apply to Mohammed. The fact that Jesus said the Comforter IS the Holy Spirit should settle the matter to every honest, truth-seeking Muslim.

[Khalil_Allah]

Clever logic, Fivesolas, but your sarcasm is not lost on me.

Allah also says:
[All] praise is [due] to Allah , who has sent down upon His Servant the Book and has not made therein any deviance.
[He has made it] straight, to warn of severe punishment from Him and to give good tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a good reward
In which they will remain forever
And to warn those who say, " Allah has taken a son."
They have no knowledge of it, nor had their fathers. Grave is the word that comes out of their mouths; they speak not except a lie.
Then perhaps you would kill yourself through grief over them, [O Muhammad], if they do not believe in this message, [and] out of sorrow.

Take His guidance and be among those who receive the glad tidings, is what I'm saying.

But as to the matter at hand, if we base our argument in the Bible, then we are all trying to build a house on a foundation of sand. There are countless versions of the Bible with limited representation of the original, and anyhow, Biblical scholars discredit John more than the Synoptic Gospels. Your premise is based on the idea that the Bible is Jesus' actual, authentic words, yet he spoke Aramaic. My premise is the unchanged Qur'an and the clear evidence of general knowledge about a historical figure. Read surat-ul-bayyinah habibi.

[Fivesolas]

Clever logic, Fivesolas, but your sarcasm is not lost on me.

Allah also says:
[All] praise is [due] to Allah , who has sent down upon His Servant the Book and has not made therein any deviance.
[He has made it] straight, to warn of severe punishment from Him and to give good tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a good reward
In which they will remain forever
And to warn those who say, " Allah has taken a son."
They have no knowledge of it, nor had their fathers. Grave is the word that comes out of their mouths; they speak not except a lie.
Then perhaps you would kill yourself through grief over them, [O Muhammad], if they do not believe in this message, [and] out of sorrow.

Take His guidance and be among those who receive the glad tidings, is what I'm saying.

But as to the matter at hand, if we base our argument in the Bible, then we are all trying to build a house on a foundation of sand. There are countless versions of the Bible with limited representation of the original, and anyhow, Biblical scholars discredit John more than the Synoptic Gospels. Your premise is based on the idea that the Bible is Jesus' actual, authentic words, yet he spoke Aramaic. My premise is the unchanged Qur'an and the clear evidence of general knowledge about a historical figure. Read surat-ul-bayyinah habibi.

Khalil,

I meant no sarcasm in my reply at all. I know tone is difficult to communicate in writing, but I hope you can believe that. To me it is disrespectful to be sarcasitc when we are discussing a serious topic.

I am not going to claim victory in our discussion. You have taken the discusson off of what the text says, to another subject, namely the integrity of the NT text. This is a worthy topic, but not the subject of this thread.

Now, I will reiterate. You instructed me from the Qur'an to look to my own Scriptures. I did so, and showed you what I found. Your reply to that was that my Scriptures are untrustworthy. Tell me then, why does Allah in the qur'an tell me to search my own Scriptures for a confirmation, then when I don't find one, I am told, "well, that is because your Scriptures are messed up."

I hardly believe that an All-Merciful, All-Holy God would exhort me to search a corrupted text. I don't think you believe that either. You are suggesting Khalil, that in order for me to see that the Qur'an is true, I must first believe it to be true. Would you accept this from anyone? In fact, this is how the Roman Catholic church works its deceptions on gullable souls. They say we must first accept the authority of the Pope, then we will accept the Papal doctrines.

Certainly my premise would be based on the reliability of the NT text. Should I not reason from a position of belief, even as you are? And I have good reasons to trust in the reliability and authenticity of the text.

At least I am happy you think my logic is clever. lol

[Sol Invictus]

Some say that "parakletos" in Greek can be translated to Aramaic as "Ahmad." This is a slam dunk for Muslims if it is true, but I'm no etymologist. That would basically replace "comforter" or "advocate," or whatever the particular version says, as "ahmad." aHMaD, muHaMmaD. But again, I don't know.

wait a minute, that's not true. no one says that parakletos can be translated as ahmad in aramaic. that is false. what muslims do instead is that they argue that the word should actually be periklytos:

Some Muslim commentators, such as David Benjamin Keldani, argue that the original Greek word used was periklytos, meaning famed, illustrious, or praiseworthy, rendered in Arabic as Ahmad, and that this was substituted by Christians with parakletos. However, there is no textual evidence to be found in currently existing versions of the NT to support this claim.

so no, your argument fails to make your point. there is not a single textual variant which renders parakletos as periklytos and without that the muslim argument falls apart. not that it doesn't already fall apart when one actually looks at what is said about the parakletos.

Take these 4 descriptions and go to a Muslim. Do not mention the Bible or Qur'an or anything, and ask the Muslim who you are describing. It is my guess that 9 out of 10 Muslims will immediately believe you are describing Muhammad. Do the same to a Christian, and you will find a varied array of answers. Generally, they settle on the "Holy Spirit." It is a part of the Trinity that lives inside each Christian who testifies to the crucifixion and that Jesus died for our sins. Something along these lines. But where is any proof that the holy spirit speaks words not his own, testifies about Jesus, teaches and guides mankind, and stays with mankind forever? I mean real, rational proof. There is none.

instead of taking merely four descriptions why don't you take the entire text and see if muhammad fits the bill. clearly he does not. look at the muslim arguments, none of them actually propose interacting with the full text because clearly when one does so they'll see that the islamic prophet couldn't possibly be the paraclete.

[Khalil_Allah]

No worries fivesolas.

And none with you, Sol Invictus.

I just think that if you sit down and put two and two together, you've got Jesus saying that Muhammad is coming after him. Looking at the two texts together, it makes more sense than anything else. But then again, I'm a Muslim, so I'm obviously inclined to think this way.

In the end, we don't know exactly what Jesus said, and we don't know if the Qur'an is referring to John anyway.

Keep praying and doing good deeds and we'll find out on the Day of Judgment, God-willing. :)

[Sol Invictus]

No worries fivesolas.

And none with you, Sol Invictus.

I just think that if you sit down and put two and two together, you've got Jesus saying that Muhammad is coming after him. Looking at the two texts together, it makes more sense than anything else. But then again, I'm a Muslim, so I'm obviously inclined to think this way.

In the end, we don't know exactly what Jesus said, and we don't know if the Qur'an is referring to John anyway.

Keep praying and doing good deeds and we'll find out on the Day of Judgment, God-willing. :)

no worries indeed and at the very least, it is good that we can end on a good note.

that said, we do have the words that jesus said and they're in the bible and so i think that we should turn to these. if muslims wish to claim that muhammad is spoken of in the gospel of john then they should begin to interact with the full text. however, one will note that not a single muslim argument is based on the full text and whenever the muslim is questioned on this, all their answers consist of one evasion or another as to why they can't prove that muhammad is the individual spoken of if all the evidence is examined.

now, i think that we should only go with the explanation that can account for all the factors and it is my opinion (and actually implied in the muslim opinion as well since they never try to prove their position with all the factors) that when one examines everything that is said of the paraclete, the individual can only be the holy spirit.

indeed we will, i suppose.

[Khalil_Allah]

what do you mean by evasions? I don't want to be evasive in the matter.

[Sol Invictus]

what do you mean by evasions? I don't want to be evasive in the matter.

i'm not primarily calling you evasive but i'm merely saying that when asked if the muslim can use the full text to prove that muhammad is the paraclete they will always give you an answer for why they can't prove that muhammad is the paraclete when the full text is examined. either it is corruption in the bible or what have you, at the end of the day the answer always consists of we can't because [insert whatever reason here]. you'll note that the same is true in this thread. the single christian response has been to ask the muslim to prove their position by looking at the full text and we have received a variety of responses which all acknowledge that they cannot do so. i do not wish to sound like i look down on muslims etc. but it is pretty clear that muhammad is not and could not be the paraclete when all the evidence is examined. from the arguments and responses provided so far, it would not be wrong to say that muslims and christians are in perfect agreement on this.

[Khalil_Allah]

See, I'm pretty set on the idea that Muhammad is the Paraclete. I don't think anyone has really "PROVEN" it either way.

What from the text of the Bible proves for you that he is not?

[Sol Invictus]

See, I'm pretty set on the idea that Muhammad is the Paraclete. I don't think anyone has really "PROVEN" it either way.

What from the text of the Bible proves for you that he is not?

this will mainly be a re-post of what i and others have already said:

the paraclete is said to abide with christians forever. not only that but the world cannot see him nor hear him but he will live inside christians forever: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." John 14:16-17

notice that the disciples whom christ was talking to would experience the advent of the paraclete: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. John 15:27

furthermore, the comforter is to glorify christ seeing as his teaching will come from christ: "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you." John 16:7-14

considering all of the above, it is rather wrong to claim that christians supposed that the paraclete could be a human individual for there is no way that a human can abide in another person much less inside every christian. also the paraclete would be invisible, and he was to abide within the disciples of christ

let me first mention that the above is completely unjustified and does nothing to harmonize all the evidence. instead you merely pick one factor from the list and claim that the individual spoken of here has to be the islamic prophet when quite clearly christ gave a series of things which the holy spirit would do. let us not forget that the lord christ expressly identified the comforter as being the holy spirit (john 14:26). this in itself shows your position to be untenable if we are to go by what the text says but let us continue for the sake of argument. jesus says that the holy spirit was to be given to the very disciples he was speaking with and not over 500 years later to the arabs. let us not forget that he would abide within the disciples forever and that these already knew him (john 16:17). i'm sure that muslims do not believe that muhammad indwelled the disciples of christ or that they even knew him. the holy spirit would be sent in the name of christ (john 16:13) and his task would be to bring glory to christ (john 16:14). once again, muslims don't believe that muhammad came in the name of jesus nor that his task was to bring glory to the lord jesus. now, in your post you simply ignore all of the above and choose to latch on to simply a single factor and then claim that it is muhammad who is spoken of here when clearly when the context is viewed without being selective of what is examined, we can be sure that it is the holy spirit who is spoken of here.

so the challenge then becomes how all of the above could be true of muhammad if he is to be considered the paraclete. most muslims have not read the prophecy in the gospel of john and so simply assume that it speaks of muhammad but when one actually looks at the passage, they can clearly see that it couldn't possibly be speaking of the islamic prophet. this is why i said that no muslim who maintains that muhammad is spoken of in the gospel of john will ever try to prove this from all the evidence in the passage.

[Woodrow]

From our view the Paraclete can not be the "Holy Spirit" in the sense of "The Holy spirit" being the third part of the Trinity as the Trinity does not exist and the Qur'an tells us that that to believe in the Trinity is the sin of Shirk.

That means the Paraclete would most likely be Jibril or a Man. Jibril is an Angel and has no free will, also Jibril does not apper to all people and very few humans have had him speak to them. So this seems to rule out Jibril as the Paraclete. In the Qur'an and Ahadith the only one who meets the concept of being the Paraclete is Muhammad(PBUH).

That is the only possible answer to us, as to who the Paraclete is.

Christians will disagree with that, as they do not believe Islam is the true and final religion for all of mankind. But to us we do believe Islam is the full truth and the Qur'an is the final and complete truth of all the revelations in one last message.

[Fivesolas]

From our view the Paraclete can not be the "Holy Spirit" in the sense of "The Holy spirit" being the third part of the Trinity as the Trinity does not exist and the Qur'an tells us that that to believe in the Trinity is the sin of Shirk.

That means the Paraclete would most likely be Jibril or a Man. Jibril is an Angel and has no free will, also Jibril does not apper to all people and very few humans have had him speak to them. So this seems to rule out Jibril as the Paraclete. In the Qur'an and Ahadith the only one who meets the concept of being the Paraclete is Muhammad(PBUH).

That is the only possible answer to us, as to who the Paraclete is.

Christians will disagree with that, as they do not believe Islam is the true and final religion for all of mankind. But to us we do believe Islam is the full truth and the Qur'an is the final and complete truth of all the revelations in one last message.

Thanks Woodrow. I would argue that Christians don't believe it because the Qur'an has instructed us to look into our texts to see Muhammed. We come back and say, we looked and he isn't there. The Muslim has come back and said, "He is the Paraclete/Comforter spoken by Jesus in the Gospel of John." We come back and say, well...no, because the things Jesus said about the Comforter cannot be applied to Muhammed. The Muslim comes back and reasons, essentially, "Well, the parts that don't fit are corrupted, and the parts that do fit are not corrupted."

Basically, Muslims are asking Christians to first believe the Qur'an, then deconstruct the NT so that all that is left of it is what agrees with the Qur'an. Tell me, if I made that suggestion to you would you accept it? (i.e., read the Bible and remove everythign out of the Qur'an that doesn't agree with the Bible). Hardly.

This argument then is at an impasse. Why? Because it boils down at this point to the integrity of the NT. But suffice it to say...if we take the Gospel of John as it is presently, there is no way Muhammed is the paraclete.

I understand the Muslim's rejection of the Trinity. In fact, I reasoned from that understanding when I pointed out that Jesus says, explicitly, that the Holy Spirit is the paraclete. Then I referenced that to the belief among some that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel. Problematic isn't it?

The only recourse the Muslim has at that point is to question and doubt the integrity of the text. Basically, "that's not what Jesus really said. That part is corrupted."

[Woodrow]

Thanks Woodrow. I would argue that Christians don't believe it because the Qur'an has instructed us to look into our texts to see Muhammed. We come back and say, we looked and he isn't there. The Muslim has come back and said, "He is the Paraclete/Comforter spoken by Jesus in the Gospel of John." We come back and say, well...no, because the things Jesus said about the Comforter cannot be applied to Muhammed. The Muslim comes back and reasons, essentially, "Well, the parts that don't fit are corrupted, and the parts that do fit are not corrupted."

Basically, Muslims are asking Christians to first believe the Qur'an, then deconstruct the NT so that all that is left of it is what agrees with the Qur'an. Tell me, if I made that suggestion to you would you accept it? (i.e., read the Bible and remove everythign out of the Qur'an that doesn't agree with the Bible). Hardly.

This argument then is at an impasse. Why? Because it boils down at this point to the integrity of the NT. But suffice it to say...if we take the Gospel of John as it is presently, there is no way Muhammed is the paraclete.

I understand the Muslim's rejection of the Trinity. In fact, I reasoned from that understanding when I pointed out that Jesus says, explicitly, that the Holy Spirit is the paraclete. Then I referenced that to the belief among some that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel. Problematic isn't it?

The only recourse the Muslim has at that point is to question and doubt the integrity of the text. Basically, "that's not what Jesus really said. That part is corrupted."

The problem is the original scriptures do not exist in their original form. there is no evidence that the Injil(GOSPEL) was preserved in any form. All that is in the NT are the accounts of men and their opinion as to how Jesus(as) followed the Injil. But there is no Injil to be seen. That is the scripture that would hold the whole truth of what Jesus(as) taught.

The OT never was complete. If it had been their never would have been any need for Jesus(as) to have been born.The NT is not a quotation of the Gospel revealed to Jesus(as) nor is it the word of Jesus(as) it is the accounts of men, telling what they believe Jesus(as) taught.

The only parts of the OT and NT we know with certainty to be true are those things that are in agreement with the Qur'an.

[Khalil_Allah]

I think Woodrow has best described the point I was trying to get at. Christians will be in disagreement immediately about the last sentence, but the fact that the New Testament is not a direct revelation is why we mention corruption. Corruption is only the translation of the Arabic word that describes situation of the Bible in Islam. But it has a pretty negative connotation, so Muslims really shouldn't use this word when discussing the Bible with Christians.
The New Testament in the Bibles on our desks is not a perfect copy of God's revelation to Jesus (pbuh). It is a collection of accounts and letters from early Christians. And it is not even a perfect copy of those accounts. It became doctrine and was propounded as the inerrant Word of God. There is no denying its power, because it is the best selling book of all time and translated into every language, etc. But at the end of the day, these translations are copies of copies of rewritten copies.
So when Christians come back at Muslims and say, "well Jesus said this this and this too, so it can't be Muhammad," we have comfort in knowing that the Bible is not really admissible evidence as to exactly what Jesus said.
But the Qur'an is exactly what Muhammad saws said. And based on the accounts of his life and the perfectly documented claims he made, we are inclined to believe that this Qur'an is the exact word of God, unchanged. And this book promises to guide those who believe it and live by it, and those of us who have struggled to understand it have tasted its brilliance and unimaginable power. And in it, God says that we can all go look "AT WHAT THEY HAVE" of the Gospel, and there we will find our prophet written. And so we go to look. And, again, all we have of the Gospel is this New Testament: a compiled document of several letters and the 4 canonical (out of many more equally admissible Gospels According to:...), and it has been copied and translated and adjusted and altered countless times over, throughout 2000 years. Nevertheless, we find in every version a description of Jesus promising to the disciples the coming of someone who will speak not his own words and testify about Jesus and glorify him, and guide mankind and teach them about sin and judgment.
And lo and behold, that is a pretty accurate description of our man, pbuh. Again we have been strengthened in our faith in God to Whom Jesus prayed.
Subhanallahi 3ammaa yusrikoon

[Sol Invictus]

be that as it may, once again we return to my point: the muslim cannot base their argument on the full text and as such they must provide some reason as to why they cannot and for why the christian can.

i noticed that you acknowledged that the muslim deity had told the christians at the time of muhammad to look at the gospel which was in their hands. this is actually a point against islam because we certainly have manuscripts dating from before the time of muhammad and after. we certainly know what gospels these christians would have possessed and they are identical to the message you will find in our current bibles.

that said, islamic history is quite clear that the qur'an has not been passed down perfectly:

1. ibn masud rejected the qur'an which zaid ibn thabit compiled and called it a forgery seeing as he maintained that the qur'an should have only 111 chapters instead of the current 114. ( The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him [i.e. Muhammad] whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit.)--- Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444.

2. ubayy ibn ka’b who was the best reciter believed that zaid's qur'an was missing two chapters and so those who believed in zaid's qur'an were forced to ignore some verses which ubayy used to recite (Umar said, “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur’an), yet we leave some of what he recites.” Ubayy says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave it for anything whatever.”) --- Sahih al-Bukhari 5005

3. ibn umar was adamant that teh full qur'an had disappeared (“Let none of you say, ‘I have learned the whole of the Koran,’ for how does he know what the whole of it is, when much of it has disappeared? Let him rather say, ‘I have learned what is extant thereof.’”) --- Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an

4. aisha, the wife of muhammad is reported as claiming that about 2/3 of surah 33 is missing (A’isha . . . said, “Surat al-Ahzab used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today) --- Abu Ubaid, Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an

5. aisha's goat is reported as having eaten some parts of the qur'an and this is why they are missing from the modern-day qur'an (It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”) --- Sunan Ibn Majah 1944

First, Surah 33:6 declares that “The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.” However, Ubayy ibn Ka’b and other early Muslims held that a phrase (“and he is a father of them”) is missing from this verse. Even the great translator Yusuf Ali admits this in his commentary. Ali writes: “In some Qira’ahs, like that of Ubayy ibn Ka’ab, occur also the words ‘and he is a father of them,’ which imply his spiritual relationship and connection with the words ‘and his wives are their mothers.’” --- Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, Note 3674

now you can go ahead and claim that all the above is inauthentic and that is perfectly fine yet the very fact that there is recorded disagreement on the preservation of the qur'an by muslims themselves proves my argument. in the same way that the muslim will say that we ought only to believe in the "authentic hadiths" so the christian maintains that one ought only to believe in the books which are part of the biblical canon. there is no argument for why we should reject what i have shown above that would not equally apply to the christian position for why we ought to reject all books outside of the canon. so no, islamic history tells me that the qur'an has not been perfectly preserved.

[Khalil_Allah]

whether it is complete or not, it is the authenticity of the words that matters here. Bless you all I'm spending too much time here now :p

[Sol Invictus]

whether it is complete or not, it is the authenticity of the words that matters here. Bless you all I'm spending too much time here now :p

you'll note that your point consisted of whether the bible was perfectly preserved or not. anyway, seeing as there is disagreement on whether you even possess the same qur'an as the first muslims you cannot suddenly claim that whatever you have left is 100% accurate. that said, this is far more detrimental to the muslim than to the christian because the christian claim is that the message of the bible has always been present since the advent of christianity and not that there aren't any textual variants. variants included, we do not suddenly get a bible which teaches that christ is not god. the muslim on the other hand must believe that their qur'an is 100% identical to what the first muslims held in their possession and as you can see there is very real disagreement by the first muslims themselves! now once again you can make all the claims you want as to the inauthenticity of the quotes that i have provided but if you make such an argument then you must also believe the christian argument as to the inauthenticity of all the apocryphal books. either way islam would be dealt a decisive blow. it's all a matter of consistency. if you feel that we should ignore the quotes i've brought up and make an argument for this then we should also ignore the apocryphal books because their exclusion can be justified on the same principles that you will use to defend the preservation of the qur'an.

if you feel like ending things now then that's perfectly alright though to be perfectly honest, i surmise that this has more to do with chancing upon information that you had not expected.

[Fivesolas]

I would love to have the resources that detail what you have shared Sol.

[Sol Invictus]

I would love to have the resources that detail what you have shared Sol.

in my experience it is pretty hard finding these works outside of in their native arabic language.

[missy]

1. 14:16 - He would be given to those to whom He was speaking to (and all believers in Jesus) and would be with them forever. This cannot be Mohammed because the Christians for the first 600 years had no knowledge of Mohammed or Islam.

4. 14:26 - The Comforter is identified in this text as the Holy Spirit, not Mohammed. Muslims have contended that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel. If I accept that the Comforter is Mohammed, and accept what this text is saying, then the only conclusion is that Mohammed is Gabriel. Rather, Mohammed is not the Comforter spoken of by the Lord Jesus. In this text, the Holy Spirit comes in the name of Jesus. Mohammed did not come in the name of Jesus. Nor did Mohammed bring to remembrence all things that Jesus said.

These are the verse from the Bible:
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (John 14:16)

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. " (John 14:26)

I would like to emphasize on the phrase "another comforter (Paraclete)" why another?? BECAUSE the word "Paraclete" is applied to Jesus (peace be upon him) earlier in John 2:1 !
Now going back to John 14:16, we notice the words "another Paraclete." If the comforter is the Holy Ghost then how many Holy Ghost's are there? The word "another" is significant. In English, "another" means "One more of the same kind" and if this is what was intended then this is positive proof that the coming Paraclete would be just like Jesus (peace be upon him), a human being and a prophet, not a ghost. The actual Greek word used was the word "allon" which is the masculine accusative form of "allos": "Another of the SAME kind." The Greek word for "another of a different kind" is "heteros".

"abide with you forever"---> In order to understand this statement, we should consider analyzing the verses in John 8:51-55

Jesus (peace be upon him) is quoted many times in the Bible as telling his followers that they will never taste death. However, there is not a single one of them alive to this day. Was he lying? Of course not! As seen above, Jesus' (peace be upon him) was not telling mankind that his followers would never grow old nor die, rather he was speaking about their second life in the hereafter. He was telling them that the life that we hold so dear and spend so much time fretting over and striving to improve is all but insignificant if compared to the true life, the afterlife. So much so that life and death on this earth is unworthy of consideration. Everything in his estimation revolved around an eternal striving for the reward of the afterlife and this was the yardstick by which all matters were to be measured.
Therefore we see here that the literal meaning is not meant here, similarly in John 14:16, the phrase "abide with you forever" means that The Paracletos will be the last prophet, and "he will guide you into all truth" and "he shall teach you all things," so there will be no need for any further prophets.

"he shall teach you all things", and "bring all things to your remembrance",
The prophesy of this coming Paraclete requires that he shall remind mankind of the words of Jesus. Jesus is speaking here not to those who disbelieved, but to his own followers. He is telling his followers that the Paraclete shall "remind" them of the message of Jesus. However, if the followers of Jesus already know and remember all that Jesus taught then how shall the Paraclete "remind" them of something which they already remember? Obviously, the coming Paraclete shall come in a time when the teachings of Jesus have been forgotten and require one to "remind" Jesus' followers of them. Indeed, the Qur'an does in fact confirm this same situation. We read:

14. from those, too, who call themselves Christians, we did take a covenant, but They forgot a good part of the Message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. and soon will God Show them what it is They have done.
15. O people of the Book! there hath come to you Our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide In the Book, and passing over much (That is Now unnecessary). there hath come to you from God a (new) light and a perspicuous Book,-
16. wherewith God guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will, unto the light,- guideth them to a path that is straight.
(The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):14-16)

It is further important to note that one of the names of the Qur'an is "Al-Thikr" (The Reminder). For example:
Verily, it is We who have sent down 'The Reminder' and it is We who shall preserve it" (The noble Qur'an, Al-Hijr(15):9)

2. 14:17 - He is the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot receive him because it does not see Him. The world does not know Him, but the disciple knew Him. He was dwelling with them and would be in them. This cannot be Mohammed. The world did see him. Mohammed was not living with the disciples at that time, nor is there any notion that Mohammed would indwell Christians.

6. 16:7 - The Comforter is sent by Jesus. Mohammed never claimed to be sent by Jesus.

"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. " (John 14:17)
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. " (John 16:7)

There is an apparent contradiction in these two verses...
Please do explain what you make out from it….

7. 16:8 - The Comforter reproves the world of sin because they do not believe in Jesus, of righteousness because Jesus was raised from the dead, and of judgement because Satan is judged. Mohammed did not reference and center all things around Christ Jesus. THe Comforter does.

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.. " (John 16:8)

Rather the verse could be interpreted as, The coming Paraclete, came to the world to show them how they had been misguided in "sin" by believing that mankind can inherit sin and that someone's sin can be forgiven by the sacrifice of others. He also showed them how they had been misguided in "righteousness" by believing that a righteous person is one who has "faith" in the crucifixion and does nothing else, or who believes that another man's death will make him a righteous person. And they were misguided in "judgment" by believing that they will be judged by "faith" and other people's deeds and not their own deeds, or that God's "judgment" was to punish all mankind for the sin of one man.
Just a thought…..no offense intended!

The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) taught that no one will be held accountable by God for anyone else's sin. He emphasized that God has made this a life of work and the next life one of reward and no work. He also revealed that mankind will be judged individually according to their own individual faith and actions and no one else's.

8. 16:13-14 - The Comforter glorifies Jesus. Mohammed did not glorify Jesus.

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." (John 16:13-14)


Jesus (peace be upon him) had "the whole truth" and had many things he longed to teach his disciples but he could not give it to them because they "cannot bear them now." These matters would only be revealed six centuries later by God through the agency of Muhammad (peace be upon him). What new truths has the Holy Spirit guided us into after the departure of Jesus (peace be upon him) which Jesus (peace be upon him) had no say in?

"For he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak:" This too is an interesting statement. It reminds us of the verses of Deuteronomy 18:18-19, specifically:
" I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require [it] of him." (Deuteronomy 18:18-19)
It is also interesting to read the words of the Qur'an:
"Nor does he (Muhammad) speak of his own desire. It is but an Inspiration that is inspired [unto him]" (The noble Qur'an, Al-Najm(53):3-4)


Hope this comes of use !! Plz give it a thought !!
Peace :)

[Fivesolas]

Peacelover, there is a lot to respond there. I will work on a reply today. Thanks for your thoughtfulness and staying on topic.

Before I start my analysis of your reply, I would like clarification on one point. You mentioned that Jesus is called the Parakletos (paraklētos) in John 2:1. John 2:1 states, "And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:" I am pretty sure you meant 1 John 2:1.

[YieldedOne]

Khalil_Allah:
What I do know is that Muhammad's life and his claims are far greater evidence that he is the Paraclete Jesus described than any notion of the "Holy Spirit" being the Paraclete. The Qur'an says "whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel." Look in any version of the Bible, John 14-16, and you find this "comforter," "advocate," "helper," or whatever and he 1) speaks words not his own, 2) testifies about Jesus, 3) teaches/guides mankind, 4) stays with mankind forever.

Take these 4 descriptions and go to a Muslim. Do not mention the Bible or Qur'an or anything, and ask the Muslim who you are describing. It is my guess that 9 out of 10 Muslims will immediately believe you are describing Muhammad. Do the same to a Christian, and you will find a varied array of answers. Generally, they settle on the "Holy Spirit." It is a part of the Trinity that lives inside each Christian who testifies to the crucifixion and that Jesus died for our sins. Something along these lines. But where is any proof that the holy spirit speaks words not his own, testifies about Jesus, teaches and guides mankind, and stays with mankind forever? I mean real, rational proof. There is none.


YO:
The underlined and bolded part are what I'm responding to...

Thought:
If we were to look at OT prophesies about the Spirit of God (Spirit of Allah, whatever you want to call it)...THEN what Jesus says about the Holy Spirit being UPON HIM*...and we look at all four things,let's see what we see.

Does the Spirit of God speak words not it's own? YES. It speaks the words and wisdom of God Himself to humanity.

Does the Spirit of God testify about Jesus? YES. It is the Spirit of Wisdom and Prophecy upon Jesus and upon the Prophets who anticipate Jesus...and supposedly that same prophetic "Spirit" upon Muhammad who does this.

Does the Spirit of God teach/guide mankind? Given the above, that goes without saying. YES.

and finally...

Does the Spirit of God stay with mankind forever? If we give any credence at all to the God's promises via the OT Prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Joel (who was quoted by Peter the disciple of Jesus)...then there's indications that this is true as well. so...YES.

Basically, if we looked at the JEWISH (not CHRISTIAN) idea of the Spirit of God and what it does, I think the answer becomes fairly clear. Try it. Go to a Jewish adherent who is very adept in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings...and ask them if the Holy Spirit of God fits all 4 criteria above. Of course, they will deny that Jesus is the Messiah...but they will not deny the relationship between the Spirit of God and the Messiah as such.


----------------------------------------

* Luke 4:16
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.” (From Isaiah 61)


And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

[YieldedOne]

Let's remember that the Spirit of God is that through which ALL PROPHETS do what they do. That would INCLUDE Muhammad.

Muhammad wouldn't be any kind of Prophet of God without the Spirit of God. Biblically speaking, to say that a Prophet of God works WITHOUT the Spirit of God granting them the Wisdom, Truth, and Power of God would be absolutely unthinkable. ESPECIALLY in the Old Testament. Just a cursory reading of the OT Prophets would show this to be true.

[YieldedOne]

Jewish Encyclopedia's entry on the Holy Spirit.

--------------------------------

Biblical View of the Spirit.
The most noticeable difference between sentient beings and dead things, between the living and the dead, is in the breath. Whatever lives breathes; whatever is dead does not breathe. Aquila, by strangling some camels and then asking Hadrian to set them on their legs again, proved to the emperor that the world is based on "spirit" (Yer. Ḥag. 41, 77a). In most languages breath and spirit are designated by the same term. The life-giving breath can not be of earthly origin, for nothing is found whence it may be taken. It is derived from the supernatural world, from God. God blew the breath of life into Adam (Gen. ii. 7). "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life" (Job xxxiii. 4; comp. ib. xxvii. 3). God "giveth breath unto the people upon it [the earth], and spirit to them that walk therein" (Isa. xlii. 5). "In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind" (Job xii. 10). Through His spirit all living things are created; and when He withdraws it they perish (ib. xxxiv. 14; Ps. civ. 29, 30). He is therefore the God of the spirits of all flesh (Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16). The breath of animals also is derived from Him (Gen. vi. 17; Ps. civ. 30 [A. V. 29]; Eccl. iii. 19-21; Isa. xlii. 5). The heavenly' bodies likewise are living beings, who have received their spirit from God (Job xxvi. 13; Ps. xxxiii. 6). God's spirit hovered over the form of lifeless matter, thereby making the Creation possible; and it still causes the most tremendous changes (Gen. i. 2; Isa. xxxii. 15).

Hence all creatures live only through the spirit given by God. In a more restricted sense, however, the spirit of God is not identical with this life-giving spirit. He pours out His own spirit upon all whom He has chosen to execute His will and behests, and this spirit imbues them with higher reason and powers, making them capable of heroic speech and action (Gen. xli. 38; Ex. xxxi. 3; Num. xxiv. 2; Judges iii. 10; II Sam. xxiii. 2). This special spirit of God rests upon man (Isa. xi. 2, xlii. 1); it surrounds him like a garment (Judges vi. 34; II Chron. xxiv. 20); it falls upon him and holds him like a hand (Ezek. xi. 5, xxxvii. 1). It may also be taken away from the chosen one and transferred to some one else (Num. xi. 17). It may enter into man and speak with his voice (II Sam. xxiii. 2; Ezek. ii. 2; comp. Jer. x. 14). The prophet sees and hears by means of the spirit (Num. xxiv. 2; I Sam. x. 6; II Sam. xxiii. 2; Isa. xlii. 1; Zech. vii. 12). The Messianic passage in Joel ii. 28-29, to which special significance was subsequently attached, is characteristic of the view regarding the nature of the spirit: "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit."

...

Holy Spirit and Prophecy.

The visible results of the activity of the Holy Spirit, according to the Jewish conception, are the books of the Bible, all of which have been composed under its inspiration. All the Prophets spoke "in the Holy Spirit"; and the most characteristic sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit is the gift of prophecy, in the sense that the person upon whom it rests beholds the past and the future. With the death of the last three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit ceased to manifest itself in Israel; but the Bat Ḳol was still available. "A bat ḳol announced twice at assemblies of the scribes: 'There is a man who is worthy to have the Holy Spirit rest upon him.' On one of these occasions all eyes turned to Hillel; on the other, to Samuel the Lesser" (Tosef., Soṭah, xiii. 2-4, and parallels). Although the Holy Spirit was not continually present, and did not rest for any length of time upon any individual, yet there were cases in which it appeared and made knowledge of the past and of the future possible (ib.; also with reference to Akiba, Lev. R. xxi. 8; to Gamaliel II., ib. xxxvii. 3, and Tosef., Pes. i. 27; to Meïr, Lev. R. ix. 9; etc.).

The Holy Spirit rested not only on the children of Israel who crossed the Red Sea (Tosef., Soṭah, vi. 2), but, toward the end of the time of the Second Temple, occasionally on ordinary mortals; for "if they are not prophets, they are at least the sons of prophets" (Tosef., Pes. iv. 2). The Holy Spirit is at times identified with the spirit of prophecy (comp. Seder 'Olam, 1, beginning; Targ. Yer. to Gen. xli. 38, xliii. 14; II Kings ix. 26; Isa. xxxii. 15. xl. 13, xliv. 3; Cant. R. i. 2). Sifre 170 (to Deut. xviii. 18) remarks: "'I will put My words into his mouth,' means 'I put them into his mouth, but I do not speak with him face to face'; know, therefore, that henceforth the Holy Spirit is put into the mouths of the Prophets." The "knowledge of God" is the Holy Spirit (Cant. R. i. 9). The division of the country by lot among the several tribes was likewise effected by means of the Holy Spirit (Sifre, Num. 132, p. 49a). On "inspiration" see Jew. Encyc. iii. 147, s.v. Bible Canon, § 9; especially Meg. 7a; and Inspiration. It may simply be noted here that in rabbinical literature single passages are often considered as direct utterances of the Holy Spirit (Sifre, Num. 86; Tosef., Soṭah, ix. 2; Sifre, Deut. 355, p. 148a, six times; Gen. R. lxxviii. 8, lxxxiv. 12; Lev. R. iv. 1 [the expression "and the Holy Spirit cries" occurs five times], xiv. 2, xxvii. 2; Num. R. xv. 21; xvii. 2, end; Deut. R. xi., end).

----------------------------

This is a JEWISH PERSPECTIVE now...

[Sol Invictus]

i know that fivesolas has already said that he'll respond to you peacelover but i'd like to just challenge you on one point. the basic premise of your post is that seeing as christ claimed that his disciples would never see death and yet they died, this then proves that we ought to take his statements (and particularly the passage in the gospel of john concerning the paraclete) figuratively. let me just say that this basic approach is unwarranted seeing as it does not follow that because he spoke figuratively once, everything else he said must be understood figuratively as well. that said, the statement on which you ground your entire point on is wrong and thus your whole argument falls apart. in christianity being separated from god (primarily in hell) is the real death and so when christ said that his disciples would never taste death he meant that they would not be separated from god. the lord christ himself makes this all the more specific in the following passage:

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies" --- John 11:25 NIV

notice that in the above statement christ acknowledges the physical death of the individual but says that all the same the individual will live. therefore christ is not speaking of physical death but rather the real death which is separation from god. having clarified this point, i must once more reiterate that your entire argument falls apart but as to an even more concise response on the matter, i will leave that to fivesolas.

[R Khan]

Not to go off-topic but I need to ask: are Matthew; Luke; John and Mark disciples of Jesus?

[YieldedOne]

Let's put it like this. The whole argument about Muhammad being the "Prophet" like unto Moses that Moses talks about in Deuteronomy (a prophecy about the future) is BASED UPON the God's Holy Spirit of Prophecy working upon Moses when he uttered that.
You take away the Spirit of God from Moses...then you HAVE to deny that whole argument as being truly prophetic, even Judaically speaking!

I don't think that Muslims want to do that...right? Hehe...;D

Moving on...

At any rate, the paraclete passages in John make SENSE in light of what the Jews in Jesus' day actually believed about the Holy Spirit of God and how it worked. Basically, Jesus as Prophet and Chosen of God had the authority to "pass on" the Spirit of Wisdom that worked within him to those whom he so chose...the Spirit that would further reveal God's Truth, Wisdom, and Power to those who followed him.

It makes SENSE once you put it all together. :shade:

[Woodrow]

Let's put it like this. The whole argument about Muhammad being the "Prophet" like unto Moses that Moses talks about in Deuteronomy (a prophecy about the future) is BASED UPON the God's Holy Spirit of Prophecy working upon Moses when he uttered that.
You take away the Spirit of God from Moses...then you HAVE to deny that whole argument as being truly prophetic, even Judaically speaking!

I don't think that Muslims want to do that...right? Hehe...;D

Which would put you in agreement with us that what remains of the scriptures may not be what God(swt) revealed. i have no problem in believing that it is not a good source of proof, unless it is also repeated in the Qur'an in some form. However, the argument for using it is to show that even what Christians profess to be true, is an argument to validate Muhammad(PBUH) as being the Prophecised paraclete.

Moving on...

At any rate, the paraclete passages in John make SENSE in light of what the Jews in Jesus' day actually believed about the Holy Spirit of God and how it worked. Basically, Jesus as Prophet and Chosen of God had the authority to "pass on" the Spirit of Wisdom that worked within him to those whom he so chose...the Spirit that would further reveal God's Truth, Wisdom, and Power to those who followed him.

It makes SENSE once you put it all together. :shade:

Not necessarily as the majority of the Jews did not believe what the Jews in Jesus' day actually believed about the Holy Spirit of God and how it worked. Christianity came about because the gentiles (Non-Jews) accepted the non-Jewish teachings of some of the early Christian founders. Paul gained his following through non-Jews as he predominantly preached to the gentiles.

[3rddec]

I feel ill equiped to enter this discussion as I'm not a scholar of Theology but I do think I have a rational brain and can understand any underlying logic in a situation being presented to me so I will say what i see. Woodrow says there was no Injil ever recorded in any written form ( at least that is consistant with the fact that anything found will be deemed tainted by corruption unless it agrees with the Quran, I think its called militarily a pre emptive strike ) except for the stories of men and sayings of Christ. But again the issue arises as to why Mohammed would ask his followers to respect the Injil if it no longer existed in his day. Saying that we christians believe that these stories and sayings of Christ were written down in the scriptures by men inspired by the Holy Spirit and incorporated honestly into our present Gospels. There are more than enough ancient scrolls around to show that St Jerome done a good job in putting it together faithfully in much the same way the scholars did with the Quran. Any textual differences have never been shown to have led to any change in the main tenants of Christianity.

Also the Idea of saying that because Muslims don't believe in the Trinity then the only logical being for the Paraclete has to be Muhammed whatever the evidence says to the contrary
makes no logical sense. Thats like saying because a Circle wont fit in the Square hole then a Triangle must. No the triangle wont fit so you must find a square peg. I say fine dont believe in the Trinity but if the evidence doesn't lead to Mohammed then you must accept that also and find another explaination that doesn't include Trinity or Mohammed.

Love and Respect ( especially for the level of theological study clearly evidence by many in this thread on both sides of debate )

[YieldedOne]

YO:Let's put it like this. The whole argument about Muhammad being the "Prophet" like unto Moses that Moses talks about in Deuteronomy (a prophecy about the future) is BASED UPON the God's Holy Spirit of Prophecy working upon Moses when he uttered that. You take away the Spirit of God from Moses...then you HAVE to deny that whole argument as being truly prophetic, even Judaically speaking!

Woodrow: Which would put you in agreement with us that what remains of the scriptures may not be what God(swt) revealed. i have no problem in believing that it is not a good source of proof, unless it is also repeated in the Qur'an in some form. However, the argument for using it is to show that even what Christians profess to be true, is an argument to validate Muhammad(PBUH) as being the Prophecised paraclete.

Hmm... All I meant to say was that even Muslims have to have a certain "Judaic" view of what the Holy Spirit does if they want to maintain the "Prophet like unto Moses" argument. That's all.

*******************************
YO: At any rate, the paraclete passages in John make SENSE in light of what the Jews in Jesus' day actually believed about the Holy Spirit of God and how it worked. Basically, Jesus as Prophet and Chosen of God had the authority to "pass on" the Spirit of Wisdom that worked within him to those whom he so chose...the Spirit that would further reveal God's Truth, Wisdom, and Power to those who followed him. It makes SENSE once you put it all together.

Woodrow: Not necessarily as the majority of the Jews did not believe what the Jews in Jesus' day actually believed about the Holy Spirit of God and how it worked. Christianity came about because the gentiles (Non-Jews) accepted the non-Jewish teachings of some of the early Christian founders. Paul gained his following through non-Jews as he predominantly preached to the gentiles.

I can show that not to be true. Right here and right now. From the "Gentiles and the Holy Spirit" section of the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on the Holy Spirit....

A very ancient source (Sifre, Deut. 175) explains, on the basis of Deut. xviii. 15, that in the Holy Land the gift of prophecy is not granted to the heathen or in the interest of the heathen, nor is it given outside of Palestine even to Jews. In the Messianic time, however, the Holy Spirit will, according to Joel ii. 28, 29, be poured out upon all Israel; i.e., all the people will be prophets (Num. R. xv., end). According to the remarkable statement of Tanna debe Eliyahu, ed. Friedmann, the Holy Spirit will be poured out equally upon Jews and pagans, both men and women, freemen and slaves.

Now, let's look VERY, VERY closely what the what Peter says at Pentecost in this link. I'm only going to put a little of his sermon, but I'd recommend reading it all. Please note that Peter's primary audience are JEWISH ADHERENTS. Very important.

-------------------

When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:

“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
And I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
the sun shall be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood,
before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.
And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

--------------------------

It's a COMPLETELY JEWISH CLAIM that Peter is making based on a COMPLETELY JEWISH UNDERSTANDING of how the Holy Spirit worked! No Gentile understanding involved.


There's absolutely NO denying this, to be sure. Not if we are simply being intellectually honest with the biblical data.


Well, Woodrow?

[YieldedOne]

And about the "drunkeness" and "tongue-speech" being associated with the Spirit...that's SOOOOO Jewish!

1 Samuel 19:20-24
Then Saul sent messengers to take David, and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as head over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied. When it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they also prophesied. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they also prophesied. Then he himself went to Ramah and came to the great well that is in Secu. And he asked, “Where are Samuel and David?” And one said, “Behold, they are at Naioth in Ramah.” And he went there to Naioth in Ramah. And the Spirit of God came upon him also, and as he went he prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah. And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay naked all that day and all that night. Thus it is said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”

[YieldedOne]

(Cue the church music)

Can I get a WITNESS up in heyaaaaaa!
:ace:

:D:D:D:D

[YieldedOne]

So, summing up...

If everything I've said above has any validity to it...then, from a JUDEO-Christian perspective, it's very, very, very, very, very, very clear that the "paraclete" of whom Jesus speaks most likely refers to the Spirit of God (and NOT Muhammad.)

There's much more evidence for that, when we take all in the Jewish perspective on what the Holy Spirit of God is.

Any disagreement?

[Fivesolas]

Peacelover,
I do take what you are saying seriously. So I have investigated what you have said with regard to the Greek here. I am not sure what Greek text you use for your study, but I use the Stephanus Greek text from blueletterbible.com.

This said, you have asked the question with regard to the phrase "another Comforter" why Jesus would say "another." You remarked it is because He Himself is regarded as a Comforter, and is speaking of another. 1 John 2:1 is the verse that uses the word parakletos and translates it as "Advocate" in the KJV. I agree (and I think most Christians would) that Jesus is a Parakletos and He is speaking of another.

You ask the question, "If the Comforter is the Holy Ghost (Spirit) then how many Holy Ghost's are there?" Doesn't verse 26 answer that for you? "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost..." Obviously the Comforter spoken of in verse 26 is the "another Comforter" spoken of in verse 16. The debate isn't over whether there is one or two, but who the "another" is. Muslims say Mohammed. verse 26 of John say He is the Holy Spirit.

The question isn't "how many Holy Ghost's are there" but who is the "another Comforter" and who is the one that He is like. We agree that the one he is like is Jesus. Verse 26 says that the "another Comforter" is the Holy Spirit, not Muhammed. This should settle the issue.

The question/reasoning with regard to allos/allon and heteros is a valid point to raise. I would suggest to you that while your heading down the right road, you didn't explore the information far enough. Words, typically, have a wide semantic range and their meanings vary depending the context. The word "day" for example, can have a range from the daylight hours of the day, the first half of the day, or a 24 period. We would know the precise meaning by the context.

Does the Greek Allon/Allos have more than one meaning depending on context? How would we know? I am not yet professionally trained in Greek. However, one the elders/pastors of my church is. I will run this by him. Usually the resources I use I can find this rather quickly, but in this case I am not.

But let me tell you what I am going to clarify: That, indeed the verse, "καὶ ἐγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν ἵνα μένῃ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα which the transliteration of ἄλλον is allon, is the masculine accusative. I will leave the Greek analysis alone and simply deal with the presupposition in your argument.

Your logic is that since Jesus was a human, and the Parakletos/Comforter (the another one) is to be just like Jesus, then the Parakletos must be a human. The problem with this reasoning is that the same author of John 14 is the author of John 1. And he has clearly indicated that who Jesus is: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

The point is, if the Comforter spoken of in John 14-16 is to be of the same kind as Jesus, then according the John's Gospel, part of that is essential Deity. Therefore, the Holy Spirit (as the text actually says) is like Jesus, of the same kind, not Muhammed. Aside from the fact that Jesus took on the nature of man, Muhammed and Jesus have nothing in common.

Your reasoning has argued from the presupposition that Jesus is not God come in the flesh. If we accept the full teaching of the Gospel of John, then there is no issue here. I can understand why there is in the mind of a Muslim who is reasoning from the notion that Jesus was a man, and not God come in the flesh.

[YieldedOne]

Hmmm...something else I noticed.

If you look closely at the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on the Holy Spirit cited above...you will see absolutely NOTHING about the Holy Spirit being completely identical to ANY created angel, let alone the angel Gabriel.

That's extremely significant.

So, the ideas that 1) Muhammad is the intended "paraclete" spoken of by Jesus and 2) the Holy Spirit is completely identical to the angel Gabriel BOTH seem to be on very shaky ground, evidencewise. If Judaism is so close to Islam (respective to Christianity) than one would expect a bit more evidence in the direction of Islam's claims on those matters.

It feels so good to have intelligent inter-faith conversations on these things...rather than just vitrolic ad hominems and half-baked, unsubstantiated claims! Thanks heaps, y'all! :D

[SalamChristian]

I made a point relevant to this discussion in the Holy Spirit/Angel Gabriel thread, because it is relevant to both discussions. I am going to go ahead and cross-post it here:

For those who claim that the "paraclete" is simply the Holy Spirit and nothing else, a serious exegetical problem arises:

In John 20, Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to the disciples:

"And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit." John 20:22

Jesus gives the Holy Spirit before he leaves.

In John 16 we are told:

"But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." John 16:7

Thus, the Paraclete cannot simply be the Holy Spirit, because Jesus blows the Holy Spirit onto the Apostles before he leaves, but the Paraclete cannot come to them until after. Of course, we are told also that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit (John 14:26).

Exegetically, we have to find a solution to this problem. The only solution I am seeing is that the Holy Spirit is greater than the Paraclete, but the Paraclete is one with the Holy Spirit (completely filled with it), similar in the relation of Jesus to the Father. This has precedent in the mystical language Jesus consistently uses (parables, prophecies). Consider this verse:

"That which is born of The Spirit is Spirit." John 3:6

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity." John 17

It is important to understand that this oneness which Jesus describes repetitively in the same language that he describes his oneness with the Father not only occurs through the Holy Spirit, but it is the Holy Spirit. We are all filled with the Spirit, so that God may be all in all, and yet each is distinct in their being, though not in their Spirit.

Indeed, this fits with our common understanding of the Spirit being within everyone, but also greater than that which resides within any single person.

Thus, the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is distinct from simply being the Paraclete, because the Holy Spirit of John 20:19 is not the Paraclete.

Moreover, when we look, we see that Messengers are given the name paraclete. Jesus himself is called Paraclete in 1 John 2:1, and paraclete has a distinct meaning of intercessor (which squares perfectly with the fact that the Holy Spirit is transmitted by touch and breath of beings who have it), among the others mentioned. Lastly, Jesus himself says that he will send "another Paraclete" in John 14:16, meaning there was a Paraclete before this one. If the Holy Spirit is eternal, this is especially problematic for the traditional interpretation that the Paraclete is simply a synonym for Holy Spirit and in no other way distinct.

Taking all of these things together, the simple understanding of the Paraclete as completely identical with the Holy Breath, as it was breathed onto the Apostles by Jesus in John 20, is inadequate. The Paraclete must come in a distinct form (even if identical in Spirit) of one who transmits/intercedes physically the Holy Spirit from itself, sent from the Father to the church at the request of Jesus, only after he is within heaven.

Peace Brothers

[SalamChristian]

Again, taking the above verses and what they mean into our exegesis,

"paraclete to pneuma to hagion" thus more likely means "mediator/interecessor" of the Holy Spirit, from Heaven to Earth. In other words, the prophecy refers to one who will bring or transmit the Holy Spirit, sent by God to the churches on earth, at the request of Jesus. Muslim scholars are astute to point out that the "clete" of "paraclete" can also mean message and messenger in Koine Greek.

Peace Brothers

[YieldedOne]

SalamChristian:
In John 20, Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to the disciples:
"And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit." John 20:22
Jesus gives the Holy Spirit before he leaves.
In John 16 we are told:
"But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." John 16:7
Thus, the Paraclete cannot simply be the Holy Spirit, because Jesus blows the Holy Spirit onto the Apostles before he leaves, but the Paraclete cannot come to them until after. Of course, we are told also that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit (John 14:26).

Exegetically, we have to find a solution to this problem. The only solution I am seeing is that the Holy Spirit is greater than the Paraclete, but the Paraclete is one with the Holy Spirit (completely filled with it), similar in the relation of Jesus to the Father.


This is no issue, bro. In John 16, Jesus is speaking BEFORE HIS CRUCIFIXION. In John 20, he breathes on them in a POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCE. If you look at John 16, his followers are confused because Jesus talks about "going away"...meaning going to die. Jesus basically tells them it's GOOD for them that this is happening...so that the Holy Spirit can be given to them. Just look at verses 16-23 when Jesus talks about their SORROW turning to JOY.


Jesus was clearly saying that the Holy Spirit could not be GIVEN OUT to his followers UNTIL he died and was raised from the dead. I really think any decent commentary on John will point this out.


In short, the whole issue that you raise is actually a NON-issue. It definitely doesn't involve some complex problem that involves TWO 'paracletes", one lesser and one greater. :omg:

[Fivesolas]

Peacelover,

Therefore we see here that the literal meaning is not meant here, similarly in John 14:16, the phrase "abide with you forever" means that The Paracletos will be the last prophet, and "he will guide you into all truth" and "he shall teach you all things," so there will be no need for any further prophets.

I know it is the Muslim's belief that Muhammed is the last prophet. Christians do not accept this. Christians were not looking for another after the first coming of Jesus. Consider Hebrews 1:1-2: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

In addition, verse 17 of John 14 refers to the Comforter when He says, "..for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." What we have pointed out a few times is that when Muslims try to prove that the paracletos is Muhammed, there are portions of the text that are unaddressed, ignored, or said to be corrupt. Is it not clear to you that Muhammed was not living with the disciples in the first century and that there is no notion that Muhammed would make his home in the hearts of Christians?

"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. " (John 14:17)
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. " (John 16:7)
There is an apparent contradiction in these two verses...
Please do explain what you make out from it….

I am trying to imagine what contradiction you think is apparant. I think what you mean is that to you it seems contradictory that in one verse Jesus is saying that the Holy Spirit dwells with them, and in the other verse it is saying that He is yet to be sent. Simply notice in verse 17 of chapter 14 that at that time there was a manner in which the Holy Spirit had not yet come, that is, IN them. This happened on the day of Pentecost.

Rather the verse could be interpreted as, The coming Paraclete, came to the world to show them how they had been misguided in "sin" by believing that mankind can inherit sin and that someone's sin can be forgiven by the sacrifice of others. He also showed them how they had been misguided in "righteousness" by believing that a righteous person is one who has "faith" in the crucifixion and does nothing else, or who believes that another man's death will make him a righteous person. And they were misguided in "judgment" by believing that they will be judged by "faith" and other people's deeds and not their own deeds, or that God's "judgment" was to punish all mankind for the sin of one man.
Just a thought…..no offense intended!

I am not offended. That interpretation is rather self-serving is it not? There is no need for interpretation of the verses in question here as Jesus explained them. Re-read the text and you will see.

Jesus (peace be upon him) had "the whole truth" and had many things he longed to teach his disciples but he could not give it to them because they "cannot bear them now." These matters would only be revealed six centuries later by God through the agency of Muhammad (peace be upon him). What new truths has the Holy Spirit guided us into after the departure of Jesus (peace be upon him) which Jesus (peace be upon him) had no say in?

A good father does not feed his newborn child meat, but milk. So, there are things which Jesus would teach His Apostles by His Spirit sent to them that He was not teaching them at that time. Jesus knew what His disciples could bear at that time and what they could not. We do not take bits and pieces of the Lord's words and try to make them say something they do not say. So, consider the whole:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

Ask yourself, as you think of Muhammed, Is Muhammed the Spirit of truth? Who did Muhammed glorify? From whom did Muhammed receive? Who is this Jesus who claims that all things that the Father has are His?

[missy]

in christianity being separated from god (primarily in hell) is the real death and so when christ said that his disciples would never taste death he meant that they would not be separated from god.

Right, that's wat I'm sayin too…..and there is a perfect link in both the verses,
John 11:25 and John 14:16---> That one should believe in Jesus (His Message – GOD is one without any partners whatsoever), for eternal life in Paradise as opposed to in hell ("separation from god "), and the implication that "he will abide in u forever" means that after jesus, another "comforter" (who will be the last of the messengers of God) will guide the people towards accomplishing the same goal. Here Jesus, is telling his disciples that u have to believe in him (The Paraclete) when he comes, and by " he will abide in u forever ", he means u'l have to lead ur life (in order to achieve ur "goal") according to what he teaches, in others word u'l hav to follow him because his message would be the final message. (Infact the Message is the SAME!)

Does this ring a bell ?!?

[missy]

Fivesolas,
i'l cum bak 2 u soon InshaAllah.

Peace.

[missy]

Your reasoning has argued from the presupposition that Jesus is not God come in the flesh.

whatever the presupposition may be, we need to analyse the text first. Isn't it?!

Is it not clear to you that Muhammed was not living with the disciples in the first century and that there is no notion that Muhammed would make his home in the hearts of Christians?

If we take the meaning of the verse literally, then neither Muhammad (pbuh) nor the Holy Spirit was living with the disciples, when Jesus said "for he dwelleth with you".

That interpretation is rather self-serving is it not? There is no need for interpretation of the verses in question here as Jesus explained them. Re-read the text and you will see.

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: " (John 16:8)
I brought it up because of ur argument: "The Comforter reproves the world of sin because they do not believe in Jesus, of righteousness because Jesus was raised from the dead, and of judgement because Satan is judged. Mohammed did not reference and center all things around Christ Jesus. The Comforter does."

He did tell people about Jesus and his teachings, He conveyed the Word Of God. Just as Jesus did. Jesus centered all things around God, Muhammad did the same.

Ask yourself, as you think of Muhammed, Is Muhammed the Spirit of truth? Who did Muhammed glorify? From whom did Muhammed receive? Who is this Jesus who claims that all things that the Father has are His?

Yes, Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) is the Spirit of Truth. According to my understanding; a "Spirit" (pneuma-Πνεύμα) in the New Testament is a human Prophet, as seen from the following verse…
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1-3)


"He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. " (John 16:14)

In the above verse the term used is "Doxazo" which simply means 'to glorify' and glorifying doesn't necessarily mean worshiping. If we take this term to mean just glorify, then Yes, Muhammad (Pbuh) did glorify Jesus and all the other Prophets before him. In fact Belief in all of the Prophets sent by God (including the Last Prophet, "The Paraclete"/ Muhammad) is essential for complete Faith in God Almighty.

This phrase " for he shall receive of mine " highlights the very aspect of the duty of the Prophets sent by God i.e, to convey the Truth (same Message)--> "One God"
God obliged the Prophets with the duty of conveying the Truth, or in other words they all "received" the same command.
Hence the Message is the same,….. So, as Jesus (pbuh) was sent to the earth before Muhammad (pbuh) then he obviously conveyed the same thing before him, but the point is that after the prophesy of the coming of Muhammad (pbuh) [as in John 16:13-14] came true, he conveyed the same Message as taught by Jesus pbuh ("shall receive of mine" ----> shall receive the same message as I)

Makes sense..Right?!?!
Peace.

[YieldedOne]

Hmmm...I just noticed that I didn't get any response on my last postings. About the Jewish views of the Holy Spirit and how the earliest church held those those very Jewish views.

Woodrow? Still with me, bro?

Whole thread collapsed

Reposting...

So, the ideas that 1) Muhammad is the intended "paraclete" spoken of by Jesus and 2) the Holy Spirit is completely identical to the angel Gabriel...BOTH seem to be on very shaky ground, evidencewise. If Judaism is so close to Islam (respective to Christianity) than one would expect a bit more evidence in the direction of Islam's claims on those matters.

[Fivesolas]

whatever the presupposition may be, we need to analyse the text first. Isn't it?!



If we take the meaning of the verse literally, then neither Muhammad (pbuh) nor the Holy Spirit was living with the disciples, when Jesus said "for he dwelleth with you".



"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: " (John 16:8)
I brought it up because of ur argument: "The Comforter reproves the world of sin because they do not believe in Jesus, of righteousness because Jesus was raised from the dead, and of judgement because Satan is judged. Mohammed did not reference and center all things around Christ Jesus. The Comforter does."

He did tell people about Jesus and his teachings, He conveyed the Word Of God. Just as Jesus did. Jesus centered all things around God, Muhammad did the same.



Yes, Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) is the Spirit of Truth. According to my understanding; a "Spirit" (pneuma-Πνεύμα) in the New Testament is a human Prophet, as seen from the following verse…
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1-3)


"He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. " (John 16:14)

In the above verse the term used is "Doxazo" which simply means 'to glorify' and glorifying doesn't necessarily mean worshiping. If we take this term to mean just glorify, then Yes, Muhammad (Pbuh) did glorify Jesus and all the other Prophets before him. In fact Belief in all of the Prophets sent by God (including the Last Prophet, "The Paraclete"/ Muhammad) is essential for complete Faith in God Almighty.

This phrase " for he shall receive of mine " highlights the very aspect of the duty of the Prophets sent by God i.e, to convey the Truth (same Message)--> "One God"
God obliged the Prophets with the duty of conveying the Truth, or in other words they all "received" the same command.
Hence the Message is the same,….. So, as Jesus (pbuh) was sent to the earth before Muhammad (pbuh) then he obviously conveyed the same thing before him, but the point is that after the prophesy of the coming of Muhammad (pbuh) [as in John 16:13-14] came true, he conveyed the same Message as taught by Jesus pbuh ("shall receive of mine" ----> shall receive the same message as I)

Makes sense..Right?!?!
Peace.

A few thoughts for you.

I do actually want to let the text speak for itself. What I have tried to show you is that your approaching the text from your presuppositions with regard to Jesus, an Islamic Jesus, rather than a biblical one. I would not expect you to do otherwise, however, I wanted to show you what it is you were doing. I am reasoning from the Scriptures, as the Bible presents Jesus, and not as Muhammed supposed him to be.

I am not sure how you can take these texts and end up with Muhammed. Jesus said the Paracletos was dwelling with them. Jesus said the Parakletos IS the Holy Spirit. So, it is very simple. The Parakletos is the Holy Spirit, not Muhammed. The Holy Spirit was dwelling with them, and would be IN them. There was a sense in which the Spirit of the Living God was with them, and a sense in which He was not. This is what I pointed out before.

If you think Jesus centered all things around God, then you have greatly misunderstood the NT text. Yes, Jesus glorified God. But all things centered around Jesus. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me." Jesus said He was the Bread of life. Jesus said we should believe in Him as we believe in God. This is nothing like Muhammed's teaching.

Concerning spirit, you would have us to believe that: a spirit is a prophet. This is simply wishful thinking. Prophets may speak by the Holy Spirit of God. Or, they may speak by another spirit. Not every spirit by which they speak is from God. Therefore, Christians are exhorted to test the spirits. This is what we are doing with regard to Muahmmed.

There is no chance that Jesus taught the same message as Muhammed. I understand that the Qur'an says so. In fact, it says its message confirmed what was previously revealed. Well, it doesn't. The only recourse the Muslim has at that point is to call into question the integrity of the text.

You say that Jesus is a prophet. Well said. Jesus prophesied that He would be crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. Muhammed taught that Jesus was not crucified. I don't raise this point to debate the crucifixtion. But we both know that if a prophet foretells something, and it does not come to pass, then he has spoken of himself and not from God. Jesus foretold His sufferings and resurrection. If Jesus did not die upon the cross as Muslims say, then neither can they say he was a prophet.

Furthermore, Jesus did not require that mankind honor and glorify Him as a prophet. He required that mankind honor Him even as they honor the Father. Do you give to Jesus the same honor as you do to God? I would imagine the answer is no. But Jesus said we must. And He said that if we did not, neither did we honor the Father (God). Who is this Jesus that could make such claim? Muhammed never spoke in this manner.

[YieldedOne]

What I'm saying:

The "paraclete" passages in John are understandable only by using the Second Temple Jewish perspective on the Holy Spirit of God, specifically as it relates to Jewish messianic hopes at the time. When looked at this way, it because very unlikely that the "paraclete" statements were made with Muhammad in mind...while it is very likely that they were made with the Holy Spirit of God in mind. This is important because, looking at the Jewish views of the Holy Spirit, there is absolutely NO INDICATION that, at any time, the Holy Spirit was completely identified with the angel Gabriel. None at all. So, that should provide at least implicit evidence that the idea of Gabriel being nothing more or less than the Holy Spirit is completely at odds with the Jewish concept (current and past) of the Holy Spirit.

[Woodrow]

Hmmm...I just noticed that I didn't get any response on my last postings. About the Jewish views of the Holy Spirit and how the earliest church held those those very Jewish views.

Woodrow? Still with me, bro?

Whole thread collapsed

It has been a long time since I had any contact with the Jewish members of my Family (My Great-Grandmother on my Mother's side was Jewish). So I guess you get the little I learned from Jewish people I have known over the years.

My conclusion based only on my limited contact is that the Jews did and still do view the concept of "Holy Spirit" as being an attribute or a state of being. To say that a person has a "Holy Spirit" means the person strives to live a life of obeying God(swt), To call a person a 'Holy Spirit" implies the person is always seen. In that context it would be appropriate to refer to all of the Prophet(PBUT)'s and the Angels as being "Holy Spirits". To say a person is "filled with the Holy Spirit" seems to mean the person has very good qualities or attributes. I have never heard any Jew I know, attribute personification to "The Holy Spirit" or indicate "The Holy Spirit" is a specific being.

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
My conclusion based only on my limited contact is that the Jews did and still do view the concept of "Holy Spirit" as being an attribute or a state of being. To say that a person has a "Holy Spirit" means the person strives to live a life of obeying God(swt), To call a person a 'Holy Spirit" implies the person is always seen. In that context it would be appropriate to refer to all of the Prophet(PBUT)'s and the Angels as being "Holy Spirits". To say a person is "filled with the Holy Spirit" seems to mean the person has very good qualities or attributes. I have never heard any Jew I know, attribute personification to "The Holy Spirit" or indicate "The Holy Spirit" is a specific being.

Well, they don't. What I mean is this: the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit is not hypostatic (As such, not a personality within the Trinty). The Holy Spirit is seen as SOLELY belonging to God.

At the same time, it's very clear that the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit doesn't just refer to generally holy beings, angelic or otherwise. There was a developed sense of God's Spirit and how it work in and among God's people. So, the Holy Spirit cannot merely be a "quality" of goodness and/or holiness in created being. It's an ACTIVE POWER inseparable with DIVINE PRESENCE that enabled prophecy, knowledge of God, and divine power.

The main thing is that it would have been absolutely FOREIGN to Jewish people of Jesus' day to say that the Holy Spirit of God was nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel. They would have looked at anyone who said that as severely misinformed, at best!

[YieldedOne]

It's interesting. As I read all of the different Muslim arguments online for why they think that Muhammad is the "paraclete" of which Jesus speaks...I notice a severe dearth of 1) understanding the Jewish concept of the Holy Spirit and 2) contextual analysis of the origin of the Jewish Christian movement (ala Peter).

Honestly, it looks like arguments are cherry-picked out rather than actually looking at the historical lines of the Jewish Christians movement, it's understanding of the Holy Spirit, and HOW that actually matches up with what Jesus was saying in John. PARTICULARLY the Messianic hopes ala the Prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Joel.

For example the whole "the Holy Ghost was already with them" argument. This is simply a failure to even recognize HOW Jews in Jesus' day saw how the Holy Spirit operated...and the pre and post-messianic age expections about the Holy Spirit's operation.

Not nice. Not nice at all.

[Fivesolas]

I want to add that what I believe is driving the Muslim to try to see Muhammed as the Paracletos isn't the text. It is the prior belief derived from the Qur'an that the Old and New Testaments speak of Muhammed. Basically, Muslims have to find Muhammed in the Bible. It is not an exegetical motivation, but an eisigetical exercise based on a pre-existing belief. This is the only eplaination I have for mishandling and wrangling of the text of Scripture.

[missy]

This is the only eplaination I have for mishandling and wrangling of the text of Scripture.

i'm sorry but that is offensive!! :(

[Woodrow]

They is only one conclusion I can see.

We Muslims base our belief on the Quran being the True word of Allaah(swt).

Christians believe the Bible is the True word of God(swt).

We can not/nor will we agree upon a single source acceptable for both of us.

Simple fact one of us is correct, one of us is in error.

All we can do is come to the understanding that our beliefs do not agree and accept our differences, agreeing only to disagree in a peaceful manner.

This thread has no future, except to demonstrate it is possible for us to disagree without hate.

I will close this thread some time today. So post your final comments now.

[YieldedOne]

Sorry for your offense, sister. I'll attempt to say what I believe Fivesolas is saying in a (hopeful) less problematic manner.

If a person were to be adept in...

1) Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
2) Second Temple Judaism, specifically the prevailing views of the Holy Spirit and the messianic age
3) Early Jewish Christianity
4) The OT and NT texts

and this person were to look at the "paraclete" passages without having ANY information about Islam at all...is it very likely that this person would come to the conclusion that the "paraclete" of whom Jesus spoke was a particular human being in the future named Muhammad, using all the tools at her disposal?

If not, what does that mean?

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
This thread has no future, except to demonstrate it is possible for us to disagree without hate.

I will close this thread some time today. So post your final comments now.

What?!? Is this because of Fivesolas statement? Things seemed to be going just fine until then. Sheesh...

************************************

Woodrow:
This is only one conclusion I can see.
We Muslims base our belief on the Quran being the True word of Allaah(swt).
Christians believe the Bible is the True word of God(swt).
We can not/nor will we agree upon a single source acceptable for both of us.
Simple fact one of us is correct, one of us is in error.
All we can do is come to the understanding that our beliefs do not agree and accept our differences, agreeing only to disagree in a peaceful manner.

Some things:
1) What I've been discussing has nothing to do with Christian or Muslim belief in their holy texts. The issue is specificallly about looking at what the Quran asserts about the Holy Spirit in contrast to what we know about Second Temple JUDAISM and it's claims about the Holy Spirit. This is now Christian Bible vs Quran issue at all.

2) No one is talking about using a "single source". I'm advocating bringing all the information to bear that we have on this issue. Surely, that's how scholarly, informed dialogue takes place. None of us do this to participate in some ideological echo chamber, right?

3) It's one thing to understand and respect differences...and agreeing to disagree agreeably. Of course, I'm all for that. It's another thing to look at those differences from a self-critical standpoint (on all sides) to see where those differences may be coming from. That's what I was trying to do here.

I humbly and respectfully ask that you refrain from closing this thread down today. If we want to censor offensiveness, I'm all for that. That's what Admins are for. But I would hope that we would let this thread "peter out" like the other ones do from lack of interest...not because of some other stuff.

[missy]

If a person were to be adept in...

1) Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
2) Second Temple Judaism, specifically the prevailing views of the Holy Spirit and the messianic age
3) Early Jewish Christianity
4) The OT and NT texts

and this person were to look at the "paraclete" passages without having ANY information about Islam at all...is it very likely that this person would come to the conclusion that the "paraclete" of whom Jesus spoke was a particular human being in the future named Muhammad, using all the tools at her disposal?

An unbiased YES!

[Fivesolas]

They is only one conclusion I can see.

We Muslims base our belief on the Quran being the True word of Allaah(swt).

Christians believe the Bible is the True word of God(swt).

We can not/nor will we agree upon a single source acceptable for both of us.

Simple fact one of us is correct, one of us is in error.

All we can do is come to the understanding that our beliefs do not agree and accept our differences, agreeing only to disagree in a peaceful manner.

This thread has no future, except to demonstrate it is possible for us to disagree without hate.

I will close this thread some time today. So post your final comments now.

I agree. The topic is at an impasse. I would think that an in-person dialogue would be different. Maybe not. I hope to find out soon though.

[YieldedOne]

Peacelover:
An unbiased YES!

Ok, sister. Could you justify your answer? Meaning can you show me from your understanding of the prevailing Second Temple Judaism view of the Holy Spirit and messianism, the paraclete statements of Jesus, and your understanding of the initial message of the very first Jewish Christians...how that's the case? I'm open, willing, and ready to hear this. (Hopefully, this thread will be open long enough FOR me to hear it. :D )

[YieldedOne]

Sigh. Thanks a bunch, Fivesolas. imsad

Well...whatever, I guess...

[Fivesolas]

i'm sorry but that is offensive!! :(

Wasn't meant to be. Humility should teach us all, I include myself, that it is possible to mishandle and twist the meaning of Scripture.

[missy]

Sorry for your offense, sister.

Itz K....i was just a bit disappointed cuz i kinda was expecting it to be positive..
jus that...:)

What?!? Is this because of Fivesolas statement? Things seemed to be going just fine until then. Sheesh..

LOL...
Ofcourse it might not be solely bcuz of that!

[missy]

Wasn't meant to be. Humility should teach us all, I include myself, that it is possible to mishandle and twist the meaning of Scripture.

Ohh..i just saw this...It's Absolutely Fine :)

[missy]

Plus we have evidence from the Scriptures...

"Say, "O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you …." (Surah Ale Imran 3:64)

"You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him." (Leviticus 19:17)

With Peace.

[YieldedOne]

Whenever you are ready, peacelover... :)

[YieldedOne]

I think the main thing to be explored is that there seem to be absolutely NO Jewish sources that I can find (Talmudic, Midrashic or otherwise) that indicate that the Holy Spirit of God is nothing more or less than any individual angel. Absolutely nothing. Again, if Judaism and Islam are much closer theologically than Judaism and Christianity, then one would EXPECT at least something...somewhere...along these lines to be said. Especially since Islam is deeply based on Judaic concepts. But there isn't anything. Not one little bit. Not anywhere in earliest Jewish Christianity either. Nuthin'.

But then all of a sudden, it shows up in Islam. Just "poof" and it's there.

Not only THAT...but coincidentially the "Breath of God" (which, as far as creative, life-giving, God-borne reality, IS consonant with the Jewish belief about the Spirit of God) is in the Quran...but simply NOT called the Holy Spirit and that title is assigned to an angel.

Doesn't that make anyone wonder what's going on? Just a little bit? :?

I feel like this ties to the "paraclete" discussion insofar as the Jewish Christian idea of the "paraclete" is directly related to their Jewish (messianic) understanding of the Holy Spirit.

[YieldedOne]

Heh. Oh well. If anyone has any helpful resources or thoughts on this, I'd sure appreciate it.

TTFN.

:thankyou:

[Woodrow]

I believe this thread has served it's purpose and well demonstrated that it is possible to agree to disagree without hate or malice.

We will believe as we do and you will believe as you do. We have no common acceptable sources, further debate on this matter is pointless.


Let us close in Peace.

:threadclo: