Is the Holy Spirit the angel Gabriel?

[Fivesolas]

In the thread on whether the Comforter (paraclete) is Mohammed, the discussion turned to the question as to whether the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel. The Christian in answering this question will turn to the Scriptures. I would expect the Muslim to do the same. What does the Qur'an say with regard to the Holy Spirit?

What evidence is given from the Qur'an that would suggest that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel? (if that is your belief).

I have only found 4 references so far to the Holy Spirit in the Qur'an using the Pickthal translation. They are Surah 2:87, 2:253, 5:110, 16:102. Yusuf Ali and Shakir give the same result.

I found the word Spirit in Pickthal's translation 23 times in 21 verses which include the above four mentioned. I won't list them all here.

One question that came up is the Qur'an mentions the Holy Spirit, but also refers to the Spirit of Allah or "My [Allah] Spirit (see S. 12:87, 38:72). What is the difference, if any, between the Holy Spirit and the Qur'an reference to the Spirit of Allah, or when Allah is referencing His Spirit?

In Surah 97:4, 78:38, and 70:4 there is a mention of angels and "the Spirit" ascending, standing arrayed, or decending. This seems to imply a disctinction. What is the meaning?

[Sol Invictus]

as far as the christian understanding is concerned, gabriel is not the holy spirit:

Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. [...] 18 Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years." 19 The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. --- Luke 1:11-15; 18-19 NIV

notice that the angel distinguishes himself from the holy spirit. if gabriel were indeed the holy spirit then he would have said, "he will be filled with me even before he is born". he could have even said that he himself was the holy spirit if this were the case. yet that is not all, gabriel is again mentioned later on:

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” [...] 35The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.” --- Luke 1:26-28; 35-37 NIV

once again gabriel is distinguished from the holy spirit in the bible. christ's birth is produced by the holy spirit and notice how this miracle is tied to the power of god. so the implication here at least is that the holy spirit possesses the power of god and it is not the father by whom christ is born but rather the holy spirit.

all in all, i think that the bible is pretty clear that gabriel is not the holy spirit (would any christian thinking the contrary feel comfortable with praying to gabriel?).

[Woodrow]

To say anything about the meanings of those Ayyats actually require the Tafsir of a qualified Scholar. All most of us here are capable of doing is a very limited opinion based upon our own thoughts.

Based upon at least one definition of spirit (per Merriam-Webster: : a supernatural being or essence) an Angel is a spirit. Since the Angels are all acting on behalf of Allaah(swt) their act are Holy and therefore so are they. Jibril seems to have been the Angel always used to bring messages to mankind. so Jibril would be THE HOLY SPIRIT, with the most contact with us.

Let us look at Surah 94

surah 97:1-5 Al-Qadr (The Night of Power)
1. We have indeed revealed this (Message) in the Night of Power:
2. And what will explain to thee what the night of power is?
3. The Night of Power is better than a thousand months.
4. Therein come down the angels and the Spirit by Allah's permission, on every errand:
5. Peace!...This until the rise of morn!

What is translated as spirit?

Just what does the word alrroohu mean?

I notice it seems to come from the same root as Roo (or Ruh) which is usually reference to the human soul or human. Perhaps in the Surah the term spirit fit the Merriam-Webster definition of spirit as meaning: a : a special attitude or frame of mind

The Qadr does fill a person with a very special sense of purpose that comes from Allaah(swt)

[SalamChristian]

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!

christ's birth is produced by the holy spirit and notice how this miracle is tied to the power of god. so the implication here at least is that the holy spirit possesses the power of god

The Book of Jude in the New Testament quotes the Book of Enoch, and early church father Tertullian included the Book of Enoch as scripture as well. 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.

This answers your criticism about the powerfulness of the Holy Spirit with a resounding "Gabriel fits your requirements!"

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! Certainly it gives Gabriel plenty of importance to be considered the "paraclete" of John's Gospel.

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?

Lastly, we must seriously take into account what we are told in Revelations. Revelations is given to John from "the Angel from Christ," who is also identified as "The Spirit." Many translations capitalize "The Spirit" here, and it is not simply a spirit, but THE SPIRIT. In Revelations we are clearly told that The Holy Spirit is also an Angel. It can apparently take on both an Angelic and a Spirit form--pneuma (wind, breath) & angelos. What other Angel makes sense than Gabriel?

In closing, I would remind everyone that the textual evidence in favor of the Holy Spirit being an Angel is almost absolute. The text also provides the most evidence that this Angel is Gabriel, as opposed to some other angel. Given these two observations, we should say that it is more likely than not that the Holy Spirit is indeed the Angel Gabriel.

Peace my brothers, May the Truth come.

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

[SalamChristian]

Also, in regards to the Qu'ran, I found some commentary and posted it on the thread which this one derived from. Here is the commentary:

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)"

Peace brothers

[SalamChristian]

Lastly, for those of us who are willing to take BOTH the New Testament and the Qu'ran seriously, there are further arguments to be made. One of the promises of Jesus (pbuh) regarding what will happen after him is that he will send "the paraclete," a Legal Advocate and Comforter to the believers. This is also identified as The Holy Spirit and The Spirit of Truth.

As pointed out above, Gabriel is called 'Ruhhil-Qudus' (Holy Spirit), 'Ruuhanaa' (Our Spirit), and Ruuhul-'Amiin' (The Honest/True Spirit). The last one is particularly interesting, because it states that Gabriel is indeed the promised "Spirit of Truth" that Jesus (pbuh) was going to send after him. Lastly, the Qu'ran repeatedly calls itself the Clear Book, the Book of Clear Guidance et cetera, and numerous ayahs affirm that it is to be a "comfort" to the believers. The function of the Qu'ran is indeed to provide the Ummah with legal guidance, and to clearly determine what is right and wrong behavior. The Holy Spirit promised by Jesus (pbuh) is also prophesied to convict the world of sin--to judge the world, so that only believers will be judged righteous by it.

Peace brothers

[siam]

just to clarify a point---which may be minor to the issue under discussion but very important to the general understanding of the concept......

Ruh (God's breath/Spirit) and Ruh Al-Qudus (Holy Spirit) as well as other uses of the word ruh (spirit) are not God. They are a creation of God for a purpose. (Only God is Uncreated). (IMO) perhaps a good way to think of this might be as "Force/Forces" for example, gravity is a force but it is not God---it is a creation (Law) of God for a purpose. Likewise the word "Angel" in Judaism and Islam mean "messenger" and the purpose of these "messengers" is to do God's will. (This is different from "Prophet" which is rasul/nabi and their purpose is to teach, and/or deliver God's message/guidance/law to others)

---this is only my opinion---but paraclete could be understood as Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) and the Holy Spirit as the recited Quran of the Prophet(pbuh) at the time of revelation. (The essence(knowledge) or truth that came through the process of Angel Gabriel/Holy spirit resides in the words of the Quran (book) we have today.....)

If a Christian were to dismiss such a claim---it would not make much difference to a Muslim---since the knowledge of the last prophet was for the benefit of the followers of the previous scriptures---and not for those who already believe in the Quran-----that is, those who follow the previous scriptures can examine if such a claim has any truth---BY EXAMINING the Quran and the life of Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) to determine if this can be considered or not......

Since the Quran is against superstition and blind belief---such passages should not be taken as "proof" of the Quran/Prophet---rather as an invitation to examine and discover the truth for oneself.....

[Ali Mujahidin]

As salaam mualailum.

I think, if Islam were to be allowed to be modified, and therefore degraded, like many other religions, we would end up having people worship Gibrail as a god. That is why there is a strict command from Allah that the Quran must not ever be changed even by one jot or dot. Sometimes there is so much debate over the messenger that the message and, most importantly, the Originator of the message, is forgotten in the deafening cacophony that ensues. The main point of Islam is to live it. Insha Allah.

[- Qatada -]

To SalamChristian, Gabriel is called 'Ruh-al-ameen' [the 'Honest' Spirit'] is because he does not lie, he does not fake revelation and pretend it is from God. Rather, he is honest and always dutiful to his Creator.

[Fivesolas]

I think the thread on the parakletos demonstrated that Mohammed is not, and could not, be the paraklete. Other than a desire on behalf of Muslims to find Mohammed spoken of in the New Testament, I am not sure what the motivation is to trying to insist on it. The Qur'an does not teach that Mohammed is the parakletos to my knowledge. Correct me if I am wrong there.

I do think it is important to have a clear understanding of what the Qur'an means when it refers to the Holy Spirit, the Spirit, and the Spirit of Allah. We can spend time debating the issue, but I do think we can all agree that we want to let the Qur'an speak for itself. It is, afterall, said to be clear. I would expect the same dignity to be afforded to the Bible with regard to how those Scriptures present the Holy Spirit.

Now, this statement I do want to address:

"those who follow the previous scriptures can examine if such a claim has any truth---BY EXAMINING the Quran and the life of Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) to determine if this can be considered or not......"

I might need further clarification from you on this. I am one of "those" who follow the previous Scriptures/Revelation. According to the Qur'an, I am a "people of the Book." If I take your advice here and examine the Qur'an's claims by examing the Qur'an and the life of Muhammed (someone tell me how I am supposed to spell this, with an o or a u?) how does this afford me an examination? What is my reference point?

When I have looked at the Qur'an, it tells me that its message confirms what was previously given, and that I should look into the Scriptures that are in my hands. Well, we all know there are significant, theological bombshells even, that do not agree. The Qur'an's message does not confirm what is in the Old and New Testaments. In many points, there is a agreement, and in many points clear contradictions between the two. Our common sense and basic laws of logic do not allow that two contradictory statements can both be true.

Nevertheless, my aim in this thread is to gain an accurate understanding as to the Qur'an's teaching with regard to the Holy Spirit. If this question can only be answered by a trained scholar, then are there any such persons on the board? If not, then to whom can I go and ask such a question to get an "official" answer?

[YieldedOne]

Why isn't anyone going to the OLD TESTAMENT here? I'm quite curious.

At Pentecost, Peter himself claims that what occurs is a FULFILLMENT of the OT promises of God to fill his People with His Spirit. He straight up says that.

Let's bring some Old Testament Prophets into this. It's the GROUND for the New Testament understanding of God's Spirit in the NT. Let me bring some of them back...

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.’

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
Ruh (God's breath/Spirit) and Ruh Al-Qudus (Holy Spirit) as well as other uses of the word ruh (spirit) are not God. They are a creation of God for a purpose. (Only God is Uncreated). (IMO) perhaps a good way to think of this might be as "Force/Forces" for example, gravity is a force but it is not God---it is a creation (Law) of God for a purpose. Likewise the word "Angel" in Judaism and Islam mean "messenger" and the purpose of these "messengers" is to do God's will. (This is different from "Prophet" which is rasul/nabi and their purpose is to teach, and/or deliver God's message/guidance/law to others)

Ok. Now this makes MORE SENSE than saying that the Holy Spirit is absolutely the SAME THING as the angel Gabriel. Heck, even many Christians think that God's Breath/Spirit is little more than God's FORCE OF ACTIVITY in Creation. But there's a problem with that being merely created we can get to later.

**************************************
Siam:
this is only my opinion---but paraclete could be understood as Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) and the Holy Spirit as the recited Quran of the Prophet(pbuh) at the time of revelation.

Let me guess. There is little to no consideration of the Old Testament Prophet texts AT ALL in general Islamic discussion about the Holy Spirit...right?

[Fivesolas]

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!



The Book of Jude in the New Testament quotes the Book of Enoch, and early church father Tertullian included the Book of Enoch as scripture as well. This is from Enoch 1, 40:8-9

In closing, I would remind everyone that the textual evidence in favor of the Holy Spirit being an Angel is almost absolute. The text also provides the most evidence that this Angel is Gabriel, as opposed to some other angel. Given these two observations, we should say that it is more likely than not that the Holy Spirit is indeed the Angel Gabriel.

Peace my brothers, May the Truth come.

The problem here Salam, is your building your argument/reasoning on writings rejected as Scripture. This could easily lead to a conversation regarding the canon of Scripture, which would be off-topic. Let's deal with the texts that all Christians have recieved as God-breathed. Dealing with the 27 books of the NT keeps us on topic.

What Sol has shown you from the canonical Gospels is that the textual evidence is NOT in favor with the Holy Spirit being an angel, or Gabriel in particular.

I don't think the question is whether or not an angel can be a spirit. The question is: Does the Bible present the Holy Spirit as the angel Gabriel. Sol has demonstrated from the text of Scripture that this is not the case.

[YieldedOne]

Forget it. I'll just throw up this skeet for it to be shot down.

My analogical take on the Trinity is as follows:

The One True God is a SPEAKER who eternally expresses himself as "I Am that I Am". That is God's self-expressive word of self-understanding. God's BREATH/SPIRIT is the power that God uses for God's UNCREATED "speech" (similar to what's believed about the UNCREATED nature of the Quran) And God's SPOKEN WORD is God's self-declaration and self-objectification of who God is: "I Am". I say that God has been doing this even before Creation began.

You cannot have a SPEAKER without BREATH and SPOKEN WORD. They are three aspects of ONE PERSON'S actions. And basically the Uncreated Speaker "breathes" his Spoken Word eternally SANS Creation. Thus the "Breath" and "Spoken Word" are uncreated as well.

I know it's an analogy...but that's as close as I can get using the OT biblical language. But what I love about it is this: If Islam says that "uncreated speech" exists (which they do), then this motif of conceptualizing the One God via triune action of uncreated self-declaration is NOT completely without framework for understanding.

All this is the say that I think that it's conceptually valid that God's "Breath/Spirit" can be uncreated...just like the Quran is said to be.

[SalamChristian]

Peace Fivesolas,

Dealing with the 27 books of the NT keeps us on topic. What Sol has shown you from the canonical Gospels is that the textual evidence is NOT in favor with the Holy Spirit being an angel, or Gabriel in particular.

You completely overlooked Revelations. You missed the scripture I quote and the very conclusive points I make from that Canonical book.

Lastly, we must seriously take into account what we are told in Revelations. Revelations is given to John from "the Angel from Christ," who is also identified as "The Spirit." Many translations capitalize "The Spirit" here, and it is not simply a spirit, but THE SPIRIT. In Revelations we are clearly told that The Holy Spirit is also an Angel. It can apparently take on both an Angelic and a Spirit form--pneuma (wind, breath) & angelos. What other Angel makes sense than Gabriel? In closing, I would remind everyone that the textual evidence in favor of the Holy Spirit being an Angel is almost absolute.

How do you reconcile that? On what basis can you reject the clear testimony in Revelations?

The problem here Salam, is your building your argument/reasoning on writings rejected as Scripture. This could easily lead to a conversation regarding the canon of Scripture, which would be off-topic. Let's deal with the texts that all Christians have recieved as God-breathed.

As I stated, the Book of Enoch WAS received as scripture, both by the author of the Book of Jude in the canonical Gospel and also by Tertullian, a very early church father. :) Also, it is still received as scripture by some Christian traditions today.

Peace

[YieldedOne]

Two things, Salam:

1) How come you are not referencing any OT Scriptures about the God's Spirit (incuding the Psalm where David specifically mentions the Holy Spirit)?

2) What is the Scripture in Revelation that you are talking about?

[YieldedOne]

Psalm 51:10-12
Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from your presence,
and take not your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
and uphold me with a willing spirit.

***************************
Isaiah 63:10-13
But they rebelled
and grieved his Holy Spirit;
therefore he turned to be their enemy,
and himself fought against them.
Then he remembered the days of old,
of Moses and his people.
Where is he who brought them up out of the sea
with the shepherds of his flock?
Where is he who put in the midst of them
his Holy Spirit,
who caused his glorious arm
to go at the right hand of Moses,
who divided the waters before them
to make for himself an everlasting name,
who led them through the depths?

Stephen in Acts follows up on this last one...Acts 7:51-53

“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”



Check the Hebrew if you want...

[SalamChristian]

How come you are not referencing any OT Scriptures

If the NT clearly states that the Holy Spirit is an angel, then we need to deal with it first. It is very clear on this matter, as I am reading it.

What is the Scripture in Revelation that you are talking about?

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John" Revelation 1:1

"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day when I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying "Write in a book what you see" Revelations 1:10-11

And then every single message to each of the 7 churches ends with:

"The one who has an ear had better hear what The Spirit says to the churches!" Revelations 2:11, 2:17, 2:29, 3:6, 3:13, 3:22

The author of Revelations is clearly identified as both an Angel from Jesus and The Spirit, using John as its medium.

Peace brothers

[SalamChristian]

Moreover, you ought to think about the context of the Holy Spirit when you read Revelations, because the entire structure is built around the promises of the "paraclete":

"The revelation (unveiling, uncovering, revealing) of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants . . . He made it clear by sending his angel . . . who then testified to everything that he saw concerning the word of God and the testimony about Jesus Christ."

And then, for the next 3 chapters, the Holy Spirit and Angel from God goes on to convict the church leaders of their sin, lol. He calls them out on everything.These are all things promised about the paraclete. He is to teach them everything, to testify and speak not of his own accord but of that which is given to him, to testify about Christ, to make everything clear to the Apostles, and to judge the world (convict it of its sin).

Peace

[Fivesolas]

Peace Fivesolas,



You completely overlooked Revelations. You missed the scripture I quote and the very conclusive points I make from that Canonical book.



How do you reconcile that? On what basis can you reject the clear testimony in Revelations?



As I stated, the Book of Enoch WAS received as scripture, both by the author of the Book of Jude in the canonical Gospel and also by Tertullian, a very early church father. :) Also, it is still received as scripture by some Christian traditions today.

Peace

It is improper to jump from one text of Scripture to another as a rebuttle. You must first deal with what was given (by Sol) then move on. It is not true that I completely overlooked the book of Revelation. What I am doing is asking that you deal with the texts presented by Sol.

Your statements regarding the book of Enoch are irrelevant. Nor does it follow that if Jude quotes from the book that he regarded it as Scripture. Making these kinds of points is fruitless to the discussion and takes us down the road of canonicity. Discussing the canon is a worthy topic, but not on topic here. For our purposes, we can accept what has been received by the Church, and no more. Otherwise, any ancient text can be presented as authoritative.

[Fivesolas]

Moreover, you ought to think about the context of the Holy Spirit when you read Revelations, because the entire structure is built around the promises of the "paraclete":

"The revelation (unveiling, uncovering, revealing) of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants . . . He made it clear by sending his angel . . . who then testified to everything that he saw concerning the word of God and the testimony about Jesus Christ."

And then, for the next 3 chapters, the Holy Spirit and Angel from God goes on to convict the church leaders of their sin, lol. He calls them out on everything.These are all things promised about the paraclete. He is to teach them everything, to testify and speak not of his own accord but of that which is given to him, to testify about Christ, to make everything clear to the Apostles, and to judge the world (convict it of its sin).

Peace

Got to work for a bit now, but I am happy to spend considerable time in the book of Revelation. But first, I would like you to deal with the text Sol presented.

[Perseveranze]

The Qur'an does not teach that Mohammed is the parakletos to my knowledge

Peace,

Not going to answer all your questions/claims since others already have done so. But regarding this specific claim, the Quran clearly mentions that Muhammad(pbuh) is the prophesised Prophet that is written in your holy scriptures. If Paracletes is not referring to Muhammad(pbuh), then give me the verse in your Bible that is referring to the Prophesised Prophet(pbuh). Until you do this, Muslims have every single claim with great backing to say that Paracletes is the Prophecised Prophet, Muhammad(pbuh).

[SalamChristian]

It is improper to jump from one text of Scripture to another as a rebuttle.

The entire scripture is fair game. As fair as dealing with Sol's texts, I am doing that most quickly and effectively by referencing Revelations. Your conclusion based on Sol's quotations was entirely refuted by the scripture that I quoted. Moreover, I had made this refutation prior to your conclusion, so the least you could have done would have been to consider the verses I brought in before glossing over them. Sol's verses are not at all definitive, merely indicative. However, if Revelations establishes that the Holy Spirit is also an Angel conclusively, then your interpretation that Sol's verses prove that the "holy spirit is not an angel" would be out-and-out wrong.

Nor does it follow that if Jude quotes from the book that he regarded it as Scripture.

Tertullian believes it does:

"Chapter 3: Concerning the Genuineness of the Prophecy of Enoch
...

But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired

. . .

To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude."

It is going to be important to our discussion, and it certainly bears upon the topic at hand. To reject it outright would be narrow-minded. There is wisdom, however, in your point that we need to establish a mainline discussion first. If you want, we can save it until after we have gotten further in our exegesis of the OT and NT. If you would have simply responded to the passages from Revelations or tried to hermeneutically synthesize them and the texts Sol presents, then we would already be there (instead of having this long side conversation lol). :)

Peace

[SalamChristian]

But regarding this specific claim, the Quran clearly mentions that Muhammad(pbuh) is the prophesised Prophet that is written in your holy scriptures.

Out of curiosity, would you give me the ayahs you are thinking of that prophesy about either Gabriel, the Qu'ran, or Muhammad? I am aware, obviously, of the one which references the name "Ahmad."

Peace

[YieldedOne]

Let's go ahead and get John's Revelation out the way.

SC:
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John" Revelation 1:

"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day when I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying "Write in a book what you see" Revelations 1:10-11
And then every single message to each of the 7 churches ends with:

"The one who has an ear had better hear what The Spirit says to the churches!" Revelations 2:11, 2:17, 2:29, 3:6, 3:13, 3:22

The author of Revelations is clearly identified as both an Angel from Jesus and The Spirit, using John as its medium.

Ok. What I hear you saying, Salam, is that the angel sent to John in 1:1 actually is completely IDENTIFIABLE with the Holy Spirit. Your argument is summarized as follows:

1) Revelation 1:1 says that God made known the revelation of Jesus Christ to John by sending an angel to John.
2) The end of all the messages to the 7 churches (Revelation 2-3) end with "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
3)In Revelation 1:10, the text mentions John being "in the Spirit" on the Lord's day hearing a "voice like a trumpet."

Now...let's deconstruct this...

1) The "voice like a trumpet" mentioned in 1:10 is SPECIFICALLY assigned to this being...

Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

Now, I don't know about you...but it seems like this being who is "like a son of man" and who proclaims that he "died" and is not "alive forevermore" CANNOT be refering to either an angel OR the HOly Spirit...but to the RISEN CHRIST. Just look at the text.

2) Whenever the "voice" speaks to the 7 churches, he keeps using "I", meaning that the voice is DIRECTLY ADDRESSING the churches. And this "I" is directly related to the being described in #1 above. In other words, this "I" is NOT any angel.

3) The NT specifically says that Jesus is present to the Church VIA HIS SPIRIT. (John 14) I believe you know those texts already, right, SC?


If all 3 things I've said above are valid, then it's at best HIGHLY UNLIKELY that your quoted texts mean that the Holy Spirit is to be identified with some created angel.

Feel me?

[YieldedOne]

Actually, we can make a parallel idea with Mary and here encounter with an angel seen in Luke...

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be bornwill be called holy—the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant[6] of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Incidentally, this "angel" is traditionally held to be Gabriel. And there is a DIFFERENTIATION MADE by the angel himself...between he and the Holy Spirit.

You are taking this into account as a Christian, too...right, Salam? :shade:

[YieldedOne]

All this said about Revelation...the Old Testament texts about the Holy Spirit cannot just be ignored.

Let's go back to Psalm 51. If you note, it is used liturgically by Christianity AND Judaism. This particular psalm is genuinely thought to be penned by David himself. And please recall that David is seen to be a PROPHET in Islam! So, when he talks about God's Holy Spirit in Psalm 51:11...do you really think that he was talking about the angel Gabriel, Salam? If so, by what means do you come to that conclusion?

[YieldedOne]

At the risk of overkill...

SC:
And then, for the next 3 chapters, the Holy Spirit and Angel from God goes on to convict the church leaders of their sin, lol. He calls them out on everything.These are all things promised about the paraclete. He is to teach them everything, to testify and speak not of his own accord but of that which is given to him, to testify about Christ, to make everything clear to the Apostles, and to judge the world (convict it of its sin).

Again, I point out that it is NOT the "angel from God" who convicts the church leaders. It is the RISEN CHRIST HIMSELF via Christ's Holy Spirit. Unless you are going to say that the angel from God "died" and is now "alive forevermore." Heh. ;D

[Fivesolas]

Peace,

Not going to answer all your questions/claims since others already have done so. But regarding this specific claim, the Quran clearly mentions that Muhammad(pbuh) is the prophesised Prophet that is written in your holy scriptures. If Paracletes is not referring to Muhammad(pbuh), then give me the verse in your Bible that is referring to the Prophesised Prophet(pbuh). Until you do this, Muslims have every single claim with great backing to say that Paracletes is the Prophecised Prophet, Muhammad(pbuh).

Thank you for your reply. I must have missed where a Muslim replied to my points. I will re-check. I agree with you that Qur'an teaches Muhammed is mentioned in the Old and New Testaments. What you are asking me to do is agrue from your position. This, of course, is silly. I have shown by the NT Scriptures that Muhammed could not possibly be the Comforter spoken of by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Since it is the Muslim contention that the Old and New Testaments speak of Muhammed, which came hundreds of years after the Scriptures, the burden of proof is on the Muslim. I have looked into the OT and NT Scriptures to see if what the Qur'an/Muhammed claim is true. So far I have not seen Muhammed in any prophecy of Holy Writ. I am open to any challenge to that of course, and am willing to listen and examine the Muslim claim that Muhammed is in the Scripture. I think I have demonstrated this by thoroughly examing that Muhammed is the Comforter spoken of by the Lord Jesus. And I think it is plain that it does not stand up.

[Sol Invictus]

As I stated, the Book of Enoch WAS received as scripture, both by the author of the Book of Jude in the canonical Gospel

i really have to question the claim that the author of jude quoted the book of enoch. for one thing the quotations aren't even the same. that said, it is more likely that an oral tradition on this existed which was passed down by the jews (though it did quite clearly stem from enoch). paul quotes the names of jannes and jambres (2 Timothy 3:8-9) which stems from jewish oral tradition but this does not mean that the entire jewish oral tradition is inspired. paul quotes from epimenides (Titus 1:12) but this does not mean that we should incoprorate his writings into the canon of scripture. evidently, jude's quote does belong to scripture but that does not mean that the book of enoch belongs to scripture---nevermind the fact that that exact quote isn't even in the book of enoch at all. now, apocryphal books aside, can you prove through scripture that the holy spirit is the angel gabriel? and if so, are you comfortable with saying that gabriel is god or to pray to gabriel? you'll note that in the luke account gabriel is relegated to the class of an angel:

Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. [...] 18 Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years." 19 The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. --- Luke 1:11-15; 18-19 NIV

notice that gabriel is merely an angel, one of many in the class of angels. he bears no singular distinction at all and never does any reference of him insinuate that he is the holy spirit. in the bible the holy spirit is called god, the father is called god, the son is called god but never is gabriel called god or said to be the holy spirit. so the question again becomes, where in the bible do we find any instance of gabriel taking for himself the prerogatives of god? where is there even a hint of deity on the part of gabriel?

to perseveranz:

Peace,

Not going to answer all your questions/claims since others already have done so. But regarding this specific claim, the Quran clearly mentions that Muhammad(pbuh) is the prophesised Prophet that is written in your holy scriptures. If Paracletes is not referring to Muhammad(pbuh), then give me the verse in your Bible that is referring to the Prophesised Prophet(pbuh). Until you do this, Muslims have every single claim with great backing to say that Paracletes is the Prophecised Prophet, Muhammad(pbuh).

there is also a thread on who the paraclete is and i'm sure that we would enjoy it if you could show from all the evidence that muhammad could at all be the individual spoken of in the gospel of john.

[- Qatada -]

What do the Christians say about this passage from the Gospel of John?

Up to the time of Jesus (peace be upon him), the Israelites were still awaiting for that prophet like unto Moses prophecied in Deuteronomy 18:18.


19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 20 He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21 And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" And he answered, "No." (Gospel of John 1: 19-21).

Why would the Jews be awaiting a Prophet after the Christ? And why did John the Baptist say he is not that awaited Prophet?

[SalamChristian]

In other words, this "I" is NOT any angel.

The problem with this conclusion is that you are throwing out 1:1. "He communicated/signified/made-known it by sending his ANGEL to his servant John, who then testified to everything that he saw."

Unless you can explain this verse, and how it fits into the chain of communication occurring in the text, then your interpretation falls apart. Are you going to tell me that he sends an Angel, who then drops Jesus down and lets Jesus do the talking? I'm not buying that, lol.

Moreover, while the equalization you make between The Spirit and Jesus in the text is an impressive display of interpretation, it is also not absolute, and seeing as it doesn't reconcile the verse above, it has to be rejected. The revelation is communicated by the Angel, who testifies as to everything he saw concerning Jesus.

In fact, if you look at the text, you will see that Jesus is speaking within the message of another speaker, presumably the Angel. Consider the dialogue happening here:

The first voice:

"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day when I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, saying 'Write in a book what you see and send it"

John turns, and now he is in the vision, the message that the Angel is communicating. Now he sees a completely different reality, and he is no longer in this world:

"I turned to see whose voice was speaking to me, and when I did so, I saw seven golden lampstands" These lampstands, as is later testified, are the creation of this vision and not reality.

Notice that the Angel is not simply communicating the message, he is literally re-creating the vision he received from God to be communicated to John. John now sees Jesus among the lampstands, and Jesus begins speaking. After Jesus is done, John says:

"After these things . . . And the first voice I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet said: 'Come up here so that I can show you what must happen after these things.' Immediately I was in The Spirit."

"first" here has a distinct sense of "foremost," "the one which came before."

And now, the voice who must "show John these things," The Spirit, is transmitting to him a new vision. Why does John distinguish between this voice and the voice of Jesus? There can only be one explanation: there are two speakers. This reconciles the fact that an Angel is the one who brings the message, not Jesus. Nor does he bring Jesus, and just plop him down in front of John.

Peace brother

[SalamChristian]

Why would the Jews be awaiting a Prophet after the Christ? And why did John the Baptist say he is not that awaited Prophet?

Peace brother Qatada

This is before Christ.

I think you are confusing John the Baptist and John the Apostle. John the Apostle was a companion of Jesus (pbuh) and he recorded his life in the Gospel of John.

[Sol Invictus]

Why would the Jews be awaiting a Prophet after the Christ? And why did John the Baptist say he is not that awaited Prophet?

this was already answered in the paraclete thread. you can find the refutation on page 3.

[YieldedOne]

Qatada:
What do the Christians say about this passage from the Gospel of John?

Up to the time of Jesus (peace be upon him), the Israelites were still awaiting for that prophet like unto Moses prophecied in Deuteronomy 18:18.
19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 20 He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21 And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" And he answered, "No." (Gospel of John 1: 19-21).
Why would the Jews be awaiting a Prophet after the Christ? And why did John the Baptist say he is not that awaited Prophet?


1) There is nothing in this text that says that the Prophet was coming AFTER the Christ. The people are just asking John the Baptist if he is any of these persons that have been mentioned in the OT.

2) In Acts 3, Peter, a person who WALKED with the historical Jesus, specifically links this "Prophet" with Christ as a JEW...

“And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’ And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.”

Please note that Peter specifically quotes Deuteronomy 18:15.

In other words, there's nothing in and of either John 1:21 OR Deuteronomy 18:15 that inherently points to Muhammad being this Prophet.

[YieldedOne]

I'm very curious, Salam. What have you based your interpretation of this on? Do you have any sources that I can go to of others who say that same thing as you are saying? Or any sources that justify this interpretation?

And could you answer my question about David and Psalm 51?

It's a very simple question: When David talked about God's Holy Spirit in Psalm 51, was he talking about the created angel, Gabriel?

[YieldedOne]

Salam Christian:
Notice that the Angel is not simply communicating the message, he is literally re-creating the vision he received from God to be communicated to John. John now sees Jesus among the lampstands, and Jesus begins speaking.

I can go with that fine (ie angel re-presenting the vision of Jesus for John. Basically angel-as-video-recorder. ). But the point is this, bro. You can't use this as proof that this angel is EXACTLY THE SAME BEING as the Holy Spirit. It's pretty flimsy as an argument. Please show me any biblical scholar and/or commentary on Revelation (liberal or otherwise) who would has said anything NEAR this.

And I'll be a monkey's uncle if your particular interpreation of this ONE PASSAGE that you use (Rev 1:1) contradicts all of the OT and NT passages about the Holy Spirit.

[YieldedOne]

And wait a second...

SC:
"After these things . . . And the first voice I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet said: 'Come up here so that I can show you what must happen after these things.' Immediately I was in The Spirit."

"first" here has a distinct sense of "foremost," "the one which came before."

And now, the voice who must "show John these things," The Spirit, is transmitting to him a new vision. Why does John distinguish between this voice and the voice of Jesus? There can only be one explanation: there are two speakers. This reconciles the fact that an Angel is the one who brings the message, not Jesus. Nor does he bring Jesus, and just plop him down in front of John.

Ok. I see what you're saying. Following this, let's say that that "voice of the trumpet" IS the voice of the angel...and preluding and distinct from the re-presented message of Jesus to the churches. (Two voices, remember?) None of this, bro, specifies that the angel's vocalization re-presentation of Jesus means that the angel himself is absolutely the same person as the Holy Spirit. Not at all. Especially if the "voice" that talks about the Spirit speaking to the churches is NOT the "first voice". Why? Because, taking what you are saying, CHRIST (the "second voice" ) is speaking to the churches...NOT the "first voice." The "first voice" then is just annunciatory of other things. See what I'm saying?

Your idea proves too much. The "voice of the trumpet" would be have to be DISTINCT from the Spirit of Jesus speaking to the church. See that?

[SalamChristian]

Ok. I see what you're saying. Following this, let's say that that "voice of the trumpet" IS the voice of the angel...and preluding and distinct from the re-presented message of Jesus to the churches. (Two voices, remember?) None of this, bro, specifies that the angel's vocalization re-presentation of Jesus means that the angel himself is absolutely the same person as the Holy Spirit.

Check it:

SC: "After these things . . . And the first voice I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet said: 'Come up here so that I can show you what must happen after these things.' Immediately I was in The Spirit."

So, the Angel with the Trumpet-like voice speaks above him, and he is in The Spirit, able to see what the Angel is seeing. See the equivalence?

Lastly, if the Angel is sent down to John by God, and the Holy Spirit is our direct link from Jesus to us (John 14:16), doesn't that also equate the two? Where does the Holy Spirit play out in your line of transmission of this message?

Peace brother

P.S. One break-down of the word "Paraclete" is para+kaléo--call (forth) by your side, summon by your side.

[Sol Invictus]

i understand that you have a lot to respond to salam, but i will note that you have not replied to my post.

[YieldedOne]

SC:
Lastly, if the Angel is sent down to John by God, and the Holy Spirit is our direct link from Jesus to us (John 14:16), doesn't that also equate the two?

Not that I see, bro. That's an unwarranted logical leap.

***********************************

Hey, SC. After you respond to Sol Invictus, it would really be good to hear your response to my question about David and Psalm 51. You said to FiveSolas that the WHOLE of Scripture needs to be taken into account. And since you are willing to bring scriptures OTHER THAN just Rev 1:1 to bear on this issue...I ask again...

When David talked about God's Holy Spirit in Psalm 51, was he specifically talking about the created angel, Gabriel? If so, upon what Scriptures do you base that?

[siam]

@YO
"Let me guess. There is little to no consideration of the Old Testament Prophet texts AT ALL in general Islamic discussion about the Holy Spirit...right? "

There are some scholars who feel that the words used in the Quran are specifically chosen for their meaning. These scholars feel that if God had meant something as X, he would have chosen the word for X and if he had meant Y he would have chosen the word for Y. I think such scholars have a point---so, in my opinion, when the Quran seems to use the words Angel Gabriel and the Holy Spirit interchangeably---it may be that the Holy Spirit expresses more of a "Quality"/Attribute.....

Also---the Quran discourages speculation about the Holy Spirit/Spirit so there is not much anyone will find out directly about it except what is neccessary for understanding certain concepts....Generally, for all matters, Muslims rely on the Quran to explain itself...but, as the Quran says, aquiring knowledge always makes it easier to understand.....

Judaism explains the Holy spirit (Ruach Hakodesh) as the spirit of Prophethood (it imparts knowledge/wisdom/message)
Spirit/Ruach (God's breath) is considered to be a higher state of spirituality (the state before is Nefesh---which is divided into Yetzer Hatov and Yetzer Hara---the highest state of spirituality is Neshama)---something like that.......

IMO---the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Prophethood would not contradict the Quran......

[SalamChristian]

Peace everybody :)

I am doing the best I can to consider the points everyone is making. :) It is 3 on one at the moment, so I have a lot to consider! And, I've been at classes since my last post, so that makes it even harder lol.

Let me drop some OT verses on you (here you go, YO) before I answer your questions at the bottom of my post:

"Then I heard a holy one speaking. Another holy one said to the one who was speaking, "To what period of time does the vision pertain . . ." Notice how this verse prefigures the Christ-Holy Spirit relationship as you read on:

" . . . While I, Daniel, was watching the vision, I sought to understand it. Now one who appeared to be a man was standing before me. Then I heard a human voice (i.e. like a son of man) coming from between the banks of the Ulai. It called out, "Gabriel, enable this person to understand the vision." So he approached the place where I was standing. As he came, I felt terrified and fell flat on the ground. Then he said to me, "Understand, son of man, that the vision pertains to the time of the end." As he spoke with me, I fell into a trance with my face to the ground . . . I, Daniel, was exhausted and sick for days . . . I was astonished at the vision, and there was no one to explain it." Daniel 8

"yes, while I was still praying, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen previously in a vision, was approaching me in my state of extreme weariness, around the time of the evening offering. He spoke with me, instructing me as follows: 'Daniel, I have now come to impart understanding to you. At the beginning of your requests a message went out, and I have come to convey it to you, for you are of great value in God's sight. Therefore consider the message and understand the vision:" Daniel 9

So Gabriel is the one who brings and interprets visions from God. Sounds like the Holy Spirit. Also sounds similar to Revelations.

Okay, here are tentative answers to each of your verses.

YO:

The verses about pouring filling et cetera--they are unimportant if we can prove that the Holy Spirit can take form. Luke 3:22 tells us that the Holy Spirit here takes the bodily form of a dove. Objection nullified. :)

Sol:

Your point is valid. I admit that it is a stumbling stone to our interpretation of God's scripture. Perhaps Gabriel is speaking mysteriously on purpose. Scripture does that often in parables, prophecies, et cetera.

Here is one thought I am entertaining (this is a preliminary thought, keep that in mind):

Gabriel etymology:

Geber(man/strength/warrior)-el(God)

Geber etymology (my thoughts)--it looks like it might be formed from:

gib(hill, height) - ruh

altogether:

gib-ruh-el = Gabriel = Jibreel (Gib can also be pronounced jib, depending on your dialect. Ancient Gideon is today called el-jib). Check out this link for more info: http://qbible.com/h/135.html

gib=hill, height, strength

ruh=spirit

el=God

Spirit of the Most High.

Also, apparently Jib/Gib has meanings of strength and manhood, but I am having a hard time looking this up and analyzing it, because I don't speak Hebrew. The only thing that I still need to place for sure is the "ruh." It may be different, because there is a slight accent difference in the characters that I am seeing, but again I am not sure. I am going to send some messages to some of the arabic speakers on the forum to see if I can find out more. I am friends with the Hebrew professor here at school to so I am going to go talk to her about it.

If I missed anything that you guys posted, let me know.

That's all I've got for tonight. I'll keep my eye on the responses to this thread, and I will do my best to answer them in my next post. :) I'm not saying that it is nailed down, but there is a surprising amount of evidence here brothers. There is more that I haven't said, but I want to research it before I put it on paper

Peace brothers

[Woodrow]

@YO
"Let me guess. There is little to no consideration of the Old Testament Prophet texts AT ALL in general Islamic discussion about the Holy Spirit...right? "

There are some scholars who feel that the words used in the Quran are specifically chosen for their meaning. These scholars feel that if God had meant something as X, he would have chosen the word for X and if he had meant Y he would have chosen the word for Y. I think such scholars have a point---so, in my opinion, when the Quran seems to use the words Angel Gabriel and the Holy Spirit interchangeably---it may be that the Holy Spirit expresses more of a "Quality"/Attribute.....

Also---the Quran discourages speculation about the Holy Spirit/Spirit so there is not much anyone will find out directly about it except what is neccessary for understanding certain concepts....Generally, for all matters, Muslims rely on the Quran to explain itself...but, as the Quran says, aquiring knowledge always makes it easier to understand.....

Judaism explains the Holy spirit (Ruach Hakodesh) as the spirit of Prophethood (it imparts knowledge/wisdom/message)
Spirit/Ruach (God's breath) is considered to be a higher state of spirituality (the state before is Nefesh---which is divided into Yetzer Hatov and Yetzer Hara---the highest state of spirituality is Neshama)---something like that.......

IMO---the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Prophethood would not contradict the Quran......

Among the people of the Abrahamic faiths the Jews, Muslims and Sabiens are very similar in the concept of what is meant by the "Holy spirit" it is only the Christians that have personified it and made it into part of a trinity.

[Woodrow]

@YO
"Let me guess. There is little to no consideration of the Old Testament Prophet texts AT ALL in general Islamic discussion about the Holy Spirit...right? "

There are some scholars who feel that the words used in the Quran are specifically chosen for their meaning. These scholars feel that if God had meant something as X, he would have chosen the word for X and if he had meant Y he would have chosen the word for Y. I think such scholars have a point---so, in my opinion, when the Quran seems to use the words Angel Gabriel and the Holy Spirit interchangeably---it may be that the Holy Spirit expresses more of a "Quality"/Attribute.....

Also---the Quran discourages speculation about the Holy Spirit/Spirit so there is not much anyone will find out directly about it except what is neccessary for understanding certain concepts....Generally, for all matters, Muslims rely on the Quran to explain itself...but, as the Quran says, aquiring knowledge always makes it easier to understand.....

Judaism explains the Holy spirit (Ruach Hakodesh) as the spirit of Prophethood (it imparts knowledge/wisdom/message)
Spirit/Ruach (God's breath) is considered to be a higher state of spirituality (the state before is Nefesh---which is divided into Yetzer Hatov and Yetzer Hara---the highest state of spirituality is Neshama)---something like that.......

IMO---the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Prophethood would not contradict the Quran......

Among the people of the Abrahamic faiths the Jews, Muslims and Sabiens are very similar in the concept of what is meant by the "Holy spirit" it is only the Christians that have personified it and made it into part of a trinity.

[siam]

"Among the people of the Abrahamic faiths the Jews, Muslims and Sabiens are very similar in the concept of what is meant by the "Holy spirit" it is only the Christians that have personified it and made it into part of a trinity. "

A Jewish Rabbi who participated in interfaith dialogues felt that of the 3 religions (Judasim, Christianity and Islam) it was Christianity that was the "odd man out". Perhaps Christians will keep this sentiment in mind when they try to decipher the OT?

[siam]

I found this in some of my notes----
Gabriel = strength of God
Micheal = He who is like God

The notes are old and I've forgotton the context so I can't add anymore to this......

[YieldedOne]

SC:
Let me drop some OT verses on you (here you go, YO) before I answer your questions at the bottom of my post:
...
So Gabriel is the one who brings and interprets visions from God.

All that this shows, Brother SC, is that an angel can be used by God to bring understanding and visions. Something in me told me that you were going to use this piece in Daniel because you've been so on the whole Gabriel thing. Surely, you see, bro, that this is more ANGELOLOGY than PNEUMATOLOGY that you're doing here. No biblically informed Christian would deny that angels can be used by God to bring revelation and interpretation of revelation. One can easily see that in OT and NT. But this is a far cry from saying the that angel Gabriel is IDENTICAL TO the Holy Spirit. How does showing that angels can bring revelation and interpretation of revelation necessarily lead to the conclusion that the the Holy Spirit is identical to the angel Gabriel.

There are some weird logical leaps being made here.

****************************************
SC:
The verses about pouring filling et cetera--they are unimportant if we can prove that the Holy Spirit can take form. Luke 3:22 tells us that the Holy Spirit here takes the bodily form of a dove. Objection nullified. :)

^o)

You are attempting to negate many OT prophecies about the HOly Spirit based upon the Spirit taking a bodily form? I can't even make sense of what you are saying right now. Honest to God. What ARE you saying with this?

And how come you are not answering the very simple question that I keep posing to you? Are you avoiding it for some reason? If you would please, answer my David question. Thanks. ;)

**************************************

Siam:
Judaism explains the Holy spirit (Ruach Hakodesh) as the spirit of Prophethood (it imparts knowledge/wisdom/message)
Spirit/Ruach (God's breath) is considered to be a higher state of spirituality (the state before is Nefesh---which is divided into Yetzer Hatov and Yetzer Hara---the highest state of spirituality is Neshama)---something like that.......

IMO---the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Prophethood would not contradict the Quran......

Some things...
1) The neshama is the highest point (or deepest depth, take your pick) of the soul which is related to intellect and perception of God. Suprisingly enough, Christians and Jews AGREE that this level of the soul exists and is in direct contact with the God's Breath. Believe it or not.

2) The "Spirit of Prophethood" that you are talking about is INSEPARABLE from God's Presence. Biblically to speak of the Spirit of the Lord or the Holy Spirit being UPON someone, you are not merely talking about some force of something like that, but God's PRESENCE and ACTIVITY in and upon a person declaring the Wisdom, Truth, and Power of God. The Spirit is GOD'S Spirit.

*************************************

Woodrow:
Among the people of the Abrahamic faiths the Jews, Muslims and Sabiens are very similar in the concept of what is meant by the "Holy spirit" it is only the Christians that have personified it and made it into part of a trinity.

Ok. Let's try something. Let's FORGET about the Holy Spirit being personified, ok? Again, let's FORGET that. That's not being asserted right now. Now take a look at this analogy I have...God as Uncreated Self-Expressive Speaker.

Basically, the One True God is a SPEAKER who eternally expresses himself as "I Am that I Am". (The Tetragammaton, the Name of God told to Moses, etc) That is God's self-expressive word of self-understanding. God's BREATH/SPIRIT is the power that God uses for the dissemination of God's wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. It is this wisdom, understanding and knowledge that ground God's spoken words or "speech" . For our purpose, God's spoken word is God's self-declaration and self-objectification of who God is: "I Am".

Now here's the deal. I say that God has been doing this even before Creation began. In other words, just like the Quran is said to be the "uncreated speech" of God...I believe that God's own self-declaration (I Am) is uncreated spoken word as well.

Analogically speaking, you cannot have a SPEAKER without BREATH/WISDOM and SPOKEN WORD. They are three aspects of ONE PERSON'S actions. And basically the Uncreated Speaker "breathes" his Spoken Word eternally SANS Creation. Thus the "Breath" and "Spoken Word" are uncreated as well.

Please remember that NONE OF THIS is talking about either the Spirit or the Word being PERSONS. I'm not asserting that here. All I'm saying is this: It is conceivable that the Uncreated God uses his Uncreated "Breath" to utter his Uncreated Word of Self-Declaration and Self-Expression. Basically having One God who AS SPEAKING GOD acts in a triune manner.

I must state this again: This is NOT giving personality to either the Spirit or the Word as such. But it is saying that, following the purported uncreated nature of the Quran, it is not against Muslim OR Jewish metaphysics to assert that God, His Breath/Wisdom, and His self-expressive Word are all uncreated.

[Woodrow]

Woodrow:
Among the people of the Abrahamic faiths the Jews, Muslims and Sabiens are very similar in the concept of what is meant by the "Holy spirit" it is only the Christians that have personified it and made it into part of a trinity.

Ok. Let's try something. Let's FORGET about the Holy Spirit being personified, ok? Again, let's FORGET that. That's not being asserted right now. Now take a look at this analogy I have...God as Uncreated Self-Expressive Speaker.

Basically, the One True God is a SPEAKER who eternally expresses himself as "I Am that I Am". (The Tetragammaton, the Name of God told to Moses, etc) That is God's self-expressive word of self-understanding. God's BREATH/SPIRIT is the power that God uses for the dissemination of God's wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. It is this wisdom, understanding and knowledge that ground God's spoken words or "speech" . For our purpose, God's spoken word is God's self-declaration and self-objectification of who God is: "I Am".

Now here's the deal. I say that God has been doing this even before Creation began. In other words, just like the Quran is said to be the "uncreated speech" of God...I believe that God's own self-declaration (I Am) is uncreated spoken word as well.

Analogically speaking, you cannot have a SPEAKER without BREATH/WISDOM and SPOKEN WORD. They are three aspects of ONE PERSON'S actions. And basically the Uncreated Speaker "breathes" his Spoken Word eternally SANS Creation. Thus the "Breath" and "Spoken Word" are uncreated as well.

Please remember that NONE OF THIS is talking about either the Spirit or the Word being PERSONS. I'm not asserting that here. All I'm saying is this: It is conceivable that the Uncreated God uses his Uncreated "Breath" to utter his Uncreated Word of Self-Declaration and Self-Expression. Basically having One God who AS SPEAKING GOD acts in a triune manner.

I must state this again: This is NOT giving personality to either the Spirit or the Word as such. But it is saying that, following the purported uncreated nature of the Quran, it is not against Muslim OR Jewish metaphysics to assert that God, His Breath/Wisdom, and His self-expressive Word are all uncreated.

If I am understanding you correctly you are now speaking in terms of attributes of one person, not seperate identities. A diamond may have may facets(attributes) but it takes all of the facets to make the one diamond. Allaah(swt) has unlimited attributes, most beyond our comprhension, but not one of the attributes is a seperate identity nor worshiped as a seperate being. All of the attributes are included in the one name Allaah(swt) and the one and only entity who is God(swt)

[YieldedOne]

Hmmm...gotta say a little more on the analogy above.

It seems like the major issue that Islam has with the idea of a necessarily triune uncreated reality is the concept of multiple PERSONS being uncreated. To Islam, having three uncreated personalities EQUALS tri-theism, plain and simple. I totally understand that.

AT THE SAME TIME...

If we are talking about God, His Breath/Wisdom, and His self-expressive Word/Speech being uncreated and necessarily triune (insofar as the Uncreated God is a speaking, self-understanding, self-expressing personal being), I don't see anything that denies the UNITY and ONENESS of God in that analysis. As long as full personhood is not attributed to either the Spirit of God or the Word of God, I don't see any problems that Muslims should have with that. Especially since Muslims already believe in uncreated "speech" of God ala the Quran without thinking that is any threat to God's unity and oneness.

Thus, ONE Uncreated God is a necessarily triune uncreated reality insofar as God eternally self-expresses as Speaker.

No tritheism. No negation of God's singularity. None of that.

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
If I am understanding you correctly you are now speaking in terms of attributes of one person, not seperate identities. A diamond may have may facets(attributes) but it takes all of the facets to make the one diamond.

EXACTAMUNDO!!!

:rock:

What this asserts is that the "facets" of the God's Breath and God's self-expressive Word are as uncreated as the Speaking God they belong to!!! :statisfie

[Sol Invictus]

yielded, how does your analogy not lead to modalism? is this merely the limits of human knowledge as it comes to any manner of expressing the trinity or should we take your analogy at face value. when god says that he is one unitarianism is taken for granted and not proven.

do you agree that the trinity is defined as the single being who is god being eternally existent as three persons?

[SalamChristian]

YO:

I'm not seeing where psalm 51 refutes the hypothesis at hand. I'm do apologize for missing this one--I answered all of your other quotations from the OT but I missed this one. I did say in my last post to tell me if I missed anything, though, because I had so much to respond to. Glad you did. :)

But what is the point about psalm 51 that you are making? I'm not seeing it. Is it something to do with "bera"?

Peace

[YieldedOne]

Yawn....bedtime...but before that...really quick...


Sol Invictus:
yielded, how does your analogy not lead to modalism? is this merely the limits of human knowledge as it comes to any manner of expressing the trinity or should we take your analogy at face value. when god says that he is one unitarianism is taken for granted and not proven.

Modalism (Sabellianism) states that the triunity of God's uncreated reality is only a PERCEPTUAL DISTORTION on the part of created believers. It states that there is NO REAL DISTINCTION between God, Spirit, and Word in terms of uncreated reality. My analogy doesn't say that at all. It AFFIRMS that there is a real difference between God, His Spirit, and His Word...but also real unity in that that are all aspects of the ONE self-understanding, self-expressing, speaking personal God. They are not 3 different "masks" for the same reality.


************************************************** *

Sol Invictus:
do you agree that the trinity is defined as the single being who is god being eternally existent as three persons?

Personally, I believe in the Nicene Creed, if that's what you mean. But that's because I'm a fairly knowledgeable Christians who is very self-aware of the terms of the Creed and what it means, including the unique view of "personhood" given by the Cappadocians. I'm sure that you would agree that many (far TOO many) Western Christians are functional TRITHEISTS with respect to a dysfunctional understanding of the Trinity.

But, Sol. All of the intricacies of my personal belief is not what I'm dealing with here. I'm dealing with a concept of a necessarily triune uncreated personal being concept that is CONSISTENT with 1) Islamic metaphysics/belief and 2) Old Testament (biblical) language of what God has revealed about Himself...such that the Spirit of God and the self-expressive Word of God are BOTH seen as uncreated realities unseparably linked from the Uncreated God to whom they belong. Just because I believe that the aspects of uncreated Spirit and Word are hypostatic doesn't mean that hypostacity is INHERENT in the idea of necessarily triune uncreated personal being itself.


************************************************** **
SalamChristian:
I'm not seeing where psalm 51 refutes the hypothesis at hand. I'm do apologize for missing this one--I answered all of your other quotations from the OT but I missed this one. I did say in my last post to tell me if I missed anything, though, because I had so much to respond to. Glad you did. :)
But what is the point about psalm 51 that you are making? I'm not seeing it. Is it something to do with "bera"?

My question is as follows, SC:

When David talked about God's Holy Spirit in Psalm 51, was he specifically talking about the created angel, Gabriel? If so, upon what relevant Scriptures do you base that?

That's it.

[Sol Invictus]

sorry yielded, my response was primarily directed at your agreements to the following: "If I am understanding you correctly you are now speaking in terms of attributes of one person, not seperate identities."

but anyway, i'm glad you cleared the matter up and yes, far too many people misunderstand the trinity as tritheism.

[SalamChristian]

My question is as follows, SC: When David talked about God's Holy Spirit in Psalm 51, was he specifically talking about the created angel, Gabriel? If so, upon what relevant Scriptures do you base that?

The Title of this thread is: Is The Holy Spirit the Angel Gabriel

My answer was yes. All of the scriptures I have quoted are available for everyone to see on this thread. If you think Psalm 51 fits that category, then my answer would be yes.

Peace

[siam]

Hmmm...gotta say a little more on the analogy above.

It seems like the major issue that Islam has with the idea of a necessarily triune uncreated reality is the concept of multiple PERSONS being uncreated. To Islam, having three uncreated personalities EQUALS tri-theism, plain and simple. I totally understand that.

AT THE SAME TIME...

If we are talking about God, His Breath/Wisdom, and His self-expressive Word/Speech being uncreated and necessarily triune (insofar as the Uncreated God is a speaking, self-understanding, self-expressing personal being), I don't see anything that denies the UNITY and ONENESS of God in that analysis. As long as full personhood is not attributed to either the Spirit of God or the Word of God, I don't see any problems that Muslims should have with that. Especially since Muslims already believe in uncreated "speech" of God ala the Quran without thinking that is any threat to God's unity and oneness.

Thus, ONE Uncreated God is a necessarily triune uncreated reality insofar as God eternally self-expresses as Speaker.

No tritheism. No negation of God's singularity. None of that.

Some of your comments are interesting YO...and perhaps I will give them more thought......however, the above about triune uncreated reality might be problematic....unless I am misunderstanding "reality". William Chittick quotes Mutahari in explaining---God is "the reality that is dependent upon no other reality, but upon whom all other realities depend, through whose will all other realities have come into being, and who has not come into being through any other principle"

Therefore...there is only One God and One reality........

[YieldedOne]

SalamChristian:
The Title of this thread is: Is The Holy Spirit the Angel Gabriel
My answer was yes. All of the scriptures I have quoted are available for everyone to see on this thread. If you think Psalm 51 fits that category, then my answer would be yes.

Wait a sec. I know that you think that you are defending this fairly well. But there's a lot to be desired, bro. For real. If you were to try to defend this at a seminary, this would be shot down faster than an enemy aircraft. Not trying to be mean, just real. Much of your argumentation seems based off of at best circumstantial evidence that you are trying desperately to make stick.

For example, if you really think that David ACTUALLY and SPECIFICALLY MEANT the angel Gabriel when he prayed to God in that Psalm, you are going to have to produce some evidence that DAVID actually thought that way. Go to the life and times of David to see if there is any indication that he truly believed that the Holy Spirit (that he didn't want taken away from him by God) was SOLELY Gabriel, a created angel. You can't just quote Daniel (which mentions Gabriel) and actually think that answers this question, because it doesn't. Really. You can't just read stuff back INTO him, you know.

If you think that your argumentation is convincing, I sure can't stop you from believing that. But I will say this: if you want other intelligent, informed Christians to go with this, you've got a bit to go, bro. Mad love, homie.

************************************************** *****
Siam:
Some of your comments are interesting YO...and perhaps I will give them more thought......however, the above about triune uncreated reality might be problematic....unless I am misunderstanding "reality". William Chittick quotes Mutahari in explaining---God is "the reality that is dependent upon no other reality, but upon whom all other realities depend, through whose will all other realities have come into being, and who has not come into being through any other principle"
Therefore...there is only One God and One reality........

Look closely at what Woodrow said. He straight up nailed it.

If I am understanding you correctly you are now speaking in terms of attributes of one person, not seperate identities. A diamond may have may facets(attributes) but it takes all of the facets to make the one diamond.

We ARE talking about One God and One uncreated reality. I'm just saying that that ONE uncreated reality has a necessarily triune dimension insofar as God is a speaking, self-understanding, self-expressing personal being ("I Am that I Am") sans Creation. Please remember that most Muslims believe in uncreated "speech" (ala the Quran)...while that doesn't constitute any type of dualism in the uncreated. So, since that's the case, there should be absolutely no problem with what I'm suggesting.

[SalamChristian]

We ARE talking about One God and One uncreated reality. I'm just saying that that ONE uncreated reality has a necessarily triune dimension insofar as God is a speaking, self-understanding, self-expressing personal being ("I Am that I Am") sans Creation. Please remember that most Muslims believe in uncreated "speech" (ala the Quran)...while that doesn't constitute any type of dualism in the uncreated. So, since that's the case, there should be absolutely no problem with what I'm suggesting.

To add something to this side discussion, this ayah is in Al-Isra:

Yusuf Ali:
"Say: Cry unto Allah, or cry unto the Beneficient, unto whichsoever ye cry (it is the same). His are the most beautiful names." 17:110

LOL, and here is another great ayah from the Qu'ran which fits right into our main discussion:

"They will ask thee concerning the Spirit. Say: The Spirit is by command of my Lord, and of knowledge ye have been vouchsafed but little." 17:85

Peace

[SalamChristian]

Peace everybody,

if you want other . . . Christians to go with this, you've got a bit to go, bro.

I know. :) I haven't proved that

David ACTUALLY and SPECIFICALLY MEANT the angel Gabriel

as you said.

I have proved a lot of stuff that my Christian detractors originally contradicted in the process of this discussion, however. And, looking at everything that I have proved, I am now going to make a very solid argument that the Holy Spirit resides within the Angel Gabriel, as it resides within Jesus and all other Holy beings, and that a great amount of textual evidence exists that Gabriel is the preferred transmitter of it from Heaven, and that he was the one who transmitted it onto Mary at the birth of Jesus.

The Spirit is transmitted from the breath/touch of a being which is already filled with it:
Luke 3:22--Jesus receives the Holy Spirit from one like a dove
Acts 19:17--Paul transmits the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands
John 20:22--The Apostles receive the Holy Spirit from the breath (spirit) of Jesus.

The Spirit can (and should be) received more than once, until you are filled with it:
Luke 3:22, Matt 3:17--Jesus is baptized with the Spirit so that he may be "filled" with all righteousness, after he was already born by it
John 20:22/Acts 2--The 11 original Apostles receive the Holy Spirit first from Jesus, and then they receive it and are "filled" at Pentecost

(YO, this fits in with our discussion on the Mystic Thread of Christ "emptying" himself and also the "sacrifice of a broken spirit" of Psalm 51)

The Spirit is transmitted by Holy beings, and also non-human beings (and also Humans, i.e. Paul):
Luke 3:22--a bodily form like a dove transmits the Spirit to Jesus
Revelations 1:1--an angel transmits the Spirit to John

The Angel Gabriel transmits the Holy Spirit to Daniel, so that he may prophesy and understand visions:
Daniel 8, 9 (notice the laying on of hands and the trance state)

An Angel exists who has the power to fill with the Holy Spirit:
The Angel of Revelations calls out to John, and John is in the Spirit, again experiencing visions, Revelations 4:1-2

LASTLY, if we take the text literally, then Gabriel's visit to Mary and Elizabeth in the text specifically states that Gabriel transmits the Holy Spirit on Mary via embrace:
Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the Power of the Most High will overshadow/embrace you."

The name Gabriel does mean Power/Strength/Might/Force of the Most High (among other senses), and he stands in the presence of God. Indeed, this is probably why Hebrew speaking Jews accepted the claim in Enoch that Gabriel "presides over all that is powerful" as scripture. Indeed, the Greek "dunamis" literally means power/(physical)strength/might, which are all meanings within the umbrella term "geber," "gabor," "gabrah" which Gabriel is built from, giving a lot of weight to this linguistic analysis, as they share numerous connections and not simply a peripheral one. As I said earlier, Gabriel=Geber(Power/Might/Strength/Force)-el(God).

We are left with a framework built upon sound exegesis conclusively proving that the Holy Spirit does reside in Gabriel, that it is transmitted by an Angel, one like a dove, Jesus, Paul, and even Gabriel himself. Lastly, Gabriel seems to be the preferred transmitter of this message from heaven, excepting the one like a dove (providing that we don't conclude that is Gabriel too), and Jesus intends to send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles from him more than once.

Peace

[YieldedOne]

SalamChristian:
And, looking at everything that I have proved, I am now going to make a very solid argument that the Holy Spirit resides within the Angel Gabriel, as it resides within Jesus and all other Holy beings, and that a great amount of textual evidence exists that Gabriel is the preferred transmitter of it from Heaven, and that he was the one who transmitted it onto Mary at the birth of Jesus.

Wait a second. This is a different argument that you were making before. Before you seemed to be saying that the Holy Spirit was ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL TO the created angel, Gabriel. You're not saying that now. Now you seem to be saying that the angel Gabriel is a MEDIUM of sorts for the Holy Spirit's activity.

Which claim are you trying to make?

PS: Check out what I've put on the "paraclete" thread. I think you will be interested. :D

[SalamChristian]

Which claim are you trying to make?

You sound like a Pharisee, lol. Tell me exactly what you are claiming! Haha, just kidding, but seriously check out what I say below:

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 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 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

[YieldedOne]

We're gonna play a little game called "Then and Now"!

Exact quote time.

THEN...

YO:
My question is as follows, SC:
When David talked about God's Holy Spirit in Psalm 51, was he specifically talking about the created angel, Gabriel? If so, upon what relevant Scriptures do you base that?

SalamChristian:
The Title of this thread is: Is The Holy Spirit the Angel Gabriel? My answer was yes. All of the scriptures I have quoted are available for everyone to see on this thread. If you think Psalm 51 fits that category, then my answer would be yes.


NOW...

SalamChristian:
And, looking at everything that I have proved, I am now going to make a very solid argument that the Holy Spirit resides within the Angel Gabriel, as it resides within Jesus and all other Holy beings, and that a great amount of textual evidence exists that Gabriel is the preferred transmitter of it from Heaven, and that he was the one who transmitted it onto Mary at the birth of Jesus.


^o)^o)^o)^o)^o)^o)^o)^o)^o)^o)^o)^o)^o)^o)^o)^o)^o )

[YieldedOne]

So, SalamChristian. Are you FORMALLY disagreeing with the claims of the following website?

What Is Meant by the Holy Spirit in the Qur'an?

Part of it...

It should be clear from the above that the Holy Spirit is the Angel Jibreel sent by Allah to assist His chosen servants in their divinely ordained missions."

Or this one?

In conclusion, the "Holy Spirit" in the Quran refers to the angel Gabriel and has nothing to do with Trinity or part of a Trinity.

[YieldedOne]

More of the "Then and Now" game..


THEN (3 days ago):
SalamChristian to FiveSolas in the "Paraclete" thread:
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?"


NOW:
SalamChristian:
Thus, the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit...

My brother, my brother. You seem to flip more than a politician in election year! Mad love...

LOL!!!

:haha:

[SalamChristian]

My brother, my brother. You seem to flip more than a politician in election year! Mad love... LOL!!!

Hahaha, I am Human, just like you! lol. Plus, I SAID from the beginning, that I was merely inspired to consider the ideas of Muslims in these threads. I never said that I had a complete system of proof from the beginning of this long Holy Spirit, Gabriel, "paraclete" discussion--quite the opposite in fact:

Then, at the beginning:

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?

I admit, that I haven't been in perfect righteousness and understanding from my birth, lol. But, if I bring you the Truth, you would do well to not reject it for my being human.

You have not exegetically reconciled the verses I have pointed out with your interpretation. Also, I would like to know if you have received the points I made about the Holy Spirit and Gabriel in the previous post, and if not, on what grounds you reject them. We have brought up all of the relevant verses I know of, and this exegesis is the one which makes comprehensive sense to me.

You asked:

So, SalamChristian. Are you FORMALLY disagreeing with the claims of the following website?

I will deal with Islam in full when you and I establish what the Exegesis of our scripture leads to first. :) Give me responses on that.

I will say, however, that I am curious whether Islam's understanding isn't fully reconcilable and indeed equivalent to the one we are ending up with after our honest exegesis in this thread. Here is a quote from the website you posted:

"The Holy Spirit mentioned in the above verse refers to the Angel Jibreel (Gabriel), also known as Jibraaeel; he is the message-bearer par excellence from Allah, the Lord of Glory and Grace; he is also the conduit of divine support and assistance bestowed on Prophets, Messengers as well as righteous people who strive in the path of Allah."

Of course, Muhammad also serves most of these functions, brings them from Gabriel to the Ummah, and to unbelievers.

Of course, I formally disagree with the claim that he has a monopoly on the role of "conduit of divine support," because the Holy Spirit can also be transmitted by believers on this earth and is transmitted by Jesus to the Apostles. But we should take the Qu'ran as the authority, if we want to know what the Qu'ran preaches, and not anyone else. So let's save that, like I said, until I get a response from you on my TWO very LONG posts. :)

Peace brother

[YieldedOne]

SalamChristian:
I will deal with Islam in full when you and I establish what the Exegesis of our scripture leads to first. :) Give me responses on that.

Honestly, bro, I'm having some issues with your form of exegesis. I disagree with a number of your interpretations. Let me just give ONE example. One.

You said:
LASTLY, if we take the text literally, then Gabriel's visit to Mary and Elizabeth in the text specifically states that Gabriel transmits the Holy Spirit on Mary via embrace:

Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the Power of the Most High will overshadow/embrace you."

The name Gabriel does mean Power/Strength/Might/Force of the Most High (among other senses), and he stands in the presence of God. Indeed, this is probably why Hebrew speaking Jews accepted the claim in Enoch that Gabriel "presides over all that is powerful" as scripture. Indeed, the Greek "dunamis" literally means power/(physical)strength/might, which are all meanings within the umbrella term "geber," "gabor," "gabrah" which Gabriel is built from, giving a lot of weight to this linguistic analysis, as they share numerous connections and not simply a peripheral one. As I said earlier, Gabriel=Geber(Power/Might/Strength/Force)-el(God).

Now, let's dissect this a bit.

First of all, if we JUST took the text, all that it says is that Gabriel merely TALKED to Mary...and nothing more.

I'm gonna put the whole encounter...

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Now, we can get the Greek if you like, but I don't think there's any reason to. There is no textual evidence of Gabriel doing anything AT ALL except talking to her. Just like he was sent by God to TALK to Zechariah about Elizabeth's imminent pregnancy with John the Baptist. (Luke 1:8-23)

Nah...let's go to the Greek. The word used for "overshadow" is episkiazó. If you look the etymology deals SPECIFICALLY WITH the idea of shade or shadow at it's root. Like the tree "casts shade" on the ground.

It has NOTHING...I repeat...NOTHING to do with "embracing" at all! Not one iota.

So you are WRONGLY interpreting the word, forcing it to mean what it clearly doesn't. As such, your whole idea (that the Holy Spirit was transmitted to Mary via his physical "embrace" of her) is not textually justified in the least!

Then you go on to attempt to justify this by some etymological excursion into Gabriel's name. Basically, your argumentation goes thusly:

The etymology of Gabriel's name involves "power" and "might"...so we can conclude that the "Power of the Most High" that Gabriel is talking about involves himself in some way.

But this is completely unwarranted. Completely. It seems like outright exegetical gymnastics towards a intended agenda: aligning Gabriel directly with the Holy Spirit.

And, bro...this is ONE instance. ONE.

Do you see why I may have issues trying to deal with ALL the Scriptures you mention?

Seriously. :hmm:

I ain't trying to be harsh or anything like that, my brother. I just want to show you where I'm coming from, ya dig? :shade:

[SalamChristian]

It has NOTHING...I repeat...NOTHING to do with "embracing" at all!

overshadow. "From epi and a derivative of skia; to cast a shade upon, i.e. (by analogy) to envelop in a haze of brilliancy; figuratively, to invest with preternatural influence -- overshadow"


I want you to understand where they are getting "envelop" from--the word "skia" does mean shadow, but specifically in the sense of the outline of the shadow. When I say "embrace" my point is that it does have a distinct meaning of close contact, and of transmitting something. Obviously I don't mean that the Angel Gabriel had sex with Mary. Even Muslims don't believe that.


From Getting in God's Face by Dutch Sheets:


"'Overshadow' is the Greek Word episkiazo, which means to cast a shade upon; to envelop in a haze of brilliancy; to invest with a supernatural influence. It's the same word that's used in Acts 5:15 when people are trying to get close to Peter--in his shadow--so they would be healed. Have you ever wondered why Peter's shadow could heal anyone? It didn't. What was actually happening was that the Holy Spirit was "moving" out from Peter--overshadowing--and when people stepped into the cloud or overshadowing, they were healed."


I'm don't mean for it to hurt you, but the evidence is actually very strong, and it's not coming from me but from the scripture.



Peace

[YieldedOne]

SalamChristian:
When I say "embrace" my point is that it does have a distinct meaning of close contact, and of transmitting something. Obviously I don't mean that the Angel Gabriel had sex with Mary. Even Muslims don't believe that.

I didn't say anything about sex. I'm talking about ANY AMOUNT of touching, embracing, or physical contact at all. In other words, there is nothing textual to even suggest that Gabriel had any physical contact with Mary at all. At all. This is what you've said...

"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."

These are your exact words, bro. You've mentioned transmission of the Holy Spirit via physical contact. THAT'S what I understood when you said "embrace", not sex.

What I'm trying to tell you, homie, is that this is NOT JUSTIFIED by the etmyology of the word episkiazo. Not even your quote from Dutch Sheets even says that. It says nothing about physical embrace. As a matter of fact, the word in Acts 5:15 SPECIFICALLY talks about Peter's SHADOW "falling" on the people. And all Dutch Sheets did was make an ANALOGY between the Holy Spirit's activity through Peter's shadow...and the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit.

None of this has anything to do with physical touching at all...let alone embracing. Do you really not see this? Really?

[SalamChristian]

None of this has anything to do with physical touching at all...let alone embracing. Do you really not see this? Really?

It does refer specifically to transmission of the Holy Spirit. It is the same language that is used in Acts 5:15.

SPECIFICALLY talks about Peter's SHADOW "falling"

No, it does not specifically talk about a shadow. That's the point that Dutch Sheets makes. A better way to say it would be to say that the aura or "haze of brilliancy" (As Strong's defines it) from Peter that comes out from Peter to others. They must be within it in order to receive the Holy Spirit. It does not refer specifically to a simple shadow, such as the sun might cast. As I said earlier, the embracing was about "having a distinct meaning of close contact, and of transmitting something." "The Power of the Most High will be cast upon you" is equivalent to the point I have been trying to make in the last 3 posts, but you are attacking the metaphor I gave you instead of the point.

Peace

[YieldedOne]

SC:
As I said earlier, the embracing was about "having a distinct meaning of close contact". "The Power of the Most High will be cast upon you" is the point I have been trying to make in the last 3 posts, but you are attacking the metaphor I gave you instead of the point.

Oy vay. :skeleton:

Let's just play this your way. Let's also leave out the word "embrace", ok?

1) What SPECIFICALLY is the "close contact" to which you refer between Mary and the "Power of the Most High"? Does it have anything at all to do with PHYSICAL proximity and/or touch?

and...

2) HOW is Gabriel involved in this "close contact" at all? Does his involvement have anything at all to do with PHYSICAL proximity and/or touch?

Please be very, very specific. My brain's hurtin' now. :exhausted

[YieldedOne]

SC:
It does refer specifically to transmission of the Holy Spirit. It is the same language that is used in Acts 5:15.

Woooooow. Are you saying that Act 5:15 means that Peter TRANSMITTED the Holy Spirit to those sick people via his shadow, not just that the Holy Spirit worked through his shadow to heal others?

Ok. Turn me over, I'm done. You win. :heated:

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

LASTLY, if we take the text literally, then Gabriel's visit to Mary and Elizabeth in the text specifically states that Gabriel transmits the Holy Spirit on Mary via embrace: Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the Power of the Most High will overshadow/embrace you."

[SalamChristian]

TRANSMITTED the Holy Spirit to those sick people via his shadow, not just that the Holy Spirit worked through his shadow to heal others?

That is exactly what I am saying. Paul transmits the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands in Acts 19:6. In fact, this whole episode with Peter is pre-figured in the woman who touches the hem of Christ's garment. "I felt the power go out/forth from me."

not just that the Holy Spirit worked through his shadow to heal others?

It was transmitted out through contact with the "haze of brilliancy" (strong's) which came from Peter to those who were sick. Notice that they were trying to get within this aura, because they had to be touched by it to receive the healing. :)

The idea of Laying on of Hands, breathing the Holy Spirit, et cetera is not foreign at all to our understanding of the Spirit.

Let's also leave out the word "embrace", ok?

Sure thing!

HOW is Gabriel involved in this "close contact" at all?

Let's read the words in question:

"The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."

1. "eperchomai"=come on with the specific sense of staying on you/unable to be taken off = so let's say invested (this is the only English word I can think of which fits these requirements)
2. "Power of the Most High"=Gabriel=geber (power, might, strength, force) + el (God) // "geber" isn't just peripherally a synonym for "dunamis"--they both have meanings of "might, strength, force, and power" Moreover, Hebrew speaking Jews recognized this in Enoch--Gabriel was identified as the "angel that presides over all that is powerful."
3. "overshadow"=episkiasei=cast upon you such that it transmits (i.e. the Holy Spirit), as we have shown is most fitting.

ALTOGETHER

"The Holy Spirit will be invested in you, and Gabriel will be cast upon you/transmit (it)."

Peace

[YieldedOne]

SalamChristian:
3. "overshadow"=episkiasei=cast upon you such that it transmits (i.e. the Holy Spirit), as we have shown is most fitting.

Can I show you something? And I really, really hope that this works. Do you know why Strong's uses the analogical term "haze of brilliancy? Let's look, ok? Please follow the thinking. I'm gonna try this. Lord, help.

If you look at all of the forms of episkiazó used in the Bible (By Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, that's only FIVE times)...THREE of those FIVE times all deal with different Gospel variations of the SAME EVENT: the Transfiguration of Jesus when the the Disciples were "overshadowed" by the brilliant cloud on Mt. Tabor. The OTHER two times is Luke 1:35 (the Mary passage)...and then the Peter passage you've mentioned.

So, the reason why Strong's defines it ANALOGICALLY they way that it does is because of the way the word is used with respect to the brilliant cloud on Mt. Tabor. It has NOTHING TO DO with the etymology of the word itself. That's why the Strong's says "(by analogy) to envelop in a haze of brilliancy"

So...to try to take this "haze of brilliancy" analogical note from Strong's and impose it on the Luke 1:35 passage is problematic at best. To make this "haze of brilliancy" idea attempt to mean "transmission" of some type. Well, I just don't know what to say about that.

Had to give it one more shot.

Peace, brother.

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

overshadow.

From epi and a derivative of skia; to cast a shade upon, i.e. (by analogy) to envelop in a haze of brilliancy; figuratively, to invest with preternatural influence -- overshadow.

see GREEK epi
see GREEK skia

ἐπεσκίαζεν (epeskiazen) − 1 Occurrence

ἐπεσκίασεν (epeskiasen) − 1 Occurrence

ἐπισκιάζουσα (episkiazousa) − 1 Occurrence

ἐπισκιάσει (episkiasei) − 1 Occurrence

ἐπισκιάσῃ (episkiasē) − 1 Occurrence

[SalamChristian]

So, the reason why Strong's defines it ANALOGICALLY they way that it does is because of the way the word is used with respect to the brilliant cloud on Mt. Tabor.

Nah. The 3rd definition sense provided here is "to invest with preternatural influence" which again fits with the invest point I made about "eperchomai" in the preceding phrase. It is the act of transmitting/investing the Holy Spirit, metaphorically viewed in the sense of a shadow or a brilliant haze or an aura or whatever metaphor you want to provide. The verses you quote strengthen the interpretation, because language does not exist in a vacuum but pulls meaning from all of its linguistic senses.

Have you heard of the aura which saints are said to give off? Notice how artistically they are always portrayed with a halo (i.e. aura)?

Asalaam Alaikum to you too, brother

P.S. What did you think about all of the other points I made about the nature of the Holy Spirit/Gabriel? I saw your post about the "paraclete" on the other Thread, and I am going to respond to it there.

[YieldedOne]

SC:
1. "eperchomai"=come on with the specific sense of staying on you/unable to be taken off = so let's say invested (this is the only English word I can think of which fits these requirements)

Let the reader decide for him/herself...

eperchomai

Original Word: ἐπέρχομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: eperchomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ep-er'-khom-ahee)
Short Definition: I approach, overtake, attack
Definition: I come to, arrive, come on, come upon, attack.

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

1904 epérxomai (from 1909 /epí, "on, fitting" and 2064/erxomai, "come") – properly, come upon, i.e. what comes and leaves its appropriate, inevitable effects that build on the particular coming. (Note the prefix epi, showing the action as the "epi-center" of what happens.)

1904/epérxomai ("come upon, apt-coming") stresses the "fitting results" of the coming – even more than the initial impact of the coming itself.

[1904 (epérxomai) is an intensification of the base-term (2064/erxomai, "coming").]

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

Word Origin

from epi and erchomai

Definition
to come to or upon

NASB Word Usage
attacks (1), came (1), come (5), coming (2).

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

come in, come upon.

From epi and erchomai; to supervene, i.e. Arrive, occur, impend, attack, (figuratively) influence -- come (in, upon).

see GREEK epi

see GREEK erchomai

ἐπεισελεύσεται (epeiseleusetai) − 1 Occurrence

ἐπελεύσεται (epeleusetai) − 1 Occurrence

ἐπέλθῃ (epelthē) − 2 Occurrences

ἐπελθόντος (epelthontos) − 1 Occurrence

ἐπελθὼν (epelthōn) − 1 Occurrence

[SalamChristian]

1904 epérxomai (from 1909 /epí, "on, fitting" and 2064/erxomai, "come") – properly, come upon, i.e. what comes and leaves its appropriate, inevitable effects that build on the particular coming. (Note the prefix epi, showing the action as the "epi-center" of what happens.) 1904/epérxomai ("come upon, apt-coming") stresses the "fitting results" of the coming – even more than the initial impact of the coming itself. [1904 (epérxomai) is an intensification of the base-term (2064/erxomai, "coming").]

:) :) :)

Shalom

[siam]

YO---have to disagree with you once again---:D
Muslims do not worship God's "attributes"---We worship God alone. God is an indivisble "reality"---not a triune reality.
....also..."attributes" do not take on the forms of animals or humans.....

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
YO---have to disagree with you once again---:D
Muslims do not worship God's "attributes"---We worship God alone. God is an indivisble "reality"---not a triune reality.

Woodrow understood what I was saying...and it seemed that he understood very clearly. He seems like a very intelligent fellow. Just because a reality is indivisible doesn't mean that it doesn't have different "facets".
Dude, are you just disagreeing just because? Man...

*********************************

Yo, SalamChristian. Do what you do, bro.

Actually, you know what? I know a coupla seminary professors here in St. Paul. Professors from Bethel Seminary. I'm gonna bring up your argument in it's fulness the next time we talk and see what they say. I'll put it right here when I do, ok? I can't wait to see what they say. Wow.

[Woodrow]

Siam:


Woodrow understood what I was saying...and it seemed that he understood very clearly. He seems like a very intelligent fellow. Just because a reality is indivisible doesn't mean that it doesn't have different "facets".
Dude, are you just disagreeing just because? Man...

At this point I want to reiterate that an attribute or facet is no more and no less then one aspect of the whole. An attribute does not exist separately nor independent of the whole.

[Ramadhan]

In Islam, the concept of God is fully understood in such clarity by illiterate farmer in the remote areas of Indonesia to software engineers in silicon valley, and they will be able to explain to non-muslims in a clear, accurate, and satisfying manner

In christiniaity, it seems the concept of God can only be grasped by a handful of pastors, priests and seminary professors, but they are not able to explain to non-christians in a clear, accurate, and satisfying manner

Is God the author of confusion, or does God want his creation to understand him in simple terms?

[SalamChristian]

Is God the author of confusion, or does God want his creation to understand him in simple terms?

I heaaaaaar that Brother! :) At the same time, I do believe that the Hadith have been used to take the mercy and trials out of the message of the Qu'ran. Some of the stories which are so beautiful in their description of God's mercifulness in the Torah and Injeel become cold and hard in the way the Hadith change the Qu'ran. :)

Salaam Alaikum brother

[SalamChristian]

Actually, you know what? I know a coupla seminary professors here in St. Paul. Professors from Bethel Seminary. I'm gonna bring up your argument in it's fulness the next time we talk and see what they say. I'll put it right here when I do, ok? I can't wait to see what they say. Wow.

Awesome! Don't forget to include the other points I made about the nature of the Holy Spirit/laying on of hands & breathing of it onto people from others. Did you see that post? You said you weren't going to respond to it because of that one question, but now that we have resolved it, what are your thoughts on the other points about the Holy Spirit that I make in that post?

Peace brother

[Woodrow]

I heaaaaaar that Brother! :) At the same time, I do believe that the Hadith have been used to take the mercy and trials out of the message of the Qu'ran. Some of the stories which are so beautiful in their description of God's mercifulness in the Torah and Injeel become cold and hard in the way the Hadith change the Qu'ran. :)

Salaam Alaikum brother

I am puzzled. Can you give an example of how " the Hadith change the Qu'ran."

[SalamChristian]

Now that we have resolved how Gabriel transmits the Holy Spirit to Mary in his visit to her, let's turn around and look at the other verses where the Holy Spirit shows up, and how they are also misunderstood:

Acts 2 describes the Pentecost. Someone lacking understanding might well say, look, here is an example where the Holy Spirit is transmitted w/o contact. However, let's look closer at the verse:

"Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them." Revelations 2:2

Most people dismiss these "tongues of fire" as meaningless. However, let's look a little closer at where "what seemed to be tongues of fire" also show up in scripture:

"The living beings looked like bright coals of fire or brilliant torches, and lightning seemed to flash back and forth among them." Ezekiel 1

"Seraphim"--the name of the highest order of Angels--means "the burning ones" or "burning serpent." Here is a quote:

"The root of Seraphim comes either from the Hebrew verb saraph ('to burn') or the Hebrew noun saraph (a fiery, flying serpent)."

It is clear from the text that Angels visited the 12 Apostles on Pentecost.

The NEXT MYTH to be debunked is the appearance of the Dove at the Baptism of Christ.

Luke:
"and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like/similar to a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

Matthew:
"After his baptism, as Jesus came up out of the water, immediately the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like/similar to a dove and settling on him."

Mark:
"Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like/similar to a dove descending upon Him"

Notice that Luke is even specifies that the Spirit is in bodily form like/similar to a dove. Every single one of the Gospels verifies that it is like a dove, but not that it is a dove. Moreover, 2/3 of the Gospels states that the dove descends immediately/without delay upon Christ's surfacing from the water--"euthus". What do you know of that moves faster than anything else and is often seen in bodily form that looks like a dove? Angels! Wings, hellooooooooo! :)

As you can see, Angels have always been connected with the transmission of the Holy Spirit, and the carrying of it from Heaven to men on earth. Praise be to God that he has re-established the true nature of the "paraclete" in this thread.

Shalom Aleichem

[SalamChristian]

I am puzzled. Can you give an example of how " the Hadith change the Qu'ran."

Here is a quote for you Woodrow:

"وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

My beloved brother,

You should know, May Allah preserve you, that recording the Sunnah, at the time of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم ) was initially prohibited then later on this command was abrogated as proven and concluded in the Sunnah.

The narrations that mention that Umar (رضي الله عنه) prohibitted compiling the Sunnah in writing or burning them came from weak routes. However, assuming the correctness of such stories, we need to know that he only disallowed compiling the Sunnah in books - at a time of Islam expansion and hence new people were embracing Islam everyday - so that they do not confuse the book of Allah with the Sunnah Books. Yet, he still encouraged people to memorize the Sunnah as the companions did instead of compiling it therefore he encourged narrating the Sunnah.

Wallahu A'lam"

Hadith is not the inerrant Word of God. The Qu'ran is. That is the difference. Hadith make good history and are good for understanding the time of the Prophet and for getting ideas about what Muhammad (as) would do, but the Qu'ran and Word of God is enough unto itself and nothing else is necessary.

Peace brother

[Ramadhan]

I heaaaaaar that Brother! At the same time, I do believe that the Hadith have been used to take the mercy and trials out of the message of the Qu'ran. Some of the stories which are so beautiful in their description of God's mercifulness in the Torah and Injeel become cold and hard in the way the Hadith change the Qu'ran.

I want to echo br. Woodrow's puzzlement.
Can you please clarify?
Another thing, from what I read of torah (the OT), it is full of God's wrath killing unjustly of non-israelites, women and children, while in the NT, God seems to have gone to the complete opposite direction.

[SalamChristian]

LASTLY, now that we have set the record straight about the BIBLE through sound exegesis, let's give credit where credit is due. The Qu'ran inspired this discussion of the Holy Spirit, the Angel Gabriel, and the Paraclete. The Qu'ran told us that Gabriel blew the Holy Spirit into Mary's vagina, and after an exegetical inspection of our own scriptures, we discover that the testimony of the Qu'ran is in fact testified to in our own scriptures, as in return our own scriptures testify to the testimony of the Qu'ran.

I recommend to all the Christian brothers and sisters on this website that you open up a Qu'ran and start to read it with an open mind instead of a closed one. In the same way, I recommend to all Muslim brothers and sisters on IB to open up the Bible and read it with an open mind. All of the problems I have found between the two are interpretational. Again, all of the problems I have found between the two are interpretational. A lot more progress will be made in our understanding if we approach each others texts this way, as the Paraclete Thread and this one have shown.

Peace brothers. Asalaam Alaikum Allahu Akbar,
AbdAllah

[SalamChristian]

Another thing, from what I read of torah (the OT), it is full of God's wrath killing unjustly of non-israelites, women and children, while in the NT, God seems to have gone to the complete opposite direction.

Specify for me, brother. Give me examples so I can clarify for you.

Salam

[Woodrow]

Here is a quote for you Woodrow:

"وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

My beloved brother,

You should know, May Allah preserve you, that recording the Sunnah, at the time of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم ) was initially prohibited then later on this command was abrogated as proven and concluded in the Sunnah.

The narrations that mention that Umar (رضي الله عنه) prohibitted compiling the Sunnah in writing or burning them came from weak routes. However, assuming the correctness of such stories, we need to know that he only disallowed compiling the Sunnah in books - at a time of Islam expansion and hence new people were embracing Islam everyday - so that they do not confuse the book of Allah with the Sunnah Books. Yet, he still encouraged people to memorize the Sunnah as the companions did instead of compiling it therefore he encourged narrating the Sunnah.

Wallahu A'lam"

Hadith is not the inerrant Word of God. The Qu'ran is. That is the difference. Hadith make good history and are good for understanding the time of the Prophet and for getting ideas about what Muhammad (as) would do, but the Qu'ran and Word of God is enough unto itself and nothing else is necessary.

Peace brother

We do agree on one point at least:

That is the difference. Hadith make good history and are good for understanding the time of the Prophet and for getting ideas about what Muhammad (as) would do,

We do not believe the Ahadith are the Quran. They are the eyewitness accounts of how Muhammad(PBUH) followed the Quran. We learn about how to follow the Quran by reading of how the person closest to it followed it. The Ahadith are not rewritings or explanations of the Quran, they are essentially the last 20 years of Muhammad's live and how he followed the Quran. They give an example of how our predecessor followed Islam and what he understood Islam to be. What can be a better example than the words of those who lived at that time, especially the stated opinions of Muhammad(PBUH)

[SalamChristian]

they are essentially the last 20 years of Muhammad's live and how he followed the Quran.

They are not inerrant. Only the Word of God is inerrant.

The Qu'ran, Jibreel (as), and Muhammad (as) testify to the Divinity of the Torah and Gospel.

All of the problems which Muslims turn to the Hadith for answers to are answered in the Torah and the Gospel. For example, a common question is "how many times a day should I pray"? Jesus (pbuh) tells us to pray every time that we realize we have sinned, as soon as we are able to. If we cannot speak aloud, he also makes it clear that Allah (swt) knows what is in our heads before we say it aloud, so this is not a problem. Problem solved.

Asalaam Alaikum

[Woodrow]

They are not inerrant. Only the Word of God is inerrant.

The Qu'ran, Jibreel (as), and Muhammad (as) testify to the Divinity of the Torah and Gospel.

All of the problems which Muslims turn to the Hadith for answers to are answered in the Torah and the Gospel. For example, a common question is "how many times a day should I pray"? Jesus (pbuh) tells us to pray every time that we realize we have sinned, as soon as we are able to. If we cannot speak aloud, he also makes it clear that Allah (swt) knows what is in our heads before we say it aloud, so this is not a problem. Problem solved.

Asalaam Alaikum

Except the Torah never was complete and the Injil was never preserved. what is called the Gospel is basically a Hadith of how Jesus(as) lived the Injil, but it is not the Injil nor is it the word of God(swt) it is the words of man and as seen through the eyes of man.

[Woodrow]

They are not inerrant. Only the Word of God is inerrant.

The Qu'ran, Jibreel (as), and Muhammad (as) testify to the Divinity of the Torah and Gospel.

All of the problems which Muslims turn to the Hadith for answers to are answered in the Torah and the Gospel. For example, a common question is "how many times a day should I pray"? Jesus (pbuh) tells us to pray every time that we realize we have sinned, as soon as we are able to. If we cannot speak aloud, he also makes it clear that Allah (swt) knows what is in our heads before we say it aloud, so this is not a problem. Problem solved.

Asalaam Alaikum

Except the Torah never was complete and the Injil was never preserved. what is called the Gospel is basically a Hadith of how Jesus(as) lived the Injil, but it is not the Injil nor is it the word of God(swt) it is the words of man and as seen through the eyes of man.

[SalamChristian]

what is called the Gospel is basically a Hadith of how Jesus(as) lived

Why would Jibreel (as) tell us that the Truth is in the Torah and Injeel, and that we should look to those books to see it? He told us to look to the Torah and the Injeel to find the Truth that the Qu'ran preaches. Isn't there an ayah in the Qu'ran to the effect of: 'if something else is taken as the Truth then its author must be produced and surely he must be a prophet?' :)

Shalom

[Ramadhan]

LASTLY, now that we have set the record straight about the BIBLE through sound exegesis, let's give credit where credit is due. The Qu'ran inspired this discussion of the Holy Spirit, the Angel Gabriel, and the Paraclete. The Qu'ran told us that Gabriel blew the Holy Spirit into Mary's vagina, and after an exegetical inspection of our own scriptures, we discover that the testimony of the Qu'ran is in fact testified to in our own scriptures, as in return our own scriptures testify to the testimony of the Qu'ran.

Please show me a Qur'an verse where it says Gabriel blew the holy spirit into Mary's vagina?

Although I must admit, that sounds like something out of bible.

[SalamChristian]

Mary's vagina?

the word is "farj," and it means vagina.

Apparently I am not allowed to post the link to this proof? Anyway, if you want the link to the proof of this, I will send it to you.

Shalom

[Woodrow]

Why would Jibreel (as) tell us that the Truth is in the Torah and Injeel, and that we should look to those books to see it? He told us to look to the Torah and the Injeel to find the Truth that the Qu'ran preaches. Isn't there an ayah in the Qu'ran to the effect of: 'if something else is taken as the Truth then its author must be produced and surely he must be a prophet?' :)

Shalom

Just my opinion here. But I see that as meaning what was revealed in the Torah and Injil originally, is repeated in the Qur'an. We do not believe the Qur'an is a new message, it is the same message that was always given, but revealed for all of mankind one last time in the Qur'an. Our last chance to learn what Allaah(swt) has always told mankind. The Torah and Injil, corrected and completed in a way it can be understood by all of us.

[Ramadhan]

They are not inerrant. Only the Word of God is inerrant.

Agreed. Although we believe in the authenticity of the shahih ahadeeth, unless you can show us otherwise.
There was a comparison in another thread between ahadeeth and gospels, and how it was shown that the gospels are much less authentic.

Also, we (muslims and christians) agree that gospels are not the Word of God, and hence suject to error, especially if its authenticity is not guaranteed.
So in that account, we are settled.

[SalamChristian]

The Torah and Injil, corrected and completed in a way it can be understood by all of us.

I agree. I am amazed at how the Qu'ran has challenged my views of the scripture, and consistently been correct according to an exegetical reading of my scriptures. This thread is just one example. It has been happening for the last 2 months since I started reading it, and it is downright eerie. When I started this thread, I didn't believe at all that Gabriel or Angels had a connection with the giving of the Holy Spirit, but now after this thread you see that it is clearly true for all to see. Clarity, that's what the Qu'ran promises. A clear book.

Corrected, however, is not the right word. The Torah and Injeel are not corrected, and that is not what the Qu'ran says. The MISINTERPRETATIONS of those DIVINE scriptures are corrected, and the true, clear interpretation is presented. The Qu'ran does not deny the inerrancy of the Bible, it affirms it.

Peace

[SalamChristian]

There was a comparison in another thread between ahadeeth and gospels, and how it was shown that the gospels are much less authentic.

No way! Someone on here was talking the other day about how one Hadith claims Muhammad (as) was short and overweight, which is a clear lie (all respect to Muhammad (pbuh)) Another Hadith clearly refutes it. NOTHING like that happens in the Gospels. It was a straight up insult to Muhammad (as) and hateful lie.

Also, we (muslims and christians) agree that gospels are not the Word of God

I don't agree. Jibreel (as) testifies to their inherent Truthfulness, and that the problems are simply interpretational. If you take the testimony of the Qu'ran and re-examine the scriptures with an open mind and a sound exegesis, you are actually enlightened about the Bible. I have experienced it now several times.

Shalom

[Ramadhan]

All of the problems which Muslims turn to the Hadith for answers to are answered in the Torah and the Gospel.

Really? I think it is clear that you misunderstand hadith.
Do the torah and gospel regulate personal and public hygiene and health? etc.
All I get from people explaining about gospel is that "jesus loves you and died for your sins" and so you can live your life as you pleased.
Even in simple things as what food are allowed to eat, God of the OT and NT seems to create confusion. Even today among christians there's disagreements over what is halal and what is haram.
While ahadeeths cover every aspects of human life because the prophet SAW played every roles as a trader, husband, son, father, businessman, head of state, scholars, worker, chief of military, head of government, poor person, rich person, healthy, ill, deeply spiritual, deeply entrenched in reality, etc etc.

For example, a common question is "how many times a day should I pray"? Jesus (pbuh) tells us to pray every time that we realize we have sinned, as soon as we are able to. If we cannot speak aloud, he also makes it clear that Allah (swt) knows what is in our heads before we say it aloud, so this is not a problem. Problem solved

For a moment, I thought you were one of a few christian who understood Islam, but I guessed wrong.
If you for a moment stop quoting articles from Islam haters, you will be able to to know the simple and stark difference of basic terms between "pray" and "shalah".

And if you have observed ahadeeth, and how true muslims practice their life, you will be able to know that muslims constantly pray from the moment we wake up in the morning until we close our eyes to sleep. we pray when we wake up, we pray when we eat, we pray when we are healthy, we pray when we are sick, etc.
As a muslims, we are not only required to pray only when we realize we have sinned, but we are required to be in constant remembrance of Allah.

I am inviting you to post your questions regarding Islam clarifications, discover islam or the general sections, because it seems you dont even know the basic information about islam and seem to have colored your opinions about Islam based on islamophobes and western orientals say about islam.

[SalamChristian]

All I get from people explaining about gospel is that "jesus loves you and died for your sins" and so you can live your life as you pleased.

That's not true Christianity. Catholics and Methodists have long emphasized that you do pay for your sins if you keep on sinning after you hear the Word/are shown your sin. John Wesley said that "the hottest places of hell are reserved for those who hear God's word do not fulfill all righteousness." Paul emphasizes it too. He says that if you keep sinning after you have truly received the message of Christ, then there are no more sacrafices for you--i.e. God will not be merciful to you.

Do the torah and gospel regulate personal and public hygiene and health? etc.

The Criterion is simple, as the Gospel and the Qu'ran BOTH testify. Remove sin from among you, forgive others, and pray for their salvation. Ibrahim did it. Muhammad (as) did it. The principle is sooo basic at its core, and it is ALL you need. As Jesus (pbuh) said, if your hand sins and you cannot stop it, cut it off. If your eye sins and you cannot stop it, pluck it out. If your brother sins, show him his sin, and if he refuses to recognize it, remove him from among you. And pray for your enemies, that they may find salvation if Allah pleases, and Allah knows best.

Allah will bring you a message concerning hygiene if he desires. And if you do not receive one, then surely he did not desire it, and you should not demand that he give you something which he chose not to do, for Allah knows best.

People these principles are really simple, in both of our religions. There is no need for this hate and this clinging on to that which is not divine. Allah most great, and he knows best.

I am inviting you to post your questions regarding Islam clarifications, discover islam or the general sections

Brother I have an Egyptian Sunni best friend here at college and another close Pakistani Shi'a friend. I ask them questions all the time. And I ask questions on this website too. I am constantly learning, and if you have something to show me then you will show me. If you don't show me, then surely it doesn't matter, for Allah is he who is the origin of all things and surely he knows best.

Peace

[Ramadhan]

No way! Someone on here was talking the other day about how one Hadith claims Muhammad (as) was short and overweight, which is a clear lie (all respect to Muhammad (pbuh)) Another Hadith clearly refutes it. NOTHING like that happens in the Gospels. It was a straight up insult to Muhammad (as) and hateful lie.

Please show us the hadith, who narrated it, who transmitted it, who recorded it, and the classifications of the hadith.
Muslims acknowledge that there are many false hadiths, but false and weak and doubtful hadith are clearly classified as being so.

The narrators, the transmitters, the charcters of all narrators and transmitters are examined and if there's even a blemish in the character, the hadith will be marked as doubtful. Also, one hadith that sayas the same thing may be narrated by as many persons as they were witnesses and transmitted by tehir students.
All these are meticuloulsy recorded and they are all still in the original language.
I can tell you who narrated and recorded and transmitted a praticular hadith, and this is true, historically and academically.

Can I ask you who wrote the gospel of mark? when it was written? what was the original language of the gospel? and the chain of transmissions?

I don't agree. Jibreel (as) testifies to their inherent Truthfulness, and that the problems are simply interpretational.

Can I ask you, which gospels that were written in first person story? I am not asking if God himself, but I only asked if any gospel were written from the point of view of Jesus (pbuh)?
You charged that ahadeeth are not words of God because they are accounts of the life of prophet Muhammad SAW, and I do agree.
Now, when I am applying the same standard that gospel contains the accounts of the life of prophet Jesus (pbuh), you reject, although it is your own standard.
Even then, the accounts of prophet Jesus (pbuh) as written in the gospel is extremely thin compared to the voluminous accounts of prophet Muhammad SAW as collected in the ahadeeth.

Do you know that christian scholars know prophet Muhammad life so much better so much more intimately than prophet Jesus' (pbuh)?

[SalamChristian]

Now, when I am applying the same standard that gospel contains the accounts of the life of prophet Jesus (pbuh), you reject, although it is your own standard.

My standard for the Gospel is that it is testified to in the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran testifies to the Truthfulness of the Injeel.

Muslims acknowledge that there are many false hadiths, but false and weak and doubtful hadith are clearly classified as being so. The narrators, the transmitters, the charcters of all narrators and transmitters are examined and if there's even a blemish in the character, the hadith will be marked as doubtful.

That's the problem with your whole framework for the Hadith. The Hadith have been debated on for nearly a thousand years. Changes have occurred in which were accepted, which were not, and how they were interpreted. To assume off the bat that the good ones are certainly known and the bad ones are certainly known is the wrong way to approach them. They are not divine, and your knowledge of which are acceptable and which aren't is also not divine, so you should not approach them with excess certainty.

Can I ask you who wrote the gospel of mark? when it was written? what was the original language of the gospel? and the chain of transmissions?

Brother we can go there, and I welcome the idea that Muslims might come to apply the same logic and criticism they apply to the Hadith to the Gospels. One of my majors is History, and I would enjoy that.

To be to the point, it isn't necessary. The earliest complete Bible we have was found in a Christian monastery in the Sinai Peninsula. It belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Church (closer to Muhammad). This same Monastery was written a letter by Muhammad (as) stating that he specifically gave them his peace and his protection and that anyone from the Ummah who might attack them or steal from them or harass their women or churches would surely suffer the hell fire. This Bible dates to 330 AD.

The Monastery is on holy ground, land mentioned in the Qu'ran.

Peace

P.S.

seem to have colored your opinions about Islam based on islamophobes and western orientals say about islam.

Nope. I have taken courses on Middle Eastern lit and read the thoughts of Muslims from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Sudan to elsewhere. In fact, since you bring up "Orientalism," I actually read the groundbreaking book on it, written by Edward Said in 1978, titled Orientalism. I've of course read history of colonialism in the East too--All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of the Middle East Terror, for example. Actually, I was introduced to Islamic eschatology in the Salih's book, and I found out that it is identical to that described in the Bible. :) Like I said, my best friend is an Egyptian, and I prayed with him as he led the prayer on Ramadan last year, and all the other Muslims on campus. I've got mad love for the East, bro.

Salaam

[SalamChristian]

Omar and I spoke earlier tonight about this, in fact. I told him exactly what I told you here. His reply:

"Brother you are sooo right. ALL of the religions--Judaism, Christianity, Islam--ALL of them have been INSTITUTIONALIZED. People talk to each other and first thing they attack each others scriptures, and that is not good. It is not productive, and it causes divisions."

My response:
"It divides and it causes sects. And surely they who create sects are of the losers, and they will taste the hell fire." :)

His response:
"Ya dude, except in Arabic, the word for losers is much worse."

Shalom

[siam]

I agree. I am amazed at how the Qu'ran has challenged my views of the scripture, and consistently been correct according to an exegetical reading of my scriptures. This thread is just one example. It has been happening for the last 2 months since I started reading it, and it is downright eerie. When I started this thread, I didn't believe at all that Gabriel or Angels had a connection with the giving of the Holy Spirit, but now after this thread you see that it is clearly true for all to see. Clarity, that's what the Qu'ran promises. A clear book.

Corrected, however, is not the right word. The Torah and Injeel are not corrected, and that is not what the Qu'ran says. The MISINTERPRETATIONS of those DIVINE scriptures are corrected, and the true, clear interpretation is presented. The Qu'ran does not deny the inerrancy of the Bible, it affirms it.

Peace

I know what you are speaking about. I have also read (small) parts of the (Jewish)Torah and the NT with the Quranic perspective/view in mind---and I can agree that the Quran corrects many misinterpretations/misunderstandings----BUT it also completes the concepts by adding nuance and linking them to other concepts creating an interwoven whole---It is wholistic/complete. (Once you have clarified the concepts for yourself,---I hope you will move on to how they are all linked together---it is interesting)

However, though I can agree that there is wisdom in the Torah and the NT if interpreted correctly, I cannot agree to their inerrancy........particularly if the Tawheed is compromised.......however, an argument on this aspect may simply be distracting from what you are discovering..........

[siam]

@YO
"Dude, are you just disagreeing just because? Man..."
-----'fraid so...my apologies......just one of those days where one has to get ones entertainment where ever one can......

[YieldedOne]

YO:
Dude, are you just disagreeing just because? Man..."
Siam: 'fraid so...my apologies......just one of those days where one has to get ones entertainment where ever one can......

Ha! Figures...

:haha:

[YieldedOne]

SalamChristian:
Don't forget to include the other points I made about the nature of the Holy Spirit/laying on of hands & breathing of it onto people from others. Did you see that post? You said you weren't going to respond to it because of that one question, but now that we have resolved it, what are your thoughts on the other points about the Holy Spirit that I make in that post?


I want to make sure to get your main point down. This is what I have so far after the little "Then and Now" game...

"I am now going to make a very solid argument that the Holy Spirit resides within the Angel Gabriel, as it resides within Jesus and all other Holy beings, and that a great amount of textual evidence exists that Gabriel is the preferred transmitter of it from Heaven, and that he was the one who transmitted it onto Mary at the birth of Jesus."

Then I asked if you were formally disagreeing with the idea that the Holy Spirit was completely identical to the angel Gabriel. You responded thusly...

"Of course, I formally disagree with the claim that he has a monopoly on the role of "conduit of divine support," because the Holy Spirit can also be transmitted by believers on this earth and is transmitted by Jesus to the Apostles."

All I could get from all your stuff is as follows:

1) The angel Gabriel is NOT THE SAME THING as the Holy Spirit of God. The two are NOT to be conceptualized as identical.

2) It it biblically feasible that the angel Gabriel can be a mediator of the power and presence of the Holy Spirit towards others.

3) The angel Gabriel is NOT the sole mediator of the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, as other humans can and do have this ability.

If the above 3 statements are true, then your particular answer to the question "Is the Holy Spirit the angel Gabriel?" is a big NO. In other words, you are FORMALLY DISAGREEING with the Islamic idea that the Holy Spirit nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel.

I want to make absolutely sure that I'm getting what you are saying clearly.

PS: If all you are saying is 1-3 above, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[YieldedOne]

In my mind, Salam, the crux of the issue is the following: Is the claim that the Holy Spirit is NOTHING MORE OR LESS THAN the Holy Spirit of God a true claim? So far, I hear you answering "NO."

If this is the case, then all the other stuff seems pretty moot. As you said, the title of this thread is "Is the Holy Spirit the Angel Gabriel?" All we are trying to do is answer that question. Saying that Gabriel may be a "preferred" vehicle for mediatorial activity between the Holy Spirit of God and other persons is simply not the claim that Islam makes when it says that Gabriel IS the Holy Spirit.

Do you agree to all this?

[SalamChristian]

1) The angel Gabriel is NOT THE SAME THING as the Holy Spirit of God. The two are NOT to be conceptualized as identical.

He doesn't have a monopoly on it. Jesus is also full of the Holy Spirit, as are the Apostles et cetera. However, I made a point about how the language of the Holy Spirit is also cryptic. Think of the mystic you quoted the other day: "there is nothing in my cloak but Allah." This is precisely how Psalm 51 describes the "emptying"--kenosis of Jesus on the cross. If a being is totally filled with the Holy Spirit, I think you could say they are "one" with the Holy Spirit :) Just a thought. But, do be clear, I DO NOT think that Gabriel is the absolute manifestation of the Holy Spirit (at this time, that seems impossible).

2) It it biblically feasible that the angel Gabriel can be a mediator of the power and presence of the Holy Spirit towards others. 3) The angel Gabriel is NOT the sole mediator of the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, as other humans can and do have this ability.

Yes and yes. However, it is not only biblically feasible, it is the typical biblical method by which the Holy Spirit is transmitted. Daniel and Mary receive it from Gabriel. An angel gives it to John in Revelations. 12 Seraphim give it to the Apostles on Pentecost. And, as my analysis pointed, the evidence that an angel transmitted it at the Baptism of Jesus is compelling. From my reading of scripture, only Angels and Jesus bring the Holy Spirit from heaven. Humans, however, of course also have this ability. Paul transmits it, for example. The Apostles and other people function as a middle link--once it is brought to heaven they bring it to others.

"Is the Holy Spirit the angel Gabriel?" is a big NO.

Look to my answer for #1. It could be a mystical issue we are dealing with here. "That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" could lead us to a claim that a being filled with the Holy Spirit is one with the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is greater than any individual container.

In other words, you are FORMALLY DISAGREEING with the Islamic idea that the Holy Spirit nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel.

Yes. I am disagreeing with this interpretation. However, I'm not sure this is Qu'ranically supportable anyway. Gabriel says that he blows the Holy Spirit into Mary. Moreover, Allah is taken to be the author of the Qu'ran, so when it says "Our Spirit" you could argue it is talking about God's Spirit, not Gabriel's. There are Muslims who argue this direction.

Shalom

[SalamChristian]

Is the claim that the Holy Spirit is NOTHING MORE OR LESS THAN the Holy Spirit of God a true claim? So far, I hear you answering "NO."

Correct. You can't say Nothing more or less. You might be able to say, though, that Gabriel is NOTHING MORE than a container for the Holy Spirit, just like all other Holy Beings, as God is all in all.

[SalamChristian]

Saying that Gabriel may be a "preferred" vehicle for mediatorial activity between the Holy Spirit of God and other persons is simply not the claim that Islam makes when it says that Gabriel IS the Holy Spirit. Do you agree to all this?

Again, that is providing that this is the claim that the Qu'ran makes, because the Qu'ran is the authority in Islam, and nothing else. There is not uniformity in Islam about this issue. There are Muslims who argue along differing lines regarding the relationship of the Holy Spirit and Gabriel. There is even a verse which recommends that people do not make conclusions about "The Spirit," because they have only been given a little knowledge of what it is.

Peace

[YieldedOne]

YO: In other words, you are FORMALLY DISAGREEING with the Islamic idea that the Holy Spirit nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel.

SC: Yes. I am disagreeing with this interpretation.

OK! That's what I wanted to know. Thanks! :)

****************************
SalamChristian:
There is not uniformity in Islam about this issue. There are Muslims who argue along differing lines regarding the relationship of the Holy Spirit and Gabriel.

What would you say is the MAJORITY perspective on the issue? In other words, what would MOST Islamic adherents claim about Gabriel being identical to the Holy Spirit?

[Thinker]

Why did God choose to deliver his message to Moses personally and in writing yet sent Gabriel to deliver the message to Muhammad and deliver it verbally and hope he remembered it correctly?

[YieldedOne]

Thinker:
Why did God choose to deliver his message to Moses personally and in writing yet sent Gabriel to deliver the message to Muhammad and deliver it verbally in trust to his memory?

Interesting question. VERY interesting question. Particularly if many (most) prophets in the Bible had direct encounters with God and direct words from God himself, not solely through an angel.

Good question.

[YieldedOne]

SalamChristian:
Yes. I am disagreeing with this interpretation. However, I'm not sure this is Qu'ranically supportable anyway.

Well, let's ask. Yo, yo! Siam. Naidamar. Woodrow. Whoever else. Is it Quranically supportable to say that the Holy Spirit is nothing more or less than the angel Jibreel?

Link #1

Link #2

Link #3

[SalamChristian]

Thinker: Why did God choose to deliver his message to Moses personally and in writing yet sent Gabriel to deliver the message to Muhammad and deliver it verbally in trust to his memory? Interesting question. VERY interesting question. Particularly if many (most) prophets in the Bible had direct encounters with God and direct words from God himself, not solely through an angel. Good question.

Maybe God had better things to do? lol. Gabriel spent 24 years with Muhammad (as), if not more. He was not only present at times of revelation, he also functioned as as a Guardian Angel. God just doesn't do anything like that in the OT. When he comes, it is to make drama--shock and awe.

Well, let's ask. Yo, yo! Siam. Naidamar. Woodrow. Whoever else. Is it Quranically supportable to say that the Holy Spirit is nothing more or less than the angel Jibreel?

Asking is totally fine with me, but it is not going to be sufficient. Now that the Qu'ran has taught us that Gabriel transmitted the Holy Spirit to Mary--and that our biblical scriptures have reaffirmed this account--I am not going to simply reject this issue in the Qu'ran without a sound exegesis of its texts. Moreover, I think any real Muslim would encourage you to read the Qu'ran for itself and to let it make its own impression on your mind:

I think such scholars have a point---so, in my opinion, when the Quran seems to use the words Angel Gabriel and the Holy Spirit interchangeably---it may be that the Holy Spirit expresses more of a "Quality"/Attribute..... Also---the Quran discourages speculation about the Holy Spirit/Spirit so there is not much anyone will find out directly about it except what is neccessary for understanding certain concepts....Generally, for all matters, Muslims rely on the Quran to explain itself...but, as the Quran says, aquiring knowledge always makes it easier to understand.....

Tempting as it may be to make brash conclusions about the Qu'ran so you can reject it and feel more easy about its flaws and the superiority of your own scripture, that would be a mistake. The Qu'ran has brought sound exegesis to the Bible today, and you owe it the respect to turn around and consider what it says in its own right. The Truth Will Set You Free--Veritas Liberabit Vos, as Jesus said. :)

Shalom

[YieldedOne]

SalamChristian:
Now that the Qu'ran has taught us that Gabriel transmitted the Holy Spirit to Mary...

Ok. You've read the Quran, apparently. Exactly WHERE and HOW does the Quran specify that Gabriel transmitted the Holy Spirit to Mary. Do NOT use any Bible verses. Just go by Quranic passages, please.

[SalamChristian]

"and kept herself in seclusion from them, whereupon We sent unto her Our angel of revelation, who appeared to her in the shape of a well-made human being . . . . [The angel] answered: 'I am but a messenger of thy Sustainer, [who says] 'I shall bestow upon thee the gift of a son endowed with purity.' [The angel] answered: 'Thus it is; [but] thy Sustainer says, 'This is easy for Me; and [thou shalt have a son,] so that We might make him a symbol unto mankind and an act of grace from Us. And it was a thing decreed [by God:]"

The "bestowed with purity" is actually Holy here. To bestow upon you a holy son (see Yusuf Ali's translation). It's actually amazing how identical the accounts are with our scriptures.

When Allah speaks of himself, he always does so in the plural, in Hebrew and Arabic. This is true of Genesis as well as the Qu'ran. The plurality does not imply many, but a divinity beyond human comprehension. "We did this, we did that." the Royal We--that's where we get that phrase, by the way. Thus Adonai means LORDS--while it is the substitute word for the ONE true God in Hebrew. Adonis is the singular.

"And her who gaurded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples. Verily, this Brotherhood of yours is a single Brotherhood and I am your Lord and Cherisher. But (later generations) cut off their affair (of unity), one from another; (yet) will they all return to Us."

Here it is in the plural. God is breathing the Spirit in, Gabriel is bestowing the son. Don't you see the interesting exegesis and relationship already developing here of the Qu'ran? :) My friend told me once, "Man, reading the Qu'ran in Arabic is like an antidote. It sucks the poison out."

Salaam

[SalamChristian]

Actually, here are some great ayah relating to an exegesis of the Qu'ran, and they fit perfectly with the Biblical message we are getting on the subject:

He sendeth down the angels with the spirit by His command upon whomsoever of his bondmen He willeth: warn that there is no god but I, wherefore fear Me. S. 16:2 Daryabadi


We have indeed revealed this (Message) in the Night of Power: And what will explain to thee what the night of power is? The Night of Power is better than a thousand months. Therein come down the angels and the Spirit by Allah’s permission, on every errand: S. 97:1-4 Y. Ali


It is essential to understand that the "Night of Power" is also a symbol for the night before the Last Day, in the Qu'ran (as well as Ramadan). On the Night of Power God sends down all of his angels to prepare the earth for the drama that breaks out when the world starts to fall apart. This is precisely what Joel describes when he says he will "Pour his spirit out on all people" in the final days of the earth. "Night of Power" also means "Night of Decree" and "Night of Measures." It's basically the Qu'ranic way of saying the vision that Ezekiel has of the Angels coming down to earth and Jesus marking all of the believers with a sign on their forehead, so that they angels do not slay them.

It's funny but the language of the Qu'ran here (and elsewhere) almost makes it sound like Jibreel (as) is excited for the chance to finally slay the unbelievers and liars. Reading the Qu'ran you almost get a distinct sense of the personality of Gabriel (as).


Shalom

[- Qatada -]

"and kept herself in seclusion from them, whereupon We sent unto her Our angel of revelation, who appeared to her in the shape of a well-made human being . . . . [The angel] answered: 'I am but a messenger of thy Sustainer, [who says] 'I shall bestow upon thee the gift of a son endowed with purity.' [The angel] answered: 'Thus it is; [but] thy Sustainer says, 'This is easy for Me; and [thou shalt have a son,] so that We might make him a symbol unto mankind and an act of grace from Us. And it was a thing decreed [by God:]"

The "bestowed with purity" is actually Holy here. To bestow upon you a holy son (see Yusuf Ali's translation). It's actually amazing how identical the accounts are with our scriptures.

When Allah speaks of himself, he always does so in the plural, in Hebrew and Arabic. This is true of Genesis as well as the Qu'ran. The plurality does not imply many, but a divinity beyond human comprehension. "We did this, we did that." the Royal We--that's where we get that phrase, by the way. Thus Adonai means LORDS--while it is the substitute word for the ONE true God in Hebrew. Adonis is the singular.

"And her who gaurded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples. Verily, this Brotherhood of yours is a single Brotherhood and I am your Lord and Cherisher. But (later generations) cut off their affair (of unity), one from another; (yet) will they all return to Us."

Here it is in the plural. God is breathing the Spirit in, Gabriel is bestowing the son. Don't you see the interesting exegesis and relationship already developing here of the Qu'ran? :) My friend told me once, "Man, reading the Qu'ran in Arabic is like an antidote. It sucks the poison out."

Salaam

This is what the knowledgable scholars of IslamQA said;

The fact that ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) is a Word from Allaah and a spirit created by Him, as is indicated in the texts of the clear Revelation, does not mean that he is part of Allaah who emerged from Him and is connected to His essence: glorified and exalted be Allaah far about what the wrongdoers say.

(...)

The phrase “a spirit created by Him (or from Him)” is used only of the Messiah because he was breathed into his mother by Angel Jibreel/Gabriel – peace be upon, and she became pregnant with him from that breath.... He is distinguished from them by the fact that his mother became pregnant with him from this breathing in of the spirit, hence he is called a spirit from Him. See Daqaa’iq al-Tafseer, 1/324 ff.

http://islamqa.com/en/ref/10683/

[SalamChristian]

For those who are interested, the typical English translation is "breathed something of our spirit therein"--therein referring to the womb.

Shalom

[YieldedOne]

Hmmm...
I took a look at this...mainly all the different interpretations of the various passages.

If I had to think of the best harmonization of all the intended passages and interpretations I saw, it would indeed be to differentiate the creative "Breath of God" that actually causes Mary to conceive...from the angel Gabriel, who acts as mediator of the "Breath of God". If we were to say that the "Breath of God" is the Holy Spirit (which I believe there is every reason to, speaking from even a Judaic perspective), then this coincides with the 3 ideas we've synthesized out of this discussion...

1) The angel Gabriel is NOT THE SAME THING as the Holy Spirit of God. The two are NOT to be conceptualized as identical.
2) It it biblically feasible that the angel Gabriel can be a mediator of the power and presence of the Holy Spirit towards others.
3) The angel Gabriel is NOT the sole mediator of the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, as other humans can and do have this ability.


And this would actually make some sense. As I recall, baby Eesa said something when he was a baby in the Quran 3:49
...

And [make him] a messenger to the Children of Israel, [who will say], 'Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay [that which is] like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah . And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead - by permission of Allah . And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers.

Now, that's interesting. Jesus seems to have the creative, life-giving "Breath of God" active in and through him. Which would ALSO go with the 3 ideas above.

Hmmm...

[YieldedOne]

Given all this, why is the angel Gabriel CONFLATED with the Holy Spirit/Breath of God?

[SalamChristian]

Now, that's interesting. Jesus seems to have the creative, life-giving "Breath of God" active in and through him. Which would ALSO go with the 3 ideas above. Hmmm...

Yep.

1) The angel Gabriel is NOT THE SAME THING as the Holy Spirit of God. The two are NOT to be conceptualized as identical.

This one is problematic, and not straightforward. The problem is that in Luke 3:22 we are told that the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like/similar to a dove.

The issue with this is that apparently the Holy Spirit can be in Bodily form. Now, you and I both know that this passage in Luke 3:22 can't mean that the entirety of the Holy Spirit was within that bodily form, because Jesus had some of the Holy Spirit in him at the very least.

The solution imo is that when a creature is filled completely with nothing but the Holy Spirit (i.e. not with evil spirits), then they can thus be called The Holy Spirit in bodily form. Hence the wineskins, clay pots, temple, house, and all of the other metaphors Christ uses to describe the body as a container--a container which is filled to the brim, moreover. Hence the "there is nothing in my cloak but allah" statements of some mystics.

Shalom

[SalamChristian]

Given all this, why is the angel Gabriel CONFLATED with the Holy Spirit/Breath of God?

I am suspicious that it is because of a misunderstanding of the tenses of the Arabic language. GOD ALWAYS speaks in the "We"/Us form, in Hebrew and Arabic. Moreover, if we take it literally that Gabriel can't testify to anything except for exactly what God tells him, then the words he speaks to Muhammad (as) are not his, but God's directly transferred to Muhammad (as) without any change of tenses.

But at the end of the day, it is not for us to understanding everything. We must merely understand the Truth which Allah (swt) gives to us, in whatever form.

Shalom

[YieldedOne]

Hmmm...This commentary view from Mr. Asad...

AND [remember] her who guarded her chastity, whereupon We breathed into her of Our spirit [This allegorical expression, used here with reference to Mary's conception of Jesus, has been widely - and erroneously - interpreted as relating specifically to his birth. As a matter of fact, the Quran uses the same expression in three other places with reference to the creation of man in general - namely in 15:29 and 38:72, "when I have formed him... and breathed into him of My spirit" and in 32:9, "and thereupon He forms [lit., "formed"] him fully and breathes [lit., "breathed"] into him of His spirit". In particular, the passage of which the last-quoted phrase is a part (i.e., 32:7 - 9) makes it abundantly and explicitly clear that God "breathes of His spirit" into every human being. Commenting on the verse under consideration, Zamakhshari states that "the breathing of the spirit [of God] into a body signifies the endowing it with life": an explanation with, which Razi concurs. (In this connection, see also note on 4:171.)

Now, THIS is what's interesting. What Asad says here LINES UP with what Jewish adherents thought about the Spirit of God insofar as that by which God gives life to all things. From the Jewish Encyclopedia article again...

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).

Hmmm...it seems to make sense to associate the creative, life-giving "Breath of God" to the Holy Spirit, as distinct from any mere angel, even Gabriel. THIS would align Islam much more with the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit.

[YieldedOne]

One thing that I'm DEFINITELY getting out of this is the following: The particular Muslim interpretation that says that the Holy Spirit is nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel is problematic on a number of levels...namely it 1) radically goes against the Jewish concept of the Holy Spirit and 2) it contradicts evidence within the Quran itself concerning the creative, life-giving "Breath of God" that COULD ALIGN the Muslim perspective with the Jewish one.

Interesting.

Now what would be interesting is this: Did the earliest Jewish Christians (who believed Jesus was the Messiah and began the messianic age) see the "paraclete" to be the Holy Spirit/Breath of God? I think there would be ample information to suggest that they did.

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.

...

And when he (Jesus) had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

...

And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. (Pentecost)

...

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (Peter to the Jews in Jerusalem)

[SalamChristian]

The particular Muslim interpretation that says that the Holy Spirit is nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel is problematic on a number of levels

Yep! I'm seeing that too. But, it might be more nuanced than we are perceiving, like I said:

The problem is that in Luke 3:22 we are told that the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like/similar to a dove. The issue with this is that apparently the Holy Spirit can be in Bodily form. Now, you and I both know that this passage in Luke 3:22 can't mean that the entirety of the Holy Spirit was within that bodily form, because Jesus had some of the Holy Spirit in him at the very least. The solution imo is that when a creature is filled completely with nothing but the Holy Spirit (i.e. not with evil spirits), then they can thus be called The Holy Spirit in bodily form. Hence the wineskins, clay pots, temple, house, and all of the other metaphors Christ uses to describe the body as a container--a container which is filled to the brim, moreover. Hence the "there is nothing in my cloak but allah" statements of some mystics.

In any case, the Qu'ran recognized that the likeness of Jesus is "likened unto the likeness of Adam," in that he was more fully filled with the holy spirit at birth. Man is not involved in the process at all.

Hence that the Qu'ran also testifies to his sinlessness 19:33 and his Messiahship.

I'm telling you, the traditional claim that the Qu'ran does not testify to Jesus (as) is soooo off base.

Shalom

[- Qatada -]

SalamChristian, you're doing what the Jews did with their scripture (except you are doing it with the Quran) - you're taking it out of context and ignoring the Oral law [Sunnah].


How ironic.

[YieldedOne]

Maybe that's how to simplify the question:
All considerations made, which option has MORE EVIDENCE for being identified as the "Holy Spirit of God" : the "Breath of God" or the angel Gabriel?

I say the "Breath of God" myself. :shade:

[SalamChristian]

SalamChristian, you're doing what the Jews did with their scripture (except you are doing it with the Quran) - you're taking it out of context and ignoring the Oral law [Sunnah]. How ironic.

I'm reading the Qu'ran for what it literally says, and not taking any preconceived ideas to the text. Again, as to the Hadith, they are not the inerrant Word of God. As I quoted earlier:

Here is a quote for you Woodrow: "وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته My beloved brother, You should know, May Allah preserve you, that recording the Sunnah, at the time of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم ) was initially prohibited then later on this command was abrogated as proven and concluded in the Sunnah. The narrations that mention that Umar (رضي الله عنه) prohibitted compiling the Sunnah in writing or burning them came from weak routes. However, assuming the correctness of such stories, we need to know that he only disallowed compiling the Sunnah in books - at a time of Islam expansion and hence new people were embracing Islam everyday - so that they do not confuse the book of Allah with the Sunnah Books. Yet, he still encouraged people to memorize the Sunnah as the companions did instead of compiling it therefore he encourged narrating the Sunnah. Wallahu A'lam" Hadith is not the inerrant Word of God. The Qu'ran is. That is the difference. Hadith make good history and are good for understanding the time of the Prophet and for getting ideas about what Muhammad (as) would do, but the Qu'ran and Word of God is enough unto itself and nothing else is necessary. Peace brother

If you have some clear knowledge, then show it to me. If you cannot show it to me, then surely it does not matter, for Allah is the origin of all things, and Allah knows best.

Salaam Alaikum

[SalamChristian]

MORE EVIDENCE for being identified as the "Holy Spirit of God" : the "Breath of God" or the angel Gabriel?

If I had to choose, this is how I would do it. I would make a hierarchical order of definition of the Holy Spirit:

1. Holy Breath of God
2. Gabriel
3. Other Angels
4. Men (those who God has filled with it)

I say this because Gabriel is typically the transmitter of the Holy Breath in both of our scriptures. Other angels occasionally carry it to the earth, again, in both of our scriptures.

Salaam

[SalamChristian]

SalamChristian, you're doing what the Jews did with their scripture (except you are doing it with the Quran) - you're taking it out of context and ignoring the Oral law [Sunnah]. How ironic.

Brother, what do you think the sectarianism in modern Islam is? Do you think Allah (swt), Jibreel (as), or Muhammad (as) intended for the Ummah to be divided into sects like this? I was reading on a forum the other day people actually debating about which sect of Islam is going make it to Jannah. This is not what the Qu'ran was intended for, nor the Ummah. Someone is creating sects, and surely they who create sects will be of the losers. There is only ONE Islam.

Salaam Alaikum.

[- Qatada -]

I'm reading the Qu'ran for what it literally says, and not taking any preconceived ideas to the text. Again, as to the Hadith, they are not the inerrant Word of God. As I quoted earlier:

So basically, you're pretending to be knowledgable of a Masterpiece when you have no knowledge whatsoever on how it is to be explained?

Furthermore, you are opposing the teachings, and misinterpreting the teachings of the one who came with the message? Isn't that what the companions of Moses did? How sad.

If you have some clear knowledge, then show it to me. If you cannot show it to me, then surely it does not matter, for Allah is the origin of all things, and Allah knows best.

Salaam Alaikum

Raafi ibn Khadij (May Allaah be pleased with him) said:

I said to the Prophet that we hear from you many things, should we write them down?” He replied: You may write. There is no harm. (Tadreeb ar Raawi)

Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) narrates that the Prophet said:

Preserve knowledge by writing. (At-Tabari Jaami ul Bayaan)

Abu Raafi (may Allaah be pleased with him) sought permission from the Prophet to write ahadeeth and the Prophet granted him that permission (Tirmidhi)

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...ection=Hadeeth



This shows the teachings of Prophet Muhammad [the Sunnah] were preserved in text form even at his time. And the Sunnah clearly stated that Jesus son of Mary was a slave and Messenger of Allah, nothing more, nothing less.

[SalamChristian]

So basically, you're pretending to be knowledgable of a Masterpiece when you have no knowledge whatsoever on how it is to be explained?

My knowledge is clear.

1. Allah is one
2. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, strength, spirit, and love your neighbor unconditionally as yourself.
3. Remove sin from among you, and do it mercifully, and love (agape), forgive, and pray for your enemies so that they may be saved, and so that God may forgive you. If you do not forgive others of their sins, God will not forgive yours.
4. Believe this and you will have eternal life. God will not destroy you. He will test you, but if your burden is too much he will remove it and he will bless you for your submission.

That's all you need. Allah shows you anything else if you need it, when he chooses, and surely Allah is most wise.

Brother Qatada, I will check out your links whenever I get the opportunity.

I want you to know, however, that I don't view it highly when someone approaches me with an attack. You don't know where I come from, what I have read, what knowledge Allah has or has not shown me in my life, or anything. Most importantly, you haven't asked. I always approach something strange with a question, not with a raised hand. As our book says "love is patient, love is kind."

Salaam Alaikum Allahu Akbar,
AbdAllah

P.S. I should say that the part I highlighted in RED was taught to me by the Qu'ran. I learned it there, and then I went back to my scriptures and discovered it in the teachings of Jesus. It logically follows from what Jesus (as) says, but people have not payed much attention to those verses.

Salaam

[SalamChristian]

Where did all of the Christians who were on the thread at the beginning go? It's just me, YO, and our Muslim brothers now. Where are FiveSolas and Sol Invictus? Seeing as we have now proved many things that they heartily disagreed with at the beginning, I would like to hear how they have received this knowledge.

Peace

[siam]

@YO, SC

Just wanted to point out--from my understanding, Holy Spirit (Ruach Hakodesh) and Spirit are not identical in Judaism.----
Ruach Hakodesh is the spirit of Prophethood and from what I understand, in Judaism, this spirit can also inspire Rabbis (though apparantly does not speak to them....(?))
and Ruach (Spirit or God's breath---is what in eastern religions is called "the spirit that animates"---Qi, Chi, Prana-etc.---also understood in eastern religions as breath/wind)

However, in Judaism, the word Nefesh/soul (if I remember correctly....) is also understood as breath. The arabic equivalent for soul would be nafs)

Angel Gabriel and the Holy Spirit.-----
Muslims tend to speak of Angel Gabriel when speaking about the revelation of Quran because it avoids undue/unnecessary speculation about the Holy Spirit which the Quran advises Muslims against. An understanding of the precise nature of the Holy Spirit is not really required to understand how the Quran was transmitted or to understand the nature of Jesus Christ(pbuh) therefore---it is best to refer to Angel Gabriel.

IMO, speculation of whether Angel Gabriel is identical or only similar to the Holy Spirit would really be irrelevant to a Muslim in terms of understanding Quranic concepts.

[siam]

revelatory process of Quran vs that of Prophet Moses(pbuh) and the tablets...

This is only my opinion...
The Quran (as well as Prophet Muhammed(pbuh)) placed particular emphasis in seeking knowledge (not just religious---but all kinds of knowledge)---this is because faith is based on the use of ones intellect and reason to arrive at conviction---the Quran discourages belief in superstition to arrive at conviction----however, for previous revelations such "proofs' were necessary and were therefore given. The type of proofs given for the Quran are intellectual proofs---such as the literary merits of the Quran, the perfection of its recitation, the way our minds seem to catch its rythmn in memorization.....the fact that none of its verses have been imitated by anyone for 1,400 years---even though the Quran has challenged human beings to produce a surah of like quality.....etc....etc.....Thus, the Quranic revelation is an invitation to use ones intellect and reason and through this process to arrive at sincere conviction.

[siam]

Jews and Christians are welcome to read the Quran and to use the deeper insights and higher spirituality gained, to clarify and/or correct existing misunderstandings or misinterpretations of their Holy books. HOWEVER, the Quran SHOULD NOT be used to validate already existing errors, misinterpretations, misunderstandings. Such use is to abuse the gift of knowledge/wisdom of the Quran.

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
Just wanted to point out--from my understanding, Holy Spirit (Ruach Hakodesh) and Spirit are not identical in Judaism.----
Ruach Hakodesh is the spirit of Prophethood and from what I understand, in Judaism, this spirit can also inspire Rabbis (though apparantly does not speak to them....(?))
and Ruach (Spirit or God's breath---is what in eastern religions is called "the spirit that animates"---Qi, Chi, Prana-etc.---also understood in eastern religions as breath/wind)

There is a distinction between the Holy Spirit and "spirit" in a general sense, yes. The Holy Spirit is NOT all spiritual reality per se. But the Spirit of God is involved in all of these processes though the distinction is there. And please notice that, per Judaism, it is still the Holy Spirit that is directly involved in prophethood, revelation, and knowledge of God.

************************************

Siam:
Muslims tend to speak of Angel Gabriel when speaking about the revelation of Quran because it avoids undue/unnecessary speculation about the Holy Spirit which the Quran advises Muslims against. An understanding of the precise nature of the Holy Spirit is not really required to understand how the Quran was transmitted or to understand the nature of Jesus Christ(pbuh) therefore---it is best to refer to Angel Gabriel. IMO, speculation of whether Angel Gabriel is identical or only similar to the Holy Spirit would really be irrelevant to a Muslim in terms of understanding Quranic concepts.

1) Hmmm... It's one thing to simply things dealing with revelation by just focusing on the personal agent of revelation (ie Gabriel) rather than it's possible ground in the Spirit of God. It's a whole other thing to affirm to say the personal agent in question IS completely identical to the Spirit of God. From what I've been seeing around the internet, many (most) Muslims seem to say the latter. That is specifically peculiar given the fact that such an idea is completely absent in Judaism, both past and present.

2) I think that you are quite wrong on the idea that an understanding of the Holy Spirit is not really required to understand the nature of Jesus Christ. Even focusing on Messenger of God, Prophet, and "Anointed one" (Anointed with WHAT??) Why? Because if we really just try to look HISTORICALLY as Jesus in his Second Temple Jewish milieu--something I would hope that informed, intellectually honest people of all faiths attempt to do--you simply cannot do so WITHOUT looking at the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit. You'd have to completely take Jesus out of his historical context to do so. Then all you are left with is some personality that any ideologue can just do what they want with. You DEFINITELY cannot understand Jesus as mystic without looking at his relationship to the Spirit of God as Jews saw it.

3) Maybe it's just me, but I really don't dig merely looking at concepts of historical religious figures merely for the sake of maintaining a belief in some holy book. That's why I'm not a Christian fundamentalist who refuses to take a critical eye towards the Bible and it's issues for the mere sake of maintaining my faith (Like the longer and shorter endings of Mark, etc). If all we are doing is contouring our research and conversation to maintain and deepen what we already believe...I don't know how such a process can be anything but intellectually DIShonest and merely a sophisticated form of indoctrination. I've seen it so much in the evangelical Christianity that I was raised in it just sickens me. +o( You ask too many questions then its like "God's ways are higher than ours." or "Don't question God's Word." I'm like whatever...

***************************************

Siam:
Jews and Christians are welcome to read the Quran and to use the deeper insights and higher spirituality gained, to clarify and/or correct existing misunderstandings or misinterpretations of their Holy books. HOWEVER, the Quran SHOULD NOT be used to validate already existing errors, misinterpretations, misunderstandings. Such use is to abuse the gift of knowledge/wisdom of the Quran.

Here's my question. Are Muslims welcome to read the Quran critically examining it by the Judaic roots of their faith? I'm slowly getting the impression that that's out of bounds. There seems to be so much concern that the Quran will be affronted in some way...that true critical analysis of the relationship between Islam and Judaism is hindered. It really does seem that way. But maybe that's just me...

[YieldedOne]

Lemme backtrack a bit...

Siam:
There are some scholars who feel that the words used in the Quran are specifically chosen for their meaning. These scholars feel that if God had meant something as X, he would have chosen the word for X and if he had meant Y he would have chosen the word for Y. I think such scholars have a point---so, in my opinion, when the Quran seems to use the words Angel Gabriel and the Holy Spirit interchangeably---it may be that the Holy Spirit expresses more of a "Quality"/Attribute.....

1) Who are these scholars?
2) When you say "using the words Angel Gabriel and the Holy Spirit interchangably"...are you saying that there is an active distinction in play between the two in Islam...such that they are NOT seen asidentical? That seems to be the presupposition of your whole statement.

**************************

Siam:
Also---the Quran discourages speculation about the Holy Spirit/Spirit so there is not much anyone will find out directly about it except what is neccessary for understanding certain concepts....Generally, for all matters, Muslims rely on the Quran to explain itself...but, as the Quran says, aquiring knowledge always makes it easier to understand.....

Can you provide the particular Quranic passages that specifically discourage speculation on the nature of the Holy Spirit? I'd like to make a running list.

[3rddec]

Well this Christian is staying out of this as those present are doing such a fine job and I'm reading very carefully how they refute your arguements while you dismiss theirs. Keep up your good work guys

Love and Respect

[Fivesolas]

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't dig merely looking at concepts of historical religious figures merely for the sake of maintaining a belief in some holy book. That's why I'm not a Christian fundamentalist who refuses to take a critical eye towards the Bible and it's issues for the mere sake of maintaining my faith (Like the longer and shorter endings of Mark, etc). If all we are doing is contouring our research and conversation to maintain and deepen what we already believe...I don't know how such a process can be anything but intellectually DIShonest and merely a sophisticated form of indoctrination. I've seen it so much in the evangelical Christianity that I was raised in it just sickens me. +o( You ask too many questions then its like "God's ways are higher than ours." or "Don't question God's Word." I'm like whatever...

I am not sure where this subject should or could be discussed. What topic or category could we place it in you think? I think it is worth discussing, but perhaps in a seperate thread.

[siam]

Siam:
Just wanted to point out--from my understanding, Holy Spirit (Ruach Hakodesh) and Spirit are not identical in Judaism.----
Ruach Hakodesh is the spirit of Prophethood and from what I understand, in Judaism, this spirit can also inspire Rabbis (though apparantly does not speak to them....(?))
and Ruach (Spirit or God's breath---is what in eastern religions is called "the spirit that animates"---Qi, Chi, Prana-etc.---also understood in eastern religions as breath/wind)

There is a distinction between the Holy Spirit and "spirit" in a general sense, yes. The Holy Spirit is NOT all spiritual reality per se. But the Spirit of God is involved in all of these processes though the distinction is there. And please notice that, per Judaism, it is still the Holy Spirit that is directly involved in prophethood, revelation, and knowledge of God.

----I agree---As per my understanding of the Quran, all human beings recieve the ruh/ruach/spirit---therefore the Ruh-al-Qudus/Ruach Hakodesh would be an extra "gift"/strength given to the Prophets/wisdom teachers
************************************

Siam:
Muslims tend to speak of Angel Gabriel when speaking about the revelation of Quran because it avoids undue/unnecessary speculation about the Holy Spirit which the Quran advises Muslims against. An understanding of the precise nature of the Holy Spirit is not really required to understand how the Quran was transmitted or to understand the nature of Jesus Christ(pbuh) therefore---it is best to refer to Angel Gabriel. IMO, speculation of whether Angel Gabriel is identical or only similar to the Holy Spirit would really be irrelevant to a Muslim in terms of understanding Quranic concepts.

1) Hmmm... It's one thing to simply things dealing with revelation by just focusing on the personal agent of revelation (ie Gabriel) rather than it's possible ground in the Spirit of God. It's a whole other thing to affirm to say the personal agent in question IS completely identical to the Spirit of God. From what I've been seeing around the internet, many (most) Muslims seem to say the latter. That is specifically peculiar given the fact that such an idea is completely absent in Judaism, both past and present.
---my particular stance on this issue is that a Jewish understanding that the Holy Spirit is the "Spirit of Prophesy" does not conflict with what the Quran/Islam says. That this Holy Spirit is understood as same/similar to Angel Gabriel in Islam, does not create any problems in understanding either, since Angels Gabriel IS a messenger (The word for angel in Hebrew also means messenger). Muslims neither worship the Angel Gabriel , or the Holy Spirit as God.

2) I think that you are quite wrong on the idea that an understanding of the Holy Spirit is not really required to understand the nature of Jesus Christ. Even focusing on Messenger of God, Prophet, and "Anointed one" (Anointed with WHAT??) Why? Because if we really just try to look HISTORICALLY as Jesus in his Second Temple Jewish milieu--something I would hope that informed, intellectually honest people of all faiths attempt to do--you simply cannot do so WITHOUT looking at the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit. You'd have to completely take Jesus out of his historical context to do so. Then all you are left with is some personality that any ideologue can just do what they want with. You DEFINITELY cannot understand Jesus as mystic without looking at his relationship to the Spirit of God as Jews saw it.
---From the Muslim Perspective, Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was a human being just like any other prophet before him. The details of his birth or the various aspects of his life do not detract from the fact that he was a human being---NOT GOD. Understanding the intricacies of the nature of the Holy Spirit and/or Angel Gabriel does not change the fact that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was a human being who was a Prophet. Previous Prophets as well as Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) were strengthened with the Holy Spirit. It is not unusual other than that Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was given this at birth, whereas Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) for example, recieved it later in life....

3) Maybe it's just me, but I really don't dig merely looking at concepts of historical religious figures merely for the sake of maintaining a belief in some holy book. That's why I'm not a Christian fundamentalist who refuses to take a critical eye towards the Bible and it's issues for the mere sake of maintaining my faith (Like the longer and shorter endings of Mark, etc). If all we are doing is contouring our research and conversation to maintain and deepen what we already believe...I don't know how such a process can be anything but intellectually DIShonest and merely a sophisticated form of indoctrination. I've seen it so much in the evangelical Christianity that I was raised in it just sickens me. +o( You ask too many questions then its like "God's ways are higher than ours." or "Don't question God's Word." I'm like whatever...
---In Islam belief alone is useless---it only becomes useful if it creates a transformative force the leads to right intentions that lead to right actions. Someone said--"Faith without reason and science, degenerates into superstition"---I would agree. The best way to read the Quran is by having questions---in fact, the Quran itself asks questions of you and for you......
***************************************

Siam:
Jews and Christians are welcome to read the Quran and to use the deeper insights and higher spirituality gained, to clarify and/or correct existing misunderstandings or misinterpretations of their Holy books. HOWEVER, the Quran SHOULD NOT be used to validate already existing errors, misinterpretations, misunderstandings. Such use is to abuse the gift of knowledge/wisdom of the Quran.

Here's my question. Are Muslims welcome to read the Quran critically examining it by the Judaic roots of their faith? I'm slowly getting the impression that that's out of bounds. There seems to be so much concern that the Quran will be affronted in some way...that true critical analysis of the relationship between Islam and Judaism is hindered. It really does seem that way. But maybe that's just me...

---As explained above---the Quran itself discourages blind belief---(That was the problem with the Meccan Pagans and the people of Prophet Abraham(pbuh) they uncritically followed the "traditions of their fathers" even though such traditions were filled with error....) I do not consider Judasim or Christianity to be the "root" of Islam. They were previous prophets/revelations sent by God (Yes ---- the ONE God) However, the Quran itself is complete and correct in and of itself and stands on its own. It does not require Judaism or Christianity to interpret it. However, all knowledge is helpful in understanding the Quran, whether it is knowledge of previous revelations or science, philosophy, history...etc.....

Why this stance? Muslims believe errors have crept into the previous revelations therefore it would be inadvisable to use them to interpret the Quran. Why did God allow errors to distort the previous revelations?....because the responsibility of preserving those revelations was given to mankind. ---and mankind failed.

[siam]

Lemme backtrack a bit...

Siam:
There are some scholars who feel that the words used in the Quran are specifically chosen for their meaning. These scholars feel that if God had meant something as X, he would have chosen the word for X and if he had meant Y he would have chosen the word for Y. I think such scholars have a point---so, in my opinion, when the Quran seems to use the words Angel Gabriel and the Holy Spirit interchangeably---it may be that the Holy Spirit expresses more of a "Quality"/Attribute.....

1) Who are these scholars?
2) When you say "using the words Angel Gabriel and the Holy Spirit interchangably"...are you saying that there is an active distinction in play between the two in Islam...such that they are NOT seen asidentical? That seems to be the presupposition of your whole statement.

**************************

Siam:
Also---the Quran discourages speculation about the Holy Spirit/Spirit so there is not much anyone will find out directly about it except what is neccessary for understanding certain concepts....Generally, for all matters, Muslims rely on the Quran to explain itself...but, as the Quran says, aquiring knowledge always makes it easier to understand.....

Can you provide the particular Quranic passages that specifically discourage speculation on the nature of the Holy Spirit? I'd like to make a running list.

---I am not aware of any scholars specifically discussing the issue of the Holy Spirit with this in mind----The comment about X,Y was meant as a general statement in terms of understanding the Quran---that is, the idea that the words of the Quran are chosen carefully and deliberately. ---in this context, perhaps, Utube video by Br Nauman Ali Khan may be interesting (its given to a Muslim audience though)---its called Divine Speech Prologue.

---active distinction----I am not aware of any "active distinction" in Islamic scholarship---(Ofcourse, I am not a scholar myself, nor have I studied this issue in depth) However, if I were to accept that the Quran chooses words carefully, then it would stand to reason that if the Quran meant Angel Gabriel---it would have said so. That it adds the dimension of Holy Spirit, IN MY OPINION, may indicate a nuance. Such an understanding might be supported by the translation and tafsir by Yusuf Ali (particularly tafsir of Surah 70....)
to give some background---I was discussing the similarities about soul/spirituality between the Quran (and Islamic scholarship---particularly Al-Gazzali)and Judaism with a Jewish person when I came across the Jewish understanding that the Holy Spirit and Spirit are not identical. ---Such an understanding would not contradict the Quran IN MY OPINION.

SC has done a good job about the Muslim position of not speculating unnecessarily on the subject of Spirit (which I take it to be referring to all concepts of "Spirit" in the Quran)--there are also other more general verses about speculation as well. (This does not mean the Quran discourages healthy debate or seeking knowledge---it only discourages undue speculation that is not of benefit---Personally, I feel that discussions that are firmly rooted in Tawheed are fine.)

[Ramadhan]

the word is "farj," and it means vagina. Apparently I am not allowed to post the link to this proof? Anyway, if you want the link to the proof of this, I will send it to you. Shalom

It seems your cover have been blown now.
You took the friendly username "salamchristian" in the usual christians missionaries deceitful way that they are friendly and respect Islam ,while the truth is they have nothing but hatred towards Islam because you/they know Islam is the truth.
Sadly, you may have more success being deceitful preaching christianity in really remote areas of developing countries. I guess you are only following paul/saul of tarsus who advocated deceit to preach to the gentiles.

Lately, you have been giving us youe views about Islam that you took from anti-Islam websites, hence the mods removed your sources, as your sources are nothing but pure lies, but I doubt you didnt know this.

Let me ask you, do you speak arabic? do you understand quranic arabic?
Let's see, I'll find refutation to expose the lies that you took from anti-Islam websites

First of all, even in your twisted translation above, the reader clearly sees that there is ABSOLUTELY nothing pornographic in any of the Noble Verses above. A person doesn't have to be over 18 with viewer discretion is advised to read the Noble Quran as it is the case with your gospel of porn.
Second of all, Mary guarded her chastity. The Noble Verse doesn't speak about her her literal "vagina". Notice that for Noble Verses 21:91 and 66:12, the liars did not specify the translation source. This is because they are the liars who twisted the meaning of the Arabic word "Farj", which means the woman's womb, and also means woman's chastity. Mary guarded her "chastity" in Noble Verse 21:91 above, which in return also implies that she guarded her vagina from sexual sinning. She was GOD-fearing and a virgin-chaste-woman. That's what the Noble Verse is saying.
Furthermore, "Mah'bal" in Arabic is the exact word for "vagina" or female's "sexual organ" as the liars put it.

I guess it took christians who are so obsessed with pornographic materials such as the bible to accuse that qur'an is also set at such extremely low standards.

[Ramadhan]

Allah will bring you a message concerning hygiene if he desires. And if you do not receive one, then surely he did not desire it, and you should not demand that he give you something which he chose not to do, for Allah knows best.

And Allah SWT has brought you the message via prophet Muhammad (SAW). I thought you acknowledge the propehthood of Muhammad SAW?
Or were you just being your deceitful-self?

People these principles are really simple, in both of our religions. There is no need for this hate and this clinging on to that which is not divine. Allah most great, and he knows best.

You said this, and then you brought pure lies from sites which are clearly anti-Islam, which surely you knew.

Talk about hypocrisy.

christians should practice their "love, no hate" "let's kumbaya" instead of just talking about it. Starting from you.

[Ramadhan]

My standard for the Gospel is that it is testified to in the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran testifies to the Truthfulness of the Injeel.

Let me get this,
does this mean that you accept the Qur'an as being the truth and the word of God?

Allah SWT rebuked christians and jews who denied prophet Muhammad SAW, and told them that even in their maligned scriptures, they could still find the prophecy of Muhammad SAW.

Brother we can go there, and I welcome the idea that Muslims might come to apply the same logic and criticism they apply to the Hadith to the Gospels. One of my majors is History, and I would enjoy that. To be to the point, it isn't necessary. The earliest complete Bible we have was found in a Christian monastery in the Sinai Peninsula. It belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Church (closer to Muhammad). This same Monastery was written a letter by Muhammad (as) stating that he specifically gave them his peace and his protection and that anyone from the Ummah who might attack them or steal from them or harass their women or churches would surely suffer the hell fire. This Bible dates to 330 AD.

Again, this is sign of christians missionaries who love nothing but to twist facts and words, I guess you inherited from early rabbis/priests who twisted the words of their own prophets, from Musa (as) down to isa (as).
You talked about earliest bible, what does this mean?
which bible are you talking about? the one with 66 books? 60? 70? which one?
Was the "bible" found written in the language that Isa (pbuh) spoke?
who wrote the bible found?
what was the chain of transmission?

How many bible versions are trying to sell that they are the "true" bible today?
Should christians use the "new world translation" bible, after all, it was expertly researched, wasnt it?
How about Good news bible?

Can you imagine if the earliest qur'an manuscript was from 1,000 AD, and that it was in persian, not in arabic, and no one was sure what the originals looked like, and no one knew who wrote which parts? and no tradition of memorisation was even existing?

Would you think it's still authentic?

I guess you can already see the truth, but since you prefer to keep clinging to your own desires and whims and made up belief that god is human, you deceive yourself.

the act by prophet Muhammad SAW to christians and jews were act of justice and kindness, he never said the belief that christians and jews were correct, in fact he rebuked the christians and jews.

Nope. I have taken courses on Middle Eastern lit and read the thoughts of Muslims from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Sudan to elsewhere.

And then you cited articles from an outright anti-Islamic website that you know is full of lies.
Your words hold very little weight.

Like I said, my best friend is an Egyptian, and I prayed with him as he led the prayer on Ramadan last year, and all the other Muslims on campus. I've got mad love for the East, bro.

Thats exactly what every orientalist said.
Thanks for confirming.

[Ali Mujahidin]

I recommend to all Muslim brothers and sisters on IB to open up the Bible and read it with an open mind

Good idea. Which bible shall I read?

[siam]

Good idea. Which bible shall I read?

;DHow about the "wicked Bible"?:D The 1631 KJV Bible that omitted a crucial word in one of the commandments so that it read;D"Thou shalt commit adultury"

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
my particular stance on this issue is that a Jewish understanding that the Holy Spirit is the "Spirit of Prophesy" does not conflict with what the Quran/Islam says. That this Holy Spirit is understood as same/similar to Angel Gabriel in Islam, does not create any problems in understanding either, since Angels Gabriel IS a messenger (The word for angel in Hebrew also means messenger). Muslims neither worship the Angel Gabriel , or the Holy Spirit as God.

I'm wondering why there is not problem, bro. Yes, the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit of God does involve it benig the "Spirit of Prophecy" that was upon all of the prophets. No Second Temple Jew would ever have denied that. But the idea that the Holy Spirit is the SAME as any particular angel is non-existent in what we know of Judaic theology, past and present. And the idea that the angel Gabriel is similar enough to the Jewish idea of the Holy Spirit simply because he's a messenger of God who aids divine revelation seems like a wrong logical leap. That is to effectively dismiss the problem based upon similarity of function...and that doesn't seem warranted. The major thing is that, from what I'm reading, many (most?) Islamic sources don't seem to say that the angel Gabriel is merely SIMILAR to the Holy Spirit, but in point of fact, is IDENTIFIED as the Holy Spirit. Basically, Gabriel and the Holy Spirit are seen as one and the same. Insofar as this perspective is seen as a legitimate Islamic perspective, it clashes radically with the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit. Note that we are not even talking about the later Christian idea of the Holy Spirit (ala third person of the Trinity) or anything like that. Actually, we could just as easily be specifically talking about solely Jewish concepts and resources here without any talk of Jesus at all...and we'd STILL have the issue.


*****************************

Siam:
From the Muslim Perspective, Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was a human being just like any other prophet before him. The details of his birth or the various aspects of his life do not detract from the fact that he was a human being---NOT GOD. Understanding the intricacies of the nature of the Holy Spirit and/or Angel Gabriel does not change the fact that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was a human being who was a Prophet. Previous Prophets as well as Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) were strengthened with the Holy Spirit. It is not unusual other than that Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was given this at birth, whereas Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) for example, recieved it later in life....

We are not talking about Jesus being God. That line of thinking has absolutely no bearing or weight in what we are talking about here. We are talking about Jesus being a totally finite human being who was a prophet ONLY by the Holy Spirit of God, even in his own self-understanding. Jesus would have been very aware of the Jewish theology around divine revelation, prophecy, and wonderworking. He also would have been aware of the messianic claims of Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Joel. As a mystic (which even the most liberal of theologians will say), his historical life would have been centered on working with the Holy Spirit of God upon him. Why is this important? Simply because it is very highly unlikely that when Jesus (or his contemporaries) talked about the Holy Spirit of God...that they refered to any individual angel, let alone Gabriel. No Second Temple Jew woud have thought that the Holy Spirit that inspired Moses and all the rest of the Prophets and Teachers was nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel. No way. They would have thought of the Presence of God being "upon" an individual, working in and through that one for God's purposes. Basically, what I'm saying is this: honest observation of Jesus as a Jewish prophetic figure (and NOTHING MORE THAN THAT) cannot omit his belief in God's Spirit ala Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Joel. He wouldn't even qualify for being the Messiah AT ALL if that weren't the case.

Again, notice that none of this has anything to do with any claim of Jesus being God. This is simply looking at him through JUDAIC eyes. And that's all I'm asking to happen.

***************************************

YO: Here's my question. Are Muslims welcome to read the Quran critically examining it by the Judaic roots of their faith? I'm slowly getting the impression that that's out of bounds. There seems to be so much concern that the Quran will be affronted in some way...that true critical analysis of the relationship between Islam and Judaism is hindered. It really does seem that way. But maybe that's just me...

Siam: As explained above---the Quran itself discourages blind belief---(That was the problem with the Meccan Pagans and the people of Prophet Abraham(pbuh) they uncritically followed the "traditions of their fathers" even though such traditions were filled with error....) I do not consider Judasim or Christianity to be the "root" of Islam. They were previous prophets/revelations sent by God (Yes ---- the ONE God) However, the Quran itself is complete and correct in and of itself and stands on its own. It does not require Judaism or Christianity to interpret it. However, all knowledge is helpful in understanding the Quran, whether it is knowledge of previous revelations or science, philosophy, history...etc.....

Why this stance? Muslims believe errors have crept into the previous revelations therefore it would be inadvisable to use them to interpret the Quran. Why did God allow errors to distort the previous revelations?....because the responsibility of preserving those revelations was given to mankind. ---and mankind failed.

Ok. This is my thought. Let's say that we had a Judaism scholar who specialized in Second Temple Judaism, specifically expert on messianism of the time. Let's further say that this scholar HAPPENED to be Muslim. How would this professional academic scholar approach the Old Testament texts in his research? Would his Muslim sensibilities about "errors" in the text (qua the Quran's statements on such) condition his academic, intellectual integrity about what he found AS scholar? In other words, if he had all the data to know to get at the best possible sources that we have for all the OT texts...and he found them to be as historically viable as any other type of documents like that we use for historiographical purposes...would he STILL be functionally dismissive of the texts simply because the Quran said there were "errors"? My thought would be that this scholar would NOT be prejudiced against the OT texts simply because his belief in the Quran inclined him towards doing so. He would supposedly look at all the evidence FAIRLY and OBJECTIVELY and let the proverbial chips fall where it may. That's what academic, scholarly integrity is all about. And I bet that any Judaism scholar who looked at Islam would have to through out any sense of academic objectivity to deny that "roots" of Islam that are found in Judaism.

So, my thought is this: Can Muslims be ACADEMICALLY OBJECTIVE about the historical lines of thought that lead to the rise of Islam and Christianity from Judaism. If faith in the Quran itself NEGATES that ability, then that is very, very, VERY serious. And it implicitly says something about the faith itself. Don't you agree?

For example, if there was a scholar of Islamic studies who happened to be a Christian...who dismissed the historical data concerning the Quran because he felt like the Quran denied Jesus being the Son of God, that "scholar" would INSTANTLY lose all credibility and stature by his peers. Would the same thing happen for a scholar of Judaism who was Muslim?

***********************************

Siam:
I am not aware of any scholars specifically discussing the issue of the Holy Spirit with this in mind----The comment about X,Y was meant as a general statement in terms of understanding the Quran---that is, the idea that the words of the Quran are chosen carefully and deliberately. ---in this context, perhaps, Utube video by Br Nauman Ali Khan may be interesting (its given to a Muslim audience though)---its called Divine Speech Prologue.

I'll try to look for that on YouTube today. Thanks! :)


********************************************

Siam:
However, if I were to accept that the Quran chooses words carefully, then it would stand to reason that if the Quran meant Angel Gabriel---it would have said so. That it adds the dimension of Holy Spirit, IN MY OPINION, may indicate a nuance. Such an understanding might be supported by the translation and tafsir by Yusuf Ali (particularly tafsir of Surah 70....)

to give some background---I was discussing the similarities about soul/spirituality between the Quran (and Islamic scholarship---particularly Al-Gazzali)and Judaism with a Jewish person when I came across the Jewish understanding that the Holy Spirit and Spirit are not identical. ---Such an understanding would not contradict the Quran IN MY OPINION.

Well, that's just it: how representative of Islamic thought do you believe your opinion to be? Do MOST Muslims that you know make the allowance for nuance that you do? Or is the majority perspective that the angel Gabriel is nothing more or less that the Holy Spirit? The vast amount of discussion of this subject that I see online by Muslims seems to indicate to me that it is. If it is, then the issue is still rearing it's head.

Do many Muslims you know think like Nader here?

[YieldedOne]

Wikipedia: Judaism and Islam...

The historical interaction of Judaism and Islam started in the 7th century CE with the origin and spread of Islam in the Arabian peninsula. The two religions share similar values, guidelines, and principles. Islam also incorporates Jewish history as a part of its own. Muslims regard the Children of Israel as a central religious concept in Islam. This is evident by Moses being mentioned in the Qur’an more than any other prophet (including Mohammad) and the Exodus being the most recurring theme. There are approximately forty-three references to the Israelites in the Quran (excluding individual prophets), and many in the Hadith. From the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai, until the present, the history of Judaism has spanned approximately 3400 years. For the first 2000 years of this history Islam was not in existence. As a result there is no discussion of Islam in the founding texts of Judaism. However, later rabbinic authorities and Jewish scholars such as Maimonides discuss the relationship between Islam and Jewish law extensively.

Because Islam has its foundation in Judaism and they share a common origin in the Middle East through Abraham, both are considered Abrahamic religions. There are many shared aspects between Judaism and Islam; Islam was strongly influenced by Judaism in its fundamental religious outlook, structure, jurisprudence and practice. Because of this, as well as through the influence of Muslim culture and philosophy on the Jewish community within the Islamic world, there has been considerable and continued physical, theological, and political overlap between the two faiths in the subsequent 1,400 years.

[YieldedOne]

Thus, it is simply NOT TRUE that Judaism is not "ancestral" to Islam. You don't even have to be a scholar to see THAT.

So...given this "ancestral" relationship of Judaism to Islam...and if it is true that a legitimate Islamic interpretation that the Holy Spirit of God is to be completely identified with the angel Gabriel, then either one of two things has happened:

1) Judaism has had it's doctrine about the Holy Spirit of God absolutely WRONG all these years, even unto this day, by never stating such a thing...and Islam (via the Quran) has corrected that theological error.

or...

2) Islam has possibly MISUNDERSTOOD the Jewish concept of the Holy Spirit, effectively allowing for an interpretation where the Holy Spirit has been reduced to only a particular angel (Gabriel).

As I see it, one of these two things has to be true. Now, can this question be OBJECTIVELY asked and answered by Islamic adherents who are academically able to do so?

[YieldedOne]

Hmmmm....this sews it up right here...

From The Holy Quran by Maulana Muhammad Ali...


It should be noted that the Quran uses the words Holy Spirit and Gabriel interchangeably. In one of the reports speaking of the first revelation to the Prophet the angel who brought the revelation is called al-Namus al-Akbar, or the great Namus, and Namus means the angel who is entrusted with Divine secrets (N.); the Divine secrets, of course, being the Divine messages to humanity sent through the prophets of God. The same report adds that it was the same angel that brought revelation to Moses. Thus both the Quran and the reports make it clear that Divine revelation was brought to the Prophet, as well as to the prophets before him, by the angel Gabriel who is also called the Holy Spirit or the Faithful Spirit or the great Namus. This clears up all doubts as to what is meant by the Holy Spirit in Islam; and in the mouths of the Old Testament prophets, as well as Jesus Christ, it carried exactly the same significance. It is true that there is not the same clarity here as in Islam; but it is equally true that the orthodox Christian conception of the Holy Spirit was quite unknown to the Jewish mind, and in this respect Jesus Christ was a staunch Jew, his terminology being taken in its entirety from the Jews.


Did y'all get that? Basically, Maududi is saying that the conclusion that Gabriel IS the Holy Spirit is NOT CLEARLY SEEN in the Judaic view (supposedly) as it is in Islam. Basically, he's admitting that it WASN'T THERE. Y'all see this, right? Saying that the Jews didn't have a Christian view of the Holy Spirit doesn't make up for this.

So it seems that Mr. Maududi would take the route that Islam "clarified" that which was left "less clear" concerning the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit. This is a euphemistic way of saying that that Judaism had the concept WRONG...and Islam straightened it out.

Now THAT seems pretty convenient, now, doesn't it? Real talk, yo! :shade:

[YieldedOne]

Now, here's where things get crazy. Mr. Maududi says that to the Old Testament prophets (and Jesus himself) it had EXACTLY the same meaning. Basically, saying that ALL of the Old Testament prophets and Jesus believed that the Holy Spirit was NOTHING OTHER THAN the angel Gabriel.

But...

How does he explains how David (a prophet) described the Holy Spirit in his Psalms?


Part of Psalm 139

Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me.
If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me,
and the light about me be night,”
even the darkness is not dark to you;
the night is bright as the day,
for darkness is as light with you.

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

Part of Psalm 51

Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from your presence,
and take not your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
and uphold me with a willing spirit.

Ok. Anyone who knows Hebrew parallelism (particularly in poetry literature) KNOWS how this works. Basically, the second statement is a RESTATEMENT of the first such that in this case, "your presence" is related to and restated as "your Holy Spirit" in Psalms 51. Same way between "your Spirit" and "your presence" in Psalms 139. Any people here that know Hebrew can corroborate my take on this! :D


So in these two passages where David SPECIFICALLY ASSOCIATES the Holy Spirit of God with God's OWN PRESENCE...what he really and intentionally meant was NOTHING MORE OR LESS THAN the individual angel, Gabriel?

Is that really what we are supposed to believe?

[YieldedOne]

And David is seen as an ISLAMIC PROPHET in the Quran, right?

Be patient over what they say and remember Our servant, David, the possessor of strength; indeed, he was one who repeatedly turned back [to Allah ]. Indeed, We subjected the mountains [to praise] with him, exalting [ Allah ] in the [late] afternoon and [after] sunrise. And the birds were assembled, all with him repeating [praises]. And We strengthened his kingdom and gave him wisdom and discernment in speech.
Surah 38:17-20

Your Lord is most knowing of you. If He wills, He will have mercy upon you; or if He wills, He will punish you. And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], over them as a manager. And your Lord is most knowing of whoever is in the heavens and the earth. And We have made some of the prophets exceed others [in various ways], and to David We gave the book [of Psalms].
Surah 17:57-58

[aadil77]

Thus, it is simply NOT TRUE that Judaism is not "ancestral" to Islam. You don't even have to be a scholar to see THAT.

So...given this "ancestral" relationship of Judaism to Islam...and if it is true that a legitimate Islamic interpretation that the Holy Spirit of God is to be completely identified with the angel Gabriel, then either one of two things has happened:

1) Judaism has had it's doctrine about the Holy Spirit of God absolutely WRONG all these years, even unto this day, by never stating such a thing...and Islam (via the Quran) has corrected that theological error.

or...

2) Islam has possibly MISUNDERSTOOD the Jewish concept of the Holy Spirit, effectively allowing for an interpretation where the Holy Spirit has been reduced to only a particular angel (Gabriel).

As I see it, one of these two things has to be true. Now, can this question be OBJECTIVELY asked and answered by Islamic adherents who are academically able to do so?

Islam and Judaism are similar because they're from the same God. We believe one faith became corrupted and the other did not, we don't believe that islam took any inspiration from any previous faiths.

Everything we have is from new revelation, not from previous.

[YieldedOne]

aadil77:
Islam and Judaism are similar because they're from the same God. We believe one faith became corrupted and the other did not, we don't believe that islam took any inspiration from any previous faiths. Everything we have is from new revelation, not from previous.

Ok. Is is it for us to look at this not from a position of FAITH per se, but from the position of OBJECTIVE MINDS just looking at all the data we have? Basically, is it possible for us to examine these things from a religiously UNBIASED persepctive...and see where things lead?

Seriously. Let's all pretend that we are in a LIBERAL ARTS UNIVERSITY COURSE on this stuff. Lets' call it: "Judaism and Islam: Historical Perspective" Let's say that we are all MA students in this class. How would go about looking at these things? What kind of presuppositions would we SUSPEND in looking at the material? How would we allow for (and make adjustments of) our religious biases such that we could actually produce quality ACADEMIC WORK in that context?

I know as a Christian, I'd have to suspend the idea of Islam "being wrong" simply because they deny Jesus as Son of God. There's no way I could bring that bias into the class and still be as OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE in looking at all of the data between Judaism and Islam.

THAT'S the type of mentality I'd like us to take towards this.

[aadil77]

aadil77:
Islam and Judaism are similar because they're from the same God. We believe one faith became corrupted and the other did not, we don't believe that islam took any inspiration from any previous faiths. Everything we have is from new revelation, not from previous.

Ok. Is is it for us to look at this not from a position of FAITH per se, but from the position of OBJECTIVE MINDS just looking at all the data we have? Basically, is it possible for us to examine these things from a religiously UNBIASED persepctive...and see where things lead?

Seriously. Let's all pretend that we are in a LIBERAL ARTS UNIVERSITY COURSE on this stuff. Lets' call it: "Judaism and Islam: Historical Perspective" Let's say that we are all MA students in this class. How would go about looking at these things? What kind of presuppositions would we SUSPEND in looking at the material? How would we allow for (and make adjustments of) our religious biases such that we could actually produce quality ACADEMIC WORK in that context?

I know as a Christian, I'd have to suspend the idea of Islam "being wrong" simply because they deny Jesus as Son of God. There's no way I could bring that bias into the class and still be as OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE in looking at all of the data between Judaism and Islam.

THAT'S the type of mentality I'd like us to take towards this.

For that I'd have to pretend I'm not a muslim, I'd have to pretend the Qur'an was not divinely inspired etc

[Ramadhan]

Ok. Is is it for us to look at this not from a position of FAITH per se, but from the position of OBJECTIVE MINDS just looking at all the data we have? Basically, is it possible for us to examine these things from a religiously UNBIASED persepctive...and see where things lead? Seriously. Let's all pretend that we are in a LIBERAL ARTS UNIVERSITY COURSE on this stuff. Lets' call it: "Judaism and Islam: Historical Perspective" Let's say that we are all MA students in this class. How would go about looking at these things? What kind of presuppositions would we SUSPEND in looking at the material? How would we allow for (and make adjustments of) our religious biases such that we could actually produce quality ACADEMIC WORK in that context? I know as a Christian, I'd have to suspend the idea of Islam "being wrong" simply because they deny Jesus as Son of God. There's no way I could bring that bias into the class and still be as OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE in looking at all of the data between Judaism and Islam.

You are asking us to be in the position of objective minds, and yet when it comes to bible you are being absolutely subjective and close your eyes and mind to every evidence and facts about bible that do not conform to your idea about bible and Isa (as).

So, why don't we start form you and examining the truth (or lack thereof) of the bible, shall we?

[YieldedOne]

This is a Christian source, but he does this so WELL I want to use this here. He's dead on the mark.

11 Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your holy spirit from me.

This is not about grieving the Holy Spirit, as if there is danger that God will not be willing to extend grace, that the sin is so hideous that God will reject the prayer. In fact, this is not about the Holy Spirit in a Christian sense at all. That understanding of God will have to await God’s revelation of himself in Jesus Christ when an understanding of the Trinity could be formulated.

Here, as in all of the Old Testament, the "spirit" or "breath" of God is simply a metaphorical way to talk about the active and dynamic presence of God in the world to effect change and growth. It is this "breath" of God that moved on the primeval waters at the beginning of creation (Gen 1). It is this "breath" of God that dried up the waters of the Great Flood (Gen. 6). It is this "breath" of God that filled Ezekiel’s dry bones with new life (Ezek. 37). The prayer of the psalmist here is for the dynamic and creative presence of God that will bring the change for which he cries.


EXACTAMUNDO!!!


Trying to say that David really meant nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel here would completely go against what this whole penitential psalm is even ABOUT.


Y'all seein' this?

[Ramadhan]

Before you claim everything in the bible as being true,

can we first examine and ascertain the veracity and authenticity of the bible?

[YieldedOne]

Naidamar:
You are asking us to be in the position of objective minds, and yet when it comes to bible you are being absolutely subjective and close your eyes and mind to every evidence and facts about bible that do not conform to your idea about bible and Isa (as). So, why don't we start form you and examining the truth (or lack thereof) of the bible, shall we?

Let's do that. Do you have any inter-textual or historiographical reason for dismissing the two Psalms above? If so, list them and your sources. Better yet, do you have any historically verifiable sources that point to Judaism actually believing the the Holy Spirit of God was the angel Gabriel?

I've already talked about the longer ending of Mark and what that meant. Hopefully, that showed that I am far from being uncritical about my approach to the Christian scriptures.

[YieldedOne]

Naidamar:
Before you claim everything in the bible as being true, can we first examine and ascertain the veracity and authenticity of the bible?

We are not talking about the "Bible" right now. We are talking about the Old Testament texts (in Hebrew texts) that we have available. NOT any Christian translations. But that used by Jewish scholars.

Just look at the HEBREW, man!

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

Whole thread at a glance

[YieldedOne]

Lemme just say this. I've got a seminary degree (Master of Divinity) so I've had to study the OT and NT in the their original languages...and deal with all the historicity issues of the texts. That's why I'm not uncritical of the Bible and can't stand any of the King James versions! :D

I'm not saying this for braggin' rights at all. That's stupid. I'm saying this just to let it be known WHY I focus so much on proper exegesis, historical context, AND looking at the original languages.

FYI. :thankyou:

(I'm glad I'm putting some of it to use. I'm STILL paying the student loans. LOL! :D)

[siam]

Wikipedia: Judaism and Islam...

The historical interaction of Judaism and Islam started in the 7th century CE with the origin and spread of Islam in the Arabian peninsula. The two religions share similar values, guidelines, and principles. Islam also incorporates Jewish history as a part of its own. Muslims regard the Children of Israel as a central religious concept in Islam. This is evident by Moses being mentioned in the Qur’an more than any other prophet (including Mohammad) and the Exodus being the most recurring theme. There are approximately forty-three references to the Israelites in the Quran (excluding individual prophets), and many in the Hadith. From the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai, until the present, the history of Judaism has spanned approximately 3400 years. For the first 2000 years of this history Islam was not in existence. As a result there is no discussion of Islam in the founding texts of Judaism. However, later rabbinic authorities and Jewish scholars such as Maimonides discuss the relationship between Islam and Jewish law extensively.

Because Islam has its foundation in Judaism and they share a common origin in the Middle East through Abraham, both are considered Abrahamic religions. There are many shared aspects between Judaism and Islam; Islam was strongly influenced by Judaism in its fundamental religious outlook, structure, jurisprudence and practice. Because of this, as well as through the influence of Muslim culture and philosophy on the Jewish community within the Islamic world, there has been considerable and continued physical, theological, and political overlap between the two faiths in the subsequent 1,400 years.

There are several errors in understanding as well as presuppositions in this article----the Muslim perspective is different....

It is true that there has been much interaction between Islam and Judaism---and Quranic arabic was used to understand hebrew terms (I think maimonides even compiled a dictionary---or something). However, simply because there are similarities between the 2 religions does not mean that one was founded on the other. Such similarity would naturally exist if the author/founder of both religions were the same. IMO, the reason there was more interaction between the two great faiths is precisely because Judaism did not consider Islam as an off-shoot of Judaism but a religion in itself. (otherwise it would have dismissed Islam as having nothing to contribute) And this is precisely why Western/Roman Christianity did NOT have much interaction with Islam because it DID dismiss Islam as Christian heresy (one of many).

Also---Both Judaism and Islam are religions that stand on their own. Neither religion requires the need to interpret its Holy texts using any other religious source. Both religions have their own interpretative traditions. Both religions are perfectly clear about their core fundamental belief ---the Shema for Jews and Tawheed for Muslims.

IMO---Perhaps one reason why some Jews after the 7th century were able to consider Islam as a relgion in its own right may be because according to Judaism---God has sent many Prophets and Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) ---while not a JEWISH Prophet---was acceptable as a Prophet sent to the Arab peoples who had not recieved a Prophet before......

[YieldedOne]

Unbelievable. :hmm:

Ok. Let's do it this way. Islam believes that Jesus is the Messiah, right?

WHERE did that belief originate? Meaning belief IN a Messiah of God at all.

Did it originate with Judaism or Islam?

I'm gonna watch this answer VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERY closely...

[YieldedOne]

Actually, let's dodge that rabbit trail, shall we? Let's just deal with the whole "Holy Spirit as Gabriel" thing? What possible evidence can anyone bring forth that David actually believed that the Spirit of God he spoke of in Psalms 51 and 139 was nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel?

THAT'S what I wanna see. ;D

[siam]

[QUOTE=YieldedOne;1423972]Siam:
my particular stance on this issue is that a Jewish understanding that the Holy Spirit is the "Spirit of Prophesy" does not conflict with what the Quran/Islam says. That this Holy Spirit is understood as same/similar to Angel Gabriel in Islam, does not create any problems in understanding either, since Angels Gabriel IS a messenger (The word for angel in Hebrew also means messenger). Muslims neither worship the Angel Gabriel , or the Holy Spirit as God.

I'm wondering why there is not problem, bro. Yes, the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit of God does involve it benig the "Spirit of Prophecy" that was upon all of the prophets. No Second Temple Jew would ever have denied that. But the idea that the Holy Spirit is the SAME as any particular angel is non-existent in what we know of Judaic theology, past and present. And the idea that the angel Gabriel is similar enough to the Jewish idea of the Holy Spirit simply because he's a messenger of God who aids divine revelation seems like a wrong logical leap. That is to effectively dismiss the problem based upon similarity of function...and that doesn't seem warranted. The major thing is that, from what I'm reading, many (most?) Islamic sources don't seem to say that the angel Gabriel is merely SIMILAR to the Holy Spirit, but in point of fact, is IDENTIFIED as the Holy Spirit. Basically, Gabriel and the Holy Spirit are seen as one and the same. Insofar as this perspective is seen as a legitimate Islamic perspective, it clashes radically with the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit. Note that we are not even talking about the later Christian idea of the Holy Spirit (ala third person of the Trinity) or anything like that. Actually, we could just as easily be specifically talking about solely Jewish concepts and resources here without any talk of Jesus at all...and we'd STILL have the issue.
If the Jews have their own understanding of Holy Spirit/Angel Gabriel---That's fine by me----I'm not going to argue with them....
I think the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit as the "Spirit of Prophethood" works fine within the Quranic context. I don't see any Problem---nor do I see any significant difference between the Angel Gabriel/Holy Spirit---If you have a problem with it---'friad I can't help.....
*****************************

Siam:
From the Muslim Perspective, Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was a human being just like any other prophet before him. The details of his birth or the various aspects of his life do not detract from the fact that he was a human being---NOT GOD. Understanding the intricacies of the nature of the Holy Spirit and/or Angel Gabriel does not change the fact that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was a human being who was a Prophet. Previous Prophets as well as Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) were strengthened with the Holy Spirit. It is not unusual other than that Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was given this at birth, whereas Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) for example, recieved it later in life....

We are not talking about Jesus being God. That line of thinking has absolutely no bearing or weight in what we are talking about here. We are talking about Jesus being a totally finite human being who was a prophet ONLY by the Holy Spirit of God, even in his own self-understanding. Jesus would have been very aware of the Jewish theology around divine revelation, prophecy, and wonderworking. He also would have been aware of the messianic claims of Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Joel. As a mystic (which even the most liberal of theologians will say), his historical life would have been centered on working with the Holy Spirit of God upon him. Why is this important? Simply because it is very highly unlikely that when Jesus (or his contemporaries) talked about the Holy Spirit of God...that they refered to any individual angel, let alone Gabriel. No Second Temple Jew woud have thought that the Holy Spirit that inspired Moses and all the rest of the Prophets and Teachers was nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel. No way. They would have thought of the Presence of God being "upon" an individual, working in and through that one for God's purposes. Basically, what I'm saying is this: honest observation of Jesus as a Jewish prophetic figure (and NOTHING MORE THAN THAT) cannot omit his belief in God's Spirit ala Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Joel. He wouldn't even qualify for being the Messiah AT ALL if that weren't the case.

Again, notice that none of this has anything to do with any claim of Jesus being God. This is simply looking at him through JUDAIC eyes. And that's all I'm asking to happen.
"In Judaism---"Presence of God" can be upon an individual or place in many ways---one of it being the schechina (Arabic--sakina)---I'm afraid I don't see your point--if you want to make Prophet Jesus(pbuh) into more than he is---that's fine by me....
***************************************

YO: Here's my question. Are Muslims welcome to read the Quran critically examining it by the Judaic roots of their faith? I'm slowly getting the impression that that's out of bounds. There seems to be so much concern that the Quran will be affronted in some way...that true critical analysis of the relationship between Islam and Judaism is hindered. It really does seem that way. But maybe that's just me...

Siam: As explained above---the Quran itself discourages blind belief---(That was the problem with the Meccan Pagans and the people of Prophet Abraham(pbuh) they uncritically followed the "traditions of their fathers" even though such traditions were filled with error....) I do not consider Judasim or Christianity to be the "root" of Islam. They were previous prophets/revelations sent by God (Yes ---- the ONE God) However, the Quran itself is complete and correct in and of itself and stands on its own. It does not require Judaism or Christianity to interpret it. However, all knowledge is helpful in understanding the Quran, whether it is knowledge of previous revelations or science, philosophy, history...etc.....

Why this stance? Muslims believe errors have crept into the previous revelations therefore it would be inadvisable to use them to interpret the Quran. Why did God allow errors to distort the previous revelations?....because the responsibility of preserving those revelations was given to mankind. ---and mankind failed.

Ok. This is my thought. Let's say that we had a Judaism scholar who specialized in Second Temple Judaism, specifically expert on messianism of the time. Let's further say that this scholar HAPPENED to be Muslim. How would this professional academic scholar approach the Old Testament texts in his research? Would his Muslim sensibilities about "errors" in the text (qua the Quran's statements on such) condition his academic, intellectual integrity about what he found AS scholar? In other words, if he had all the data to know to get at the best possible sources that we have for all the OT texts...and he found them to be as historically viable as any other type of documents like that we use for historiographical purposes...would he STILL be functionally dismissive of the texts simply because the Quran said there were "errors"? My thought would be that this scholar would NOT be prejudiced against the OT texts simply because his belief in the Quran inclined him towards doing so. He would supposedly look at all the evidence FAIRLY and OBJECTIVELY and let the proverbial chips fall where it may. That's what academic, scholarly integrity is all about. And I bet that any Judaism scholar who looked at Islam would have to through out any sense of academic objectivity to deny that "roots" of Islam that are found in Judaism.
---I don't know where current scholarship stands---but from what little I know, The OT was compiled by several authors over time and they often combined or "harmonized" 2 or more versions of a story into one........(?)

So, my thought is this: Can Muslims be ACADEMICALLY OBJECTIVE about the historical lines of thought that lead to the rise of Islam and Christianity from Judaism. If faith in the Quran itself NEGATES that ability, then that is very, very, VERY serious. And it implicitly says something about the faith itself. Don't you agree?
----As I keep pointing out--and other Muslims as well---The Quran does not condone blind belief----Islam has documentation to prove it did not arise out of Judaism. The Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) is the MOST documented Prophet. The historical records are there for any scholar to see.
For example, if there was a scholar of Islamic studies who happened to be a Christian...who dismissed the historical data concerning the Quran---There are such scholars. Mostly because they find the TRUTH difficult to believe...... because he felt like the Quran denied Jesus being the Son of God, that "scholar" would INSTANTLY lose all credibility and stature by his peers. Would the same thing happen for a scholar of Judaism who was Muslim? ---No Muslim dismisses the Jewish Holy texts. We respect all previous revelations even though they contain errors.

***********************************

Siam:
I am not aware of any scholars specifically discussing the issue of the Holy Spirit with this in mind----The comment about X,Y was meant as a general statement in terms of understanding the Quran---that is, the idea that the words of the Quran are chosen carefully and deliberately. ---in this context, perhaps, Utube video by Br Nauman Ali Khan may be interesting (its given to a Muslim audience though)---its called Divine Speech Prologue.

I'll try to look for that on YouTube today. Thanks! :)


********************************************

Siam:
However, if I were to accept that the Quran chooses words carefully, then it would stand to reason that if the Quran meant Angel Gabriel---it would have said so. That it adds the dimension of Holy Spirit, IN MY OPINION, may indicate a nuance. Such an understanding might be supported by the translation and tafsir by Yusuf Ali (particularly tafsir of Surah 70....)

to give some background---I was discussing the similarities about soul/spirituality between the Quran (and Islamic scholarship---particularly Al-Gazzali)and Judaism with a Jewish person when I came across the Jewish understanding that the Holy Spirit and Spirit are not identical. ---Such an understanding would not contradict the Quran IN MY OPINION.

Well, that's just it: how representative of Islamic thought do you believe your opinion to be? Do MOST Muslims that you know make the allowance for nuance that you do? Or is the majority perspective that the angel Gabriel is nothing more or less that the Holy Spirit? The vast amount of discussion of this subject that I see online by Muslims seems to indicate to me that it is. If it is, then the issue is still rearing it's head.
---How reperesentative I am?--no idea--but since what I am saying does not contradict what most Muslim scholars are saying---I'd say I'm doing ok......The Quran is full of nuance---sophisticated and subtle-----So I think most Muslims are highly capable of understanding nuance. I myself do not see any significant difference between Angel Gabriel /Holy Spirit.....I have already explained my stance on the issue.....

I am getting the feeling I am missing something?^o) that perhaps I have not understood you/your points?---what exactly are we talking about here?

[SalamChristian]

Peace brothers, all of you.

Let me get this, does this mean that you accept the Qur'an as being the truth and the word of God?

Until I have read the whole thing, and learned enough arabic to be sure of its meaning, I cannot testify to its complete divinity. That would be hasty. What I have read, however, has been a miraculous experience. Nothing short of miraculous.

Mary was a devout and chaste woman. Whether "farj" means womb or vagina, it does not matter to the point of this discussion. The point in terms of this discussion is that Jibreel (as) blew of the Holy Spirit into her, such that she conceived. The website referenced Google Translate--it looked legitimate to me. You do not need to judge before you offer compassion and help. It is not the way of Allah (swt) or his people.

Go ahead and read the books in Sinaiticus, as those are most likely the ones that Muhammad (as) came into contact with. Read any mainstream translation. As long as you are reading it, it will be good for you. Use websites that have Hebrew side-by-sides and definitions for the Hebrew script, as well as for the Greek of the NT. Come to it with a critical, open mind, and with pride for your Islamic point of view. Test all of the scriptures, the languages, in every way that you can to find if they fit the description in the Qu'ran, according to Qu'ranic arabic. I did the same thing when I came to the Qu'ran, and it has been miraculous. Miraculous. Amazing. I can't describe this experience in few words.

My best friend is from Cairo, for real. He looked up the original arabic for the last ayah of Al-Fath for me yesterday, because I wanted to be sure about the meaning of the verse. He is fluent, and he couldn't even figure out what the arabic meant--not even in translation engines. It was too sophisticated. He is calling his mom in Egypt for me and finding out about it.

"Qataluh" means curse/****ation in arabic. I can prove this to you, within the Qu'ran, as well as with references to its Hebrew cognate "qelalah." "Salab" refers to a form of punishment such that the backbone is broken, the spinal fluid is released, and the head comes off via hanging on a tree. Jesus (as) was crucified, wama salaboohu, wama qataloohu. The Qu'ran does not preach against crucifixion, brother. It preaches courage to action through faith. Nothing inspires someone more to martyrdom than knowing that the Shaitan did the best he could to get rid of the Messiah, and he failed, and God resurrected him and took him up to him.

Judas hangs himself in the Gospel, such that his head falls off and his insides fall out. This is true "salab" and "qataluh."

The symbol of Salab:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ankh.svg

The symbol of crucifixion:
http://chr4.tripod.com/gifs/cross2.gif

The symbol of belief in eternal life through human sacrafice, VS the symbol of belief in eternal life through Allah's divine mercy. I wish I could explain to you all of the signs that Allah has shown me in the last few months. It is so amazing. The Qu'ran has been a huge part of that. Allah is so clever, so wise, it is beyond any of us.

Let's find a Goodly word between each other, brother, as we are encouraged to do in the Qu'ran. I don't hate you. I have love for all, and love for Allah is inscribed in my heart and on my forehead and on my hand.

Take heed and find peace with your brothers quickly. We are living in a bizarre time. Omar's tan African-Arabic friend got up from the couch last month, turned pale as a white man, rolled his eyes back into his head, and yelled "I am God! This is Hell! I am Hell!" I can't describe how his face disfigured and body convulsed. Omar jumped off the couch and started reciting the Throne Verse immediately in Arabic, and grabbed hold of his wrists. All of the big strong men in the room ran away scared, and Omar is not a big man. A girl I know started convulsing earlier this year and going in and out of consciousness for about an hour, and asking me to do terrible things to her. I recited David's Psalm 23 over and over as I held her down to the ground with ALL of my strength. She wasn't conscious, but when I told her to recite she would do it, and the next day she remembered Psalm 23 by heart.

There are more terrible things out in the world for us to fight against than our minor differences. There is only one Allah, and there is only one true Ummah, and we will only be saved by unity with the mercy of Allah.

Salaam Alaikum

[siam]

Hebrew Bible
The term ruach hakodesh (or "holy spirit") occurs once in Psalm 51 and also twice in the Book of Isaiah. (Found in Psalm 51:11 and Isaiah 63:10) Those are the only three times that the precise phrase "ruach hakodesh" is used in the Hebrew Bible, although the word "ruach" (for "spirit") in various combinations is used often, and kodesh ("holy") is also used often. The word ruach, much like the English word spirit, can mean either wind or some invisible moving force.
The following are some examples of the word "ruach" (in reference to God's "spirit") in the Hebrew Scriptures:
Genesis 1:2 (Tanakh - A New Translation)
"A wind from God sweeping over the water."
1 Samuel 16:13 (ASV)
"And the Spirit of Jehovah came mightily upon David from that day forward."
Psalm 143:10 (KJV)
"Thy spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness."
Isaiah 44:3 (KJV)
"I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring."
Joel 2:28 (RV)
"I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy."

The first Hebrew Bible use for the phrase "ruach hakodesh" (or "holy spirit") in Psalm 51 contains a triple parallelism:
10 "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit (רוּחַ נָכֹון) within me."11 "Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit (רוּחַ קָדְשְׁךָ) from me."12 "Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with a (רוּחַ נְדִיבָה) free spirit."[1]Talmud

The term is discussed in the Babylonian Talmud, Makkot 23b and elsewhere. Rabbinical use is discussed by Joseph Jacobs and Ludwig Blau in the article "Holy Spirit" in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1911.[2] -----Wikipedia

**********************************************

Judaism does believe that God’s Spirit (or Presence) is Holy. Judaism does not, however, believe in a separate manifestation of God referred to as the “Holy Spirit”.
The words “Ruach HaKodesh” (i.e. “The Holy Spirit”) never appear in the Hebrew Scriptures.
There are three times in the Scriptures where there is mention, however, of God’s Holy Spirit:
Psalm 51:13 – Ruach Kadshecha – Your holy spirit;
Isaiah 63:10 – Ruach Kadsho – His holy spirit;
Isaiah 63:11 – Ruach Kadsho – His holy spirit
There are only these three occurrences of the term “Holy Spirit”—hardly enough to create a doctrine, and definitely not indicating anything that we did not already understand about God. Because all three of these passages are lacking the definite article (i.e. the word “the”), the term in those three instances is understood to simply refer to God’s Spirit being Holy.
In later Jewish literature, the “Holy Spirit” is connected to a spirit of Prophecy. But either way, there is no reason to make the assumption that, somehow, this Holy spirit of G-d is a separate entity. There is no support for the concept of the trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Respectfully,
Rabbi Azriel Schreiber ----Jewishanswers.org ask-the rabbi.

Also ---If I understand correctly, King David is not considered a Prophet in Judaism........So what is your point?.....................^o)

[siam]

Since Trinitarian Christians have so abused the OT text, its interpretations and its concepts---I would not believe any Christian who thinks he speaks for Jews. It is best to allow Jews to speak for themselves about their own texts, its interpretations and Jewish doctrines and concepts........

[YieldedOne]

1) The discussion of the term that the Wikipedia article cites is the Jewish Encyclopedia that I've been quoting from this whole time, if you check. Here's the link.


2) I'm aware of the triple parallelism, Siam But there are other interpretations. Here is a note from the section of the book you quote. The Spirit in First-Century Judaism by John R. Levison, Page 65. I think you should note something very, very important.

I think we'll see the beginning of this whole misinterpretation...

This is not the only way in which the language of Psalm 51 may be interpreted. The reference in 51:19 to God's presence, sent in a position parallel to the holy spirit, could easily have sugggested the external presence of God, such as that which led Israel, according to Exodus 33. Precisely this parallel is drawn in Isaiah 63, which contains the only other reference to "holy spirit" in the Hebrew Bible. In Isa 63:9-10, the "angel of his presence" appears to be identified with the "holy spirit" whom Israel greived. In the ensuing lines, the "holy spirit" is set in a position parallel to God's glorious arm which divided the waters of the sea at the exodus (Isa 63:11-12). Thus, the parallel between God's presence and the holy spirit may suggest equally the exterior power of God which cannot be identified as the sustaining power of human life.

Note some things...

A) This is EXACTLY the interpretation of the "holy spirit" I was talking about. This IS a viable interpretation from the JEWISH perspective, Siam. And if you look at the Psalms 139 passsage, it goes right along with that...

Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me.
If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me,
and the light about me be night,”
even the darkness is not dark to you;
the night is bright as the day,
for darkness is as light with you.



B) Notice the Isaiah 63:9-10 passage. I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that THIS is the Scripture that may have gotten misinterpreted into the holy spirit being the ANGEL Gabriel!

In all their affliction he was afflicted,
and the angel of his presence saved them;
in his love and in his pity he redeemed them;
he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.
But they rebelled
and grieved his Holy Spirit;
therefore he turned to be their enemy,
and himself fought against them.

I bet you MONEY that this is what got misinterpreted. Somehow the "angel of his presence" got TRANSLATED as the angel Gabriel, the angel who "stands in the presence of God" (LUKE 1:19!! Basically, the understanding of Luke 1:19 gets (illegitimately) READ BACK INTO the Isaiah 63:9-10! You can almost see it go down. Someone reads this passage...DOESN'T take the context of the other considerations into account...and MISREADS the parallelism such that--because of the way the angel Gabriel is described in Luke--Gabriel is seen as the "angel of his presence." Daaaaaaaaang.

I know y'all seein' this, right? WOW!


3) Siam, no one is talking about the Spirit of God being a person of the trinity or any such thing. The ONLY THING we are talking about here on this thread is whether or not it is a true claim that the Holy Spirit is nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel. I'm suprised you haven't gotten this by now. And I'd like you to notice something. It is still the case that all of the evidence that we have thus far doesn't bode well for the idea that the holy spirit being completely identified with the angel Gabriel. If anything, we now have a likely candidate for what got misinterpreted in the first place.

[YieldedOne]

Yeah. It's makin' sense...

It's the whole "angel of his presence" thing. This is described as an angel who mediated God's presence in certain phenomena with the Israelites, associated with the "angel of the Lord" (Exodus 3:2). Interestingly, this would be like what SalamChristian was talking about with an angel being a MEDIATOR for God's Presence.

It seems that someone read about this mediatorial and/or theophanic angel [who has never been confirmed as Gabriel or any other named angel; some have surmised it was Michael] somehow believed that 1) the holy spirit designation could ONLY apply to this angelic mediatorial presence and 2) this angel was specifically Gabriel.

But both of those claims are problematic.

Hmmm...looks like I'm not the only one to see that...

Some people suggested that the Angel of the Presence, or the Holy Spirit refers to the angel Gabriel, since Luke 1:11 quotes the angel saying "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God." However, "standing in the presence of God" is totally different in meaning with "being the Angel of God's Presence".

[Ali Mujahidin]

For that I'd have to pretend I'm not a muslim, I'd have to pretend the Qur'an was not divinely inspired etc

Sounds like someone is trying to get us Muslims to become fasiq just for the sake of an argument. Very insidious, isn't it?

[YieldedOne]

ThisOldMan:
Sounds like someone is trying to get us Muslims to become fasiq just for the sake of an argument. Very insidious, isn't it?

I didn't know what fasiq was so I had to look it up...

Fasiq is an Arabic term referring to someone who violates Islamic law. However, it is usually reserved to describe someone guilty of openly and flagrantly violating Islamic law and/or someone whose moral character is corrupt.

Then insidious. That word means "treacherous, crafty" or something like that.

Let me say this clearly: I am not attempting to use "treachery" or "craftiness" to attempt to get Muslim adherents to openly or flagrantly violate Islamic law. That's NOT my intention or my purpose. I would hope that, from my time here, you and others would see that I don't have any hidden agenda or ill will. I don't do that stuff. Let's hope the best for one another's intentions, shall we?

[YieldedOne]

It's very interesting. Levison has a section called "The Angelic Spirit" that someone else picked up on in their work. Very interesting. Here's a snippet...

Before moving on, however, some clarifications of the terms “angelomorphic” and “angelomorphism” are in order. According to Crispin Fletcher-Louis, these terms are to be used “wherever there are signs that an individual or community possesses specifically angelic characteristics or status, though for whom identity cannot be reduced to that of an angel.” The virtue of this definition—and the reason for my substituting the term “angelomorphic pneumatology” for Levison’s“angelic Spirit”—is that it signals the use of angelic characteristics in descriptions of God or humans, while not necessarily implying that either are angels stricto sensu: neither “angelomorphic christology” nor “angelomorphic pneumatology” imply the simple identification of Christ or the Holy Spirit with angels.

Basically, the author took the sensibilities of Levison and created verbage that would capture his insights and lessen confusion. The insight in question was that there cannot be simple identification with or reduction to any particular angel.

Just more info....

[Ali Mujahidin]

Let's hope the best for one another's intentions, shall we?

Good idea, but just so that there is no more misunderstanding about how Muslims stand with regards to this issue, let me explain something.

In Islam, there are three things which cannot be said in jest: marriage, divorce and murtad (apostasy). What is said in jest, or in make-believe, or in a rhetorical sense, will be considered to be said in earnest and for real. So a Muslim cannot, just for the sake of argument, say that let's set aside, for the time being, the fact that the Quran is the truth. To say so, even in jest would mean that he is fasiq and therefor has murtad. To accept that the Quran is the truth is one of the principles of iman. To deny even just one of the principles of iman means that the iman is not complete. An incomplete iman is the same as no iman at all. Without iman, it is impossible to be a Muslim.

Hope this is useful. Insha Allah.

[YieldedOne]

Thanks for your candor and graciousness, ThisOldMan. Thanks, bro.

ThisOldMan:
In Islam, there are three things which cannot be said in jest: marriage, divorce and murtad (apostasy). What is said in jest, or in make-believe, or in a rhetorical sense, will be considered to be said in earnest and for real. So a Muslim cannot, just for the sake of argument, say that let's set aside, for the time being, the fact that the Quran is the truth. To say so, even in jest would mean that he is fasiq and therefor has murtad. To accept that the Quran is the truth is one of the principles of iman. To deny even just one of the principles of iman means that the iman is not complete. An incomplete iman is the same as no iman at all. Without iman, it is impossible to be a Muslim.

This was a very helpful explanation. As I understand this, a Muslim cannot even theoretically consider that the Quran may be errant on a point of doctrine...without that very consideration being conceptualized as apostasizing from Islam itself. Basically, it's a faith-mandatory (ie avoidance of fasiq and murtad) view of absolute inerrancy and infallibility of the Quran. As such, there cannot be any attempts at any objective standpoint to the Quran (and it's study) that would have it's possible errancy as a presupposition.

A Muslim could never say "Ok. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that the Quran COULD POSSIBLY be wrong on this point."

If I am wrong about what I've said, please let me know.

If what I've said is an accurate implication of your explanation, it would seem to put the Islamic scholar in an intractible situation, with respect to looking at ancient Jewish literature. There's simply no way that an Islamic scholar could even be OPEN TO the idea that the "Holy Spirit-completely-identified-with-Angel Gabriel" may actually be from an early misinterpretation of the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit partially via eisegesis of a New Testament text (Luke 1:19). Even as viable a possibility as that might actually be, given all of the historiographical evidence that can be brought to bear on the subject.

Intriguing.

[YieldedOne]

What's interesting to me, from a Christian perspective, is this: It was just the assumption of absolute inerrancy and infallibity of Scripture that lead to the Roman Catholic Church embarrassing itself when Galileo tried to say that the earth went around the sun.

Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. In February 1616, although he had been cleared of any offence, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture",[10] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

The Roman Catholic Church's logic was clear: Your findings go against what we believe about Scripture and Scripture CANNOT be wrong, therefore you are wrong because your findings conflict with Scripture. This was their then-present logic...and it completely kept them blind from even seeing that they MAY have been wrong. And they are STILL paying for that mistake even today!

I don't see how Islam can avoid these same issues...if they hold the absolute inerrancy and infallibility view. Just my thoughts.

[YieldedOne]

We could actually frame things like this, to take away some of the sting:

Whenever Maulana Maududi makes the claim that the angel Gabriel "is also called the Holy Spirit" and says that "in the mouths of the Old Testement prophets..., it carried exactly the same significance"...it is COMPLETELY FAIR to ask whether or not all of the information we can bring to bear concerning Jewish literature and historical understanding of the Holy Spirit comes into direct conflict with Maududi's claim.

In other words, we can academically contest Maududi's claim that the Old Testament prophets actually believed that the angel Gabriel was "also called" (and completely identified) with the Holy Spirit of God.

If we can't even ask THIS question, then...wow...

This is all a very interesting lesson for me as far as interfaith dialogue between Islam and other religions. Glad I'm learning this.

[YieldedOne]

"It should be noted that the Quran uses the words Holy Spirit and Gabriel interchangeably. In one of the reports speaking of the first revelation to the Prophet the angel who brought the revelation is called al-Namus al-Akbar, or the great Namus, and Namus means the angel who is entrusted with Divine secrets (N.); the Divine secrets, of course, being the Divine messages to humanity sent through the prophets of God. The same report adds that it was the same angel that brought revelation to Moses. Thus both the Quran and the reports make it clear that Divine revelation was brought to the Prophet, as well as to the prophets before him, by the angel Gabriel who is also called the Holy Spirit or the Faithful Spirit or the great Namus. This clears up all doubts as to what is meant by the Holy Spirit in Islam; and in the mouths of the Old Testament prophets, as well as Jesus Christ, it carried exactly the same significance. It is true that there is not the same clarity here as in Islam; but it is equally true that the orthodox Christian conception of the Holy Spirit was quite unknown to the Jewish mind, and in this respect Jesus Christ was a staunch Jew, his terminology being taken in its entirety from the Jews. In the Old Testament terminology, the form used is the Spirit or the spirit of God. In Ps 51:11 and Is. 63:10, the form used is Holy Spirit which is also the form adopted in the Talmud and Midrash."
--Maulana Maududi

Heh. This makes it even easier. He specifically talks about Psalm 51:11 and Isaiah 63:10...EXACTLY where the misinterpretation could have taken place!

Ooooooooooh. :shade:

Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from your presence,
and take not your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
and uphold me with a willing spirit.

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

In all their affliction he was afflicted,
and the angel of his presence saved them;
in his love and in his pity he redeemed them;
he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.
But they rebelled
and grieved his Holy Spirit;
therefore he turned to be their enemy,
and himself fought against them.

[Fivesolas]

THis whole page has just you talking YieldedONe. lol

[YieldedOne]

LOL!

Well, EVERYONE is encouraged to jump in this. You first, Fivesolas. What do you think of where the conversation is right now? What do you think of where some of this evidence points thus far? I'd love to hear from others like Naidamar, Siam, MustafaMC, and Woodrow, too.

[YieldedOne]

Oh, that's rich! Maududi CLEARLY SAW the link between the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit and what happened with the earliest Jewish Christians' experience of the Holy Spirit!

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

The function of the Holy Spirit is described thus:

"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" (En. J.).

It is clear from this that the Jewish idea was that the Holy Spirit brought inspiration to the prophets, the only difference between this and the Islamic conception being that the latter looks upon the very words of revelation as proceeding from a Divine source, while the former apparently regards the words as being those of the prophet speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ and his disciples used the word in exactly the same sense. Jesus' first experience of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove was the result of his baptism by John (Mt. 3:16) which seems to indicate its association with a certain stage in the spiritual development of man. The Holy Spirit did not descend upon him until he was baptised. The idea of a dove-like form is also met with in the Jewish literature. Moreover, Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as inspiring the righteous servants of God: "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord?" (Mt. 22:43); "For David himself said by the Holy Ghost" (Mk. 12:36); the Holy Spirit is given to them that ask Him (Lk. 11:13). Even the disciples' first experience of the Holy Spirit is a repetition of the old Jewish tradition. As there we find the Spirit coming with "a voice of a great rushing" (Ezk. 3:12), so in the case of the disciples of Jesus "there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind" (Acts, 2:2). Thus the Holy Spirit as conceived by Jesus and his disciples was the same as in the Old Testament prophets, which again is almost identical with its conception in Islam, and the orthodox Christian view of the spirit as one of the three persons of the Godhead, co-eternal with God, is of later growth.

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

He was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT on that part. He was just wrong about the OT Prophets (and Jesus and the disciples) believing in the complete identification of the Holy Spirit with the angel Gabriel. I would submit that this particular interpretation is a product of wrongly eisegeting Luke 1:19 (Gabriel as angel who "stands before the presence of God) into Psalm 51:11 and Isaiah 63:9-10 (the "angel of His Presence")...in effect saying that Gabriel IS the "angel of His Presence."


Too funny!!! :omg:

[YieldedOne]

Sorry I'm so manic...but this is terribly exciting to me! :D

Maududi lays it on the LINE, too...

It was not the Prophet who spoke under influence of the Holy Spirit; it was a Divine Message brought by the angel Gabriel, and delivered in words to the Prophet who communicated it to mankind: "And surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The Faithful Spirit has brought it on thy heart that thou mayest be a warner, in plain Arabic language" (26:192-195); "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel -- for surely he revealed it to thy heart by Allah's command" (2:97); "The Holy Spirit has revealed it from thy Lord with the truth" (16:102).

See what he's saying here. He is CLEARLY DISTINGUISHING the Islamic concept from the Judaic here. and he explains this in his note...

It is clear from this that the Jewish idea was that the Holy Spirit brought inspiration to the prophets, the only difference between this and the Islamic conception being that the latter looks upon the very words of revelation as proceeding from a Divine source, while the former apparently regards the words as being those of the prophet speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

In other words, he's saying this: According to Surah 16:102, Muhammad heard revelation from God straight from the Holy Spirit (Gabriel) rather than being merely speaking under his inspirational influence, like other prophets...such that the words of the Quran proceeded from a "Divine source."

But this whole reasoning is based off of the idea that it is TRUE that the Jewish "Holy Spirit" is nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel.

And THAT is what can be contested. :)

[siam]

"And THAT is what can be contested. :) "

----Why?


As for Maududi, I think he is making a distinction between "revelation" and "inspiration"---- there is nothing to argue there.....

Since both Islam and Judaism have their own interpretative traditions----you can argue your Christian perspective all you want---it won't make much difference because neither Islam nor Judaism are influenced by Christian interpretations. Our interpretative traditions are internal. As I already explained we (Muslims and Jews)do not require other religious traditions to interpret for us.

Therefore--any debate on this issue is within the framework of Christianity only--that is---Do Christians feel it is appropriate to interpret Holy Spirit/Angel Gabriel as similar/same or are they different..............Has nothing to do with Judaism or Islam......SC simply used the Holy scriptures of other relgions to make his points---something that is standard practice in Christianity, I assume....

[YieldedOne]

YO:"And THAT is what can be contested. :) "
Siam: Why?

In the interest of pursuing the truth of the matter. Why ELSE? :)

************************************************

Siam:
As for Maududi, I think he is making a distinction between "revelation" and "inspiration"---- there is nothing to argue there.....

Yes, he's made that distinction. I'm not even disputing whether or not the angel Gabriel actually gave Muhammad revelation. I'm questioning the idea that Gabriel is to be identified with the Jewish concept of the Holy Spirit. That's ALL.

************************************************

Siam:
Since both Islam and Judaism have their own interpretative traditions----you can argue your Christian perspective all you want---it won't make much difference because neither Islam nor Judaism are influenced by Christian interpretations. Our interpretative traditions are internal. As I already explained we (Muslims and Jews)do not require other religious traditions to interpret for us.

If you please, bro, I'd really like to keep the "Christian" stuff out of this. This has nothing to do with Christian interpretations at all. We are looking at sources dealing with Maududi's claims and the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit. We are specifically looking at a source that YOU brought into the conversation, remember? And this is not about trying to use another religious tradition to interpret Islam. It's specifically about looking at a claim being made and seeing if it's reasonable to think it true or not. Please, please, please don't make this some "Christian" agenda...because it's not.

****************************************

Siam:
Therefore--any debate on this issue is within the framework of Christianity only--that is---Do Christians feel it is appropriate to interpret Holy Spirit/Angel Gabriel as similar/same or are they different..............Has nothing to do with Judaism or Islam......SC simply used the Holy scriptures of other relgions to make his points---something that is standard practice in Christianity, I assume....

I could ask all of these same questions as an Orthodox Jew...or an atheist. This has nothing to do with an explicitly "Christian" framework. Again, please don't make this some "Christian" issue. It's an issue that any rational person approaching the data can look at.

[siam]

"If you please, bro, I'd really like to keep the "Christian" stuff out of this. This has nothing to do with Christian interpretations at all. We are looking at sources dealing with Maududi's claims and the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit. We are specifically looking at a source that YOU brought into the conversation, remember? And this is not about trying to use another religious tradition to interpret Islam. It's specifically about looking at a claim being made and seeing if it's reasonable to think it true or not. Please, please, please don't make this some "Christian" agenda...because it's not."

"Maududi's claims"-----as per yr post---Maududi is claiming that the Jewish people feel the Holy Spirit is the "spirit of inspiration" ---and this has already been shown by my previous post---there is no dispute here. Maududi is further claiming that the "Holy Spirit" mentioned in the Quran is also mentioned by the Jews and Christians. ---since "Holy Spirit" is in the NT----there is no dispute here.

The Quran mentions the "Holy Spirit" in connection to Prophet Jesus(pbuh) and Prophet Muhammed(pbuh)---both Prophets who "recieved inspiration" therefore, the Holy Spirit can be understood according to the Jewish understanding of "Spirit of inspiration" ----again no dispute here.

Muslims believe the "Holy Spirit" mentioned in the Quran is Angel Gabriel. They arrive at this conclusion not because of anything Christians or Jews have to say---But through a thorough and critical look at Quranic language, grammer/syntax....etc. And What the Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) said. Therefore-the only way to prove or disprove this is through the language/syntax/hermanuetics of the Quran. And the science of ahadith.

If you are asking ---Did Jews believe the Holy Spirit was Angel Gabriel?---I'd say---I've no idea....you'll have to ask the Jews.:D


--------------I suppose that leaves us with nowhere to go from here...;D

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
"Maududi's claims"-----as per yr post---Maududi is claiming that the Jewish people feel the Holy Spirit is the "spirit of inspiration" ---and this has already been shown by my previous post---there is no dispute here. Maududi is further claiming that the "Holy Spirit" mentioned in the Quran is also mentioned by the Jews and Christians. ---since "Holy Spirit" is in the NT----there is no dispute here.
The Quran mentions the "Holy Spirit" in connection to Prophet Jesus(pbuh) and Prophet Muhammed(pbuh)---both Prophets who "recieved inspiration" therefore, the Holy Spirit can be understood according to the Jewish understanding of "Spirit of inspiration" ----again no dispute here.

You are missing the main thing here, Siam. Maududi is also claiming that the Old Testament prophets and Jesus believed that the Holy Spirit was nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel. He CLEARLY claims this...and this is the claim that's in dispute. That's what this whole thread is about, remember?


********************************************

Siam:
Muslims believe the "Holy Spirit" mentioned in the Quran is Angel Gabriel. They arrive at this conclusion not because of anything Christians or Jews have to say---But through a thorough and critical look at Quranic language, grammer/syntax....etc. And What the Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) said. Therefore-the only way to prove or disprove this is through the language/syntax/hermanuetics of the Quran. And the science of ahadith.

If the "Holy Spirit" language of the Quran has absolutely NO TIES WHATSOEVER to "anything...Jews have to say", then why would Maududi spend such time MAKING THE TIE of the Quranic "Holy Spirit" (via Surah 16:102) to the Holy Spirit of the Judaism (ie Old Testament prophets and Jesus)? Maududi himself is the one who makes the historical tie. Maududi makes it CLEAR that he believes the Holy Spirit that Quran is talking about is the SAME ONE that the Old Testment Prophets and Jesus were talking about. It's right there in his work, Siam.

So the idea that this can be solved ONLY be diving into the Quran and Hadith is mistaken. All that is needed is to CONFIRM or DISCONFIRM Maududi's claim that the OT Prophets and Jesus actually believed that the HOly Spirit was nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel. We can formally separate Maududi's claims about the Quran from the Quran itself for that purpose.

**********************************

Siam:
If you are asking ---Did Jews believe the Holy Spirit was Angel Gabriel?---I'd say---I've no idea....you'll have to ask the Jews.

What do you think I've been doing using that Jewish Encyclopedia article. That is authoritative and authentically Jewish thinking there. It's a great resource for this. This IS "asking" the Jews what they think. But that's my point. If the Jewish adherents were to DISAGREE with Mr. Maududi that the Old Testament Prophets (Islamically speaking, this would include David!) actually believed that the Holy Spirit of God was identical to the angel Gabriel, would this have any bearing on the credibility of Maududi's claims, insofar as that was true?


***********************************


Siam:
I suppose that leaves us with nowhere to go from here

Oh, really? Surely you can give your opinion about Maududi's claim, given all of the information you've seen so far on this thread. Do you think it stands up to scrutiny? Surely you can form some kind of intelligent perspective on that.


*********************************

Hey! Where's everyone else? I know there's more people reading than this... :)

[YieldedOne]

It's actually this simple:

If there is no evidence anywhere that adherents of Judaism (including the Old Testament prophets and Jesus) believed that the angel Gabriel was the Holy Spirit of God, then that provides us with reason to believe that Mr. Maududi's claim in that respect is inaccurate. As I've been trying to note (via the Jewish Encyclopedia article and other info), there really IS no evidence of such a belief. If anything, Siam, the "triple parallelism" book you cited from Wikipedia--the Levison book--proves too much. There were two major interpretations given there: 1) holy spirit as refering to purified human spirit and 2) holy spirit as refering to representation of God's Presence. Please note that NONE of the options for interpretation included any claim about Gabriel being identical to the Holy Spirit at all. That's very, very significant.

[YieldedOne]

CAUTION: My hearing is very poor, but I believe I detect instrument music in the video.


While I'm waiting...a break.

Here's one of my favorite songs of all time. I have the album. Love it.

Holla. :)

All praises be to the Holy One.

(thanks for the caution, admins. I hope this isn't causing any trouble, rule wise. If so, just delete it. I most definitely don't want to offend with such a beautiful song! Blessings!)

[siam]

YO,
I didn't see Maududi making any direct claims that the Jews thought the Holy Spirit is Angel Gabriel.......

I have some questions for you.....(I am looking for your personal opinion....)

1) Is Jesus Christ(pbuh) the Holy Spirit?

2) What is your idea/definition of Holy Spirit?

3) If Jesus Christ(pbuh) is a mystic in yr opinion---How does the role of crucifixion work out?

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
I didn't see Maududi making any direct claims that the Jews thought the Holy Spirit is Angel Gabriel.

Exact quote from Maududi...

It should be noted that the Quran uses the words Holy Spirit and Gabriel interchangeably. In one of the reports speaking of the first revelation to the Prophet the angel who brought the revelation is called al-Namus al-Akbar, or the great Namus, and Namus means the angel who is entrusted with Divine secrets (N.); the Divine secrets, of course, being the Divine messages to humanity sent through the prophets of God. The same report adds that it was the same angel that brought revelation to Moses. Thus both the Quran and the reports make it clear that Divine revelation was brought to the Prophet, as well as to the prophets before him, by the angel Gabriel who is also called the Holy Spirit or the Faithful Spirit or the great Namus. This clears up all doubts as to what is meant by the Holy Spirit in Islam; and in the mouths of the Old Testament prophets, as well as Jesus Christ, it carried exactly the same significance.

Now, I don't know how else to read this except the following:

The term "Holy Spirit" had "exactly the same significance" to the Old Testament prophets and Jesus...as what is meant by the term "Holy Spirit" in Islam: it is nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel.

Please notice that "...exactly the same significance" line. With that, the above is all the sense I can make of Maududi's quote. And this is a direct claim that the Old Testament Prophets and Jesus (all Jewish prophets) thought the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel.

Does everyone else see this clearly?

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
I have some questions for you.....(I am looking for your personal opinion....)

1) Is Jesus Christ(pbuh) the Holy Spirit?

2) What is your idea/definition of Holy Spirit?

3) If Jesus Christ(pbuh) is a mystic in yr opinion---How does the role of crucifixion work out?

Tell you what. I'd rather not derail the thread any further than we have to. I can answer all those questions for you via private message if you are just looking for my personal opinions on these things. Is that cool? :)

[YieldedOne]

Compacted thread view at a glance

[YieldedOne]

Actually, take a close look at something. In the quote above, Maududi specifically says that one of the reports says that the angel who brought the message to Muhammad (Gabriel) was the "same angel" that brought revelation to Moses. He's speaking about Exodus 3:2 (referred to in
Acts 7:20). Basically, Maududi claims that the reports says that the "angel of the Lord" who appeared to Moses in the burning bush was the same angel Gabriel who appeared to Muhammad.

But that's interesting. Again, there is NOTHING from the Jewish side of things that attest to the "angel of the Lord" being equivalent to Gabriel. Here is the whole Jewish Encyclopedia article on angels. It talks about Gabriel a lot of times...with ABSOLUTELY NO INDICTATION that Gabriel should be identified as the Holy Spirit OR the "angel of the Lord."

Doesn't this count for anything? Don't you think that if Gabriel was the "Holy Spirit" mentioned in Psalms and Isaiah...and that ALL the OT prophets held this belief...that Blau and Kohler would have mentioned that? Seriously.

As far as the credibility and "Jewishness" of the Jewish Encyclopedia...

The Jewish Encyclopedia was an encyclopedia originally published in New York between 1901 and 1906 by Funk and Wagnalls. It contained over 15,000 articles in 12 volumes on the history and then-current state of Judaism and the Jews as of 1901. It is now a public domain resource. Jenny Mendelsohn, of University of Toronto Libraries, in an online guide to major sources of information about Jews and Judaism, writes of this work, "Although published in the early 1900s, this was a work highly regarded for its scholarship. Much of the material is still of value to researchers in Jewish History." Rabbi Joshua L. Segal of the Reform movement called it "a remarkable piece of Jewish scholarship" and added, "For events prior to 1900, it is considered to offer a level of scholarship superior to either of the more recent Jewish Encyclopedias written in English."

[YieldedOne]

So some of our sources for discussion right now:

1) Hebrew Scriptures
2) Maududi's "The Religion of Islam", Section: "The Holy Quran"
3) Articles in Jewish Encyclopedia ("The Holy Spirit"; "Angelology" )
4) "The Spirit in First-Century Judaism" by John R. Levison (cited in Wikipedia)

Personally, I think this is more than enough for us to answer the question of whether or not the OT Prophets believed the Holy Spirit was the angel Gabriel.

[YieldedOne]

^o)

...

:mmokay:

...

:giggling:

...

;D

...

:happy:

...

:shade:

...

:coolious:

[YieldedOne]

I'll bring this back. Repost remix...

If Maulana Maududi's interpretation of the Holy Spirit is a legitimate Islamic interpretation (ie. the Holy Spirit of God is to be completely identified with the angel Gabriel), then either one of two things has happened:

1) Judaism has had it's doctrine about the Holy Spirit of God inaccurate all these years--even unto this day--by never stating such a thing in any of it's literature...and Islam (via the Maududi's commentary on the Quran) has "clarified" that theological error. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia, with all of it's scholarship, was inaccurate on this.

or...

2) Mr. Maududi had possibly misunderstood the Jewish concept of the Holy Spirit held by the Old Testamaent prophets and Jesus, effectively allowing for an interpretation where the Holy Spirit is seen as nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel. This could have been done by effectively conflating the Jewish "angel of his presence" or "angel of the Lord" with the angel Gabriel.

Given all of the data we have currently, which option appears to have more historical support backing it?

Please note that I am NOT denying Muhammad's angelic visit by Gabriel at ALL. Nor am I asserting the the Holy Spirit is some kind of person ala trinitarianism. ALL OF THAT is extraneous to this conversation and this thread's intent. The only thing that's being considered, at this point, is whether or not it's true that the term "Holy Spirit" had the "exactly the same significance" to the OT Prophets and Jesus...as it did to Muhammad (and Maududi), such all parties believed that the Holy Spirit was equivalent to the angel Gabriel.

I just wanna keep focus with this.

[YieldedOne]

Ok, dear readers. If you don't want to comment on the thread (for whatever reason), is it possible that you could private message me your thoughts on all this? I'll keep all comments confidential. Promise. I'd just like SOME feedback. Both Christians and Muslims.

The silence is deafening. :nervous:

[Woodrow]

Yes the silence is deafening. That often happens when the readers feel the original question has been answered. You actually have 3 somewhat incomparable answers here. The Muslim answer, the Christian answer and to a lesser degree the Jewish answer. It is impossible to reach a single conclusion as there is no full acceptance as to what are reliable sources for searching verification.

For Us who are Muslim it is simple the answer is: The "Holy Spirit" when thought of as being an entity is the Angel Jibreel. Nothing left to add to that

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
Yes the silence is deafening. That often happens when the readers feel the original question has been answered. You actually have 3 somewhat incomparable answers here. The Muslim answer, the Christian answer and to a lesser degree the Jewish answer. It is impossible to reach a single conclusion as there is no full acceptance as to what are reliable sources for searching verification.

For Us who are Muslim it is simple the answer is: The "Holy Spirit" when thought of as being an entity is the Angel Jibreel. Nothing left to add to that

1) THANKS for the response! Glad it's you, too. :D

2) I'll ask this again, brothers and sisters. Let's PLEASE take "Christian" out of this. That does nothing but obscure the real issue. We are not dealing with Christian doctrine on Gabriel or the Holy Spirit in the least here right now. I am specifically talking about Jewish doctrine and belief right now. I repeat, we are not discussing the Christian perspective of either the Holy Spirit or Gabriel.

3) The rational question at hand is being posed: Is Mr. Maududi's claim that the term "Holy Spirit" had "exactly the same significance" to the Old Testament prophets and Jesus as what it means in Islam: the angel Gabriel...a historically credible claim? Is this not a fair question? (Side thought: If interfaith dialogue (atheist/Muslim; Jew/Muslim) cannot engage this historically-based question, doesn't that seem to be a serious limitation?)

4) What is the "lesser degree" Jewish perspective that we have so far, brother Woodrow? THAT'S the seat of the question right there! Is there evidence to suggest that the Jewish perspective of Gabriel and the Holy Spirit has the two concepts identified? That is to say, does what we can tell about Jewish views on the Holy Spirit AND Jewish angelology CONFIRM or DISCONFIRM Mr. Maududi's historically-based claim about what the Old Testament Prophets and Jesus believed?

5) You mentioned that "there is no full acceptance as to what are reliable sources for searching verification." Which of these sources do you believe to be unreliable? If you please, detail WHY it's unreliable. That would help me tremendously.

--Hebrew version of Torah, Prophets, and Writings
--Maududi's "The Religion of Islam", Section: "The Holy Quran"
--Articles in Jewish Encyclopedia ("The Holy Spirit"; "Angelology" )
--"The Spirit in First-Century Judaism" by John R. Levison (cited in Wikipedia)


6) My assumption is that everyone who is interested in this question wants to know truth about it. That's all we're after here...right? Woodrow said...

For Us who are Muslim it is simple the answer is: The "Holy Spirit" when thought of as being an entity is the Angel Jibreel. Nothing left to add to that.

I think there is, bro. You know as well as I do that it is either TRUE or NOT TRUE that the "Holy Spirit" actually IS the Angel Jibreel (Gabriel). But I leave that ultimate question open. I will concede that the Islamic perspective just is what it is, quranically speaking. Not negating that, ok?

But you also know as well as I do that it is either TRUE or NOT TRUE that the OT Prophets and Jesus had exactly the same beliefs about the angel Gabriel being the Holy Spirit as Islam does. This is a historically verifiable claim that is being made. It doesn't negate Muslim FAITH to answer this question. It would seem to me that all of the information we have about Jewish views on angelology and the Holy Spirit seems to stand as distinct from Islamic claims. Which is why I mention the two options above. Either Maududi's correct...and the Jewish theology, even it's most scholastic adherents, has been at best misinformed upon and/or misunderstanding that subject up unto even current day. OR Madudi's incorrect, possibly by a conflation of the "angel of His Presence" with Jibreel (Gabriel), who "stands in the Presence of God."

What wrong with saying that Jewish theology and angelology has been "unclear" in that area...until Islam "clarified" it for them? That's pretty much what Maududi says anyways.

What's wrong with saying that Mr. Maududi's historically-based claim about the OT Prophets and Jesus is, at best, historically unjustifiable? How does that cause any problems?

[YieldedOne]

Basically, all I guess I'm claiming is that it is not historically demonstrable or justifiable that Jewish believers in general (and the OT Prophets and Jesus, in particular) actually believed that Gabriel (Jibreel) was the "Holy Spirit" spoken about in Psalm 51:11 and Isaiah 63:10...against Maulana Maududi's claim that they did believe so.

[gmcbroom]

Yielded One,
I'm sorry, but you won't be able to take the Christian view out of the question because its a Christian dogma not a Jewish one. I think the best thing to do would be to close this thread. You know the muslim answer, and the christian one.

Peace be with you.

[Woodrow]

In simplest terms we do not know what is true in the bible or the torah unless it is also found in the Qur'an. We do believe the original scriptures that were followed by the Jews and Christians do not exist in their original form, therefore can not be verified.

In an over simplification If you look at how Jews and Muslims define the words Spirit and Holy, the Angel Jibreel is a "Holy Spirit"

I do not see any conflict between us in the view of Jibreel being a Holy Spirit. if there is any conflict it is over if we can call other things the Holy spirit or if it applies to Jibreel alone. Just my opinion I see it as applying to other things also, such as the Knowledge we gain from Allaah(swt), the feeling we sometimes get when we desire to do good.

I do agree with Mr. Maududi, but that is based upon opinion not proven fact.

A short summation the entity that spoke to the Prophets(PBUT) was in most if not all cases Jibreel.

[YieldedOne]

gmcbroom:
I'm sorry, but you won't be able to take the Christian view out of the question because its a Christian dogma not a Jewish one. I think the best thing to do would be to close this thread. You know the muslim answer, and the christian one.

Welcome, gmcbroom! I'm afraid I don't understand what you've just said. What is a "Christian dogma not a Jewish one."? I don't know specifically to what you refer. Does the "dogma" you mention deal with the Holy Spirit and the angel Gabriel. I'm very unclear about what you mean.

But let's be clear about this. The answers we seek deal with the Muslim answer and the JEWISH answer. Christianity's not in this at all right now.

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
A short summation: the entity that spoke to the Prophets(PBUT) was in most if not all cases Jibreel.

EXCELLENT SUMATION! I'm saying that it's not historically justifiable to say that that Judaism in general (and OT Prophets and Jesus in particular) actually believed that, against Maududi's claims.

Great summation. :D

****************************************
Woodrow:
In simplest terms we do not know what is true in the bible or the torah unless it is also found in the Qur'an. We do believe the original scriptures that were followed by the Jews and Christians do not exist in their original form, therefore can not be verified.

Ah, but the main texts of the Hebrew Scriptures in question are the one Maududi bring up HIMSELF. Surely we can look at those texts that Maulana Maududi says are valid to look at, right?

"It should be noted that the Quran uses the words Holy Spirit and Gabriel interchangeably. In one of the reports speaking of the first revelation to the Prophet the angel who brought the revelation is called al-Namus al-Akbar, or the great Namus, and Namus means the angel who is entrusted with Divine secrets (N.); the Divine secrets, of course, being the Divine messages to humanity sent through the prophets of God. The same report adds that it was the same angel that brought revelation to Moses. Thus both the Quran and the reports make it clear that Divine revelation was brought to the Prophet, as well as to the prophets before him, by the angel Gabriel who is also called the Holy Spirit or the Faithful Spirit or the great Namus. This clears up all doubts as to what is meant by the Holy Spirit in Islam; and in the mouths of the Old Testament prophets, as well as Jesus Christ, it carried exactly the same significance. It is true that there is not the same clarity here as in Islam; but it is equally true that the orthodox Christian conception of the Holy Spirit was quite unknown to the Jewish mind, and in this respect Jesus Christ was a staunch Jew, his terminology being taken in its entirety from the Jews. In the Old Testament terminology, the form used is the Spirit or the spirit of God. In Ps 51:11 and Is. 63:10, the form used is Holy Spirit which is also the form adopted in the Talmud and Midrash."
--Maulana Maududi




***************************************

Woodrow:
I do not see any conflict between us in the view of Jibreel being a Holy Spirit. if there is any conflict it is over if we can call other things the Holy spirit or if it applies to Jibreel alone. Just my opinion I see it as applying to other things also, such as the Knowledge we gain from Allaah(swt), the feeling we sometimes get when we desire to do good.

Your bolded part is absolutely right. That IS what the conflict is. Mr. Maududi says that is ONLY applies to Jibreel...and he cites the Pslams and Isaiah in his commentary breakdown. So your opinion differs with his on that, yes?

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
I do agree with Mr. Maududi, but that is based upon opinion not proven fact.

Like...for real?

[gmcbroom]

I apologize Yielded One I misspoke. I should have said Catholic dogma. I believe there are Oneness Christians such as Pentacostals, and Jehova's Witnesses that may be able to give you there answer. As for the Jewish answer I just registered at a Jewish forum and if they accept it then I'll post a Question there to get their view on the Holy Spirit. Though they'll view me as a heretic.
Peace be with you

[YieldedOne]

Not a problem at all, bro. Peace unto as well! You said...

"As for the Jewish answer I just registered at a Jewish forum and if they accept it then I'll post a Question there to get their view on the Holy Spirit."

That's actually a GREAT idea! Maybe I can do that too. A possible encapsulating question is a simple one: Does the "Holy Spirit" spoken of in Psalm 51:11 and Isaiah 63:10 only refer to the angel Gabriel? Maududi says yes. Let's see what they say.

Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me.
Psalm 51:11

But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them.
Isaiah 63:10

[missy]

"It should be noted that the Quran uses the words Holy Spirit and Gabriel interchangeably. In one of the reports speaking of the first revelation to the Prophet the angel who brought the revelation is called al-Namus al-Akbar, or the great Namus, and Namus means the angel who is entrusted with Divine secrets (N.); the Divine secrets, of course, being the Divine messages to humanity sent through the prophets of God. The same report adds that it was the same angel that brought revelation to Moses. Thus both the Quran and the reports make it clear that Divine revelation was brought to the Prophet, as well as to the prophets before him, by the angel Gabriel who is also called the Holy Spirit or the Faithful Spirit or the great Namus. This clears up all doubts as to what is meant by the Holy Spirit in Islam; and in the mouths of the Old Testament prophets, as well as Jesus Christ, it carried exactly the same significance. It is true that there is not the same clarity here as in Islam; but it is equally true that the orthodox Christian conception of the Holy Spirit was quite unknown to the Jewish mind, and in this respect Jesus Christ was a staunch Jew, his terminology being taken in its entirety from the Jews. In the Old Testament terminology, the form used is the Spirit or the spirit of God. In Ps 51:11 and Is. 63:10, the form used is Holy Spirit which is also the form adopted in the Talmud and Midrash."
--Maulana Maududi

i can't access to the link u've provided :/........it's blocked...
can u post another link to the same stuff?

[YieldedOne]

Sure thing, peacelover.

http://aaiil.org/text/books/mali/rlg...olyquran.shtml

"h.ttp://aaiil.org/text/books/mali/rlgnislm/holyquran.shtml"

[gmcbroom]

Hi folks, I just dawned on me. Though I'm still waiting to post the question on the jewish forum. The Paraclete is the Holy Spirit. So I'm not likely to find an answer on that forum as its a trinitarian theology and they are not trinitarians. Also a similar question was answered earlier in another thread. The Holy Spirit is the paraclete not the arch angel Gabriel.
Peace be with you.

[YieldedOne]

Just for kicks I did a google search of "Jewish discussion forum" and "Holy Spirit" and I came up with the following things...

Beliefnet Community: Jewish concept of the Holy Spirit

and...

Israel Forum: What is the Holy Spirit in Judaism?

If you do look through all the posts--amid all the various views---you will notice a significant ABSENCE of any talk about the angel Gabriel.

Hence what I've been saying:

Either...

1) Maududi is accurate about the OT Prophets and Jesus [as Jewish prophets] believing Gabriel was the Holy Spirit...and most--if not all--Jewish understanding on the Holy Spirit (past and present) is in error to the degree it doesn't claim this to be true

or

2) Maududi has misunderstood the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit held by the OT Prophets and Jesus...and attributed to the Jewish understanding an historically unjustifiable interpretation of the Holy Spirit as Gabriel.

Both of these cannot be true at the same time.

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow. I'm seeking clarification.

Do you agree or disagree with Maulana Maududi that the "Holy Spirit" term applies to Jibreel alone? You said that you agreed with him...but in your personal opinion statement, you appeared to say that you thought that the term "Holy Spirit" could apply to things OTHER THAN Gabriel, Islamically speaking. You said...

Just my opinion I see it [the term "Holy Spirit" ] as applying to other things also, such as the Knowledge we gain from Allaah(swt), the feeling we sometimes get when we desire to do good.

So, I'm seeking clarification. Which is it for you, Woodrow: agreement or disagreement with Muadudi? It's unclear at this point.

[YieldedOne]

Ooops. I must beg everyone's pardon. Caught a major goof-up. :embarrass

It seems I conflated to different persons. Maulana Maududi and Maulana Muhammad Ali. Two different Muslim scholars with the first name Maulana. I got the two Maulanas mixed up early on in the thread...and just kept it going. The quote I've been quoting is from the LATTER "Maulana" and not the FORMER. Totally my bad. Wish I'd seen that earlier. So, it's Maulana Muhammad Ali who makes the particular direct claims we are talking about, NOT Maulana Maududi.

However, both Maulanas affirm that the "Holy Spirit" (ala Surah 16:102) who brought revelation to all the Old Testament Prophets (and Jesus) and revealed the Quran to Muhammad was the same entity: the angel Gabriel. In other words, both believed, as Woodrow said, that "The 'Holy Spirit' when thought of as being an entity is the Angel Jibreel."

So...we're still on track as far as the main question goes: whether or not such a view of the "Holy-Spirit-as-angel-Gabriel" is actually seen anywhere in Jewish belief (particularly the OT Prophets and Jesus), per Maulana Muhammad Ali's claim.

Once again, very sorry for the verbal snafu. Wish I'd have caught that sooner.

[siam]

"This clears up all doubts as to what is meant by the Holy Spirit in Islam; and in the mouths of the Old Testament prophets, as well as Jesus Christ, it carried exactly the same significance."

Note the words "Holy Spirit IN ISLAM" and "Significance"

Perhaps my english is not very good---but what I understand from that statement is that in Islam the Holy Spirit is believed to be Angel Gabriel (in a particular context) and such an understanding can be applied to the mention of Holy Spirit in the other 2 religions.----Nowhere does the person claim the JEWS (historically)think the Holy Spirit is Angel Gabriel. ---in fact the person (if it's the same) previously explained that the Jews think that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Prophethood/inspiration and IMO this understanding applies/works within the context of the Quran.

Christianity has been brought up from your own quote----see here....
"It is true that there is not the same clarity here as in Islam; but it is equally true that the orthodox Christian conception of the Holy Spirit was quite unknown to the Jewish mind, and in this respect Jesus Christ was a staunch Jew, "

---therefore---what this person is communicating isn't about Judaism---but about Christian misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit.---that is, though Judaism may not have understood the Holy Spirit with the same clarity as Islam (----as Angel Gabriel)--it would have understood it as the Spirit of Prophethood/inspiration and the person is further claiming that Jesus Christ(pbuh) being a Jew---would have also understood it this way.....

You are simply trying to muddy the waters for the sake of an entertaining argument........;D

However--Let us assume, hypothetically, that some Muslim person claimed that the Jews historically believed that the Holy Spirit is Angel Gabriel----and let us further assume, hypothetically, that we have all agreed that this is not correct.....then what?---the issue simply goes nowhere....time to give up YO?

[missy]

Just a side-note,

It was angel Gabriel who gave the glad tidings of the birth of Jesus to Mary; both in the Bible and the Quran alike. Check out the following verses:

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be.
30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. (luke 1:26-31)

16. relate In the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from Her family to a place In the East.
17. she placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then we sent Her Our Spirit (Gabriel), and He appeared before Her As a man In all respects.
18. she said: "I seek refuge from Thee to ((Allah)) Most gracious: (come not near) if Thou dost fear Allah."
19. He said: "Nay, I am only a Messenger from Thy Lord, (to announce) to Thee the gift of a holy son.
20. she said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
21. He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint Him As a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed." (surah Maryam 19:16-21)


But the difference being that, the Bible (as per my knowledge), doesn't specify how the Spirit was blown into her, whereas according to the Quran, it was Angel Gabriel who breathed into her the Spirit.

91. and (remember) Her who guarded Her chastity: we breathed into Her of Our spirit* (through angel Gabriel), and we made Her and Her son a Sign for all peoples. (Al-Anbiya 21:91)


The point is that according to Luke 1:15, John was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth:
" for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth" (luke 1:15)

So my question is when was Jesus filled with the Holy Spirit and through whom? And if even John was filled with it, then how is it ('the Holy Spirit') Divine and exclusively of Jesus??

One thing I need to clarify is that I'm not mixing up this term 'holy spirit' with angel Gabriel (in this context).
And i hope i ain't going off track!! :/

*Our Spirit here doesn't mean the Holy Spirit as according to the Christian Trinity.

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
Note the words "Holy Spirit IN ISLAM" and "Significance"

Ok.

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

Siam:
Perhaps my english is not very good---but what I understand from that statement is that in Islam the Holy Spirit is believed to be Angel Gabriel (in a particular context)

Agreed. As Woodrow said, "The 'Holy Spirit' when thought of as being an entity is the Angel Jibreel."

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

Siam:
and such an understanding can be applied to the mention of Holy Spirit in the other 2 religions.

That lessens the claim, I think. Muhammad Ali's statement is much more forthright: he says that the OT Prophets and Jesus (all possessing a Jewish understanding) genuinely thought of the angel Gabriel as the Holy Spirit of God (through whom all revelation comes) giving the same significance like Islam does to the term. THAT's what he's saying.
-----------------

Siam:
Nowhere does the person claim the JEWS (historically)think the Holy Spirit is Angel Gabriel.

1) He directly says that the term "Holy Sprit" had the exactly same significance to the Old Testament Prophets and Jesus as it does to Islam. That OT Prophets includes Moses, Isaiah, and David (insofar as he spoke by the Spirit).

2) Muhammad Ali says this...

It is clear from this that the Jewish idea was that the Holy Spirit brought inspiration to the prophets, the only difference between this and the Islamic conception being that the latter looks upon the very words of revelation as proceeding from a Divine source, while the former apparently regards the words as being those of the prophet speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Now, lets break this down, bro. Muhammad Ali says that the ONLY DIFFERENCE between the Jewish perspective and the Islamic is the mode of revelation: Inspiration Prophetic Speech vs Direct Revelation of Divine Message. To Muhammad Ali, Jewish prophets received influence from angel Gabriel and his inspiration and spoke from that. Muhammad on the other hand, received a Divine message directly from Gabriel in words. That's the ONLY difference Muhammad Ali sees. He doesn't see a difference insofar as BOTH Jews and Muslims believe that the Holy Spirit is a "Spirit" of Prophecy, Revelation and Inspiration. He also doesn't see a difference insofar as he believed that Jews and Muslims both saw Gabriel as the Holy Spirit of God. And it's that last part's where he's wrong.

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

Siam:
in fact the person (if it's the same) previously explained that the Jews think that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Prophethood/inspiration and IMO this understanding applies/works within the context of the Quran.

Let's get this thought out the way. Even today, Jews and Muslims will most likely AGREE that the Holy Spirit of God empowers Prophethood and Inspiration. They will DISAGREE that this "Holy Spirit" is nothing other than the angel Gabriel.

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

Siam:
that is, though Judaism may not have understood the Holy Spirit with the same clarity as Islam (----as Angel Gabriel)--it would have understood it as the Spirit of Prophethood/inspiration and the person is further claiming that Jesus Christ(pbuh) being a Jew---would have also understood it this way

You're mistaking something. All Muhammad Ali basically said was that it was not made AS CLEAR in Judaism as it is in Islam that the "Holy Spirit" IS the angel Gabriel. Not that it wasn't clearly understood by members of Judaism. His assertion is that the OT Prophets and Jesus DID clearly understand the Holy Spirit as Gabriel. Again, that's just what he says.

-------------------------
Siam:
Let us assume, hypothetically, that some Muslim person claimed that the Jews historically believed that the Holy Spirit is Angel Gabriel----and let us further assume, hypothetically, that we have all agreed that this is not correct.....then what?---the issue simply goes nowhere....time to give up YO?

Not nowhere. There would be some things to note.

1) I'd say that would be quite significant to say that such an Islamic scholar as Maulana Muhammad Ali was incorrect on such an issue, don't you think? I sure think so. I'm taking it that a LOT of people use his "The Religion of Islam" in which this is taught. Hmmm...

2) Maulana Muhammad Ali thought what he thought for a REASON. He seems to have been a very intelligent man (and that's an understatement!) He wouldn't have just gotten this idea from some random place. Personally, I think it makes sense that he misread Gabriel (the angel "who stands in the Presence" with the Holy Spirit (associated with the "angel of his Presence" ). Perhaps the seeds for that possible misinterpretation lie at deeper levels. I think, from an interfaith perspective (Jew/Muslim) there are some very interesting possibilities.

3) It seems that the statement "Gabriel is the Holy Spirit seen in Psalm 51 and Isaiah 63" is a faith-based statement, not a historically valid statement.

[YieldedOne]

Peacelover:
So my question is when was Jesus filled with the Holy Spirit and through whom? And if even John was filled with it, then how is it ('the Holy Spirit') Divine and exclusively of Jesus?? One thing I need to clarify is that I'm not mixing up this term 'holy spirit' with angel Gabriel (in this context).

This may be thought a lil' off topic, I think...but...

1) The idea of being "filled with the Holy Spirit" and Angel-Gabriel-as-Holy-Spirit are incompatible ideas. A prophet is not suffused with Gabriel's presence, islamically speaking, but is only influenced by divine inspiration/revelation activity from Gabriel upon them. There's no idea of the Holy Spirit "working within" a person possible. Just a note on that.

2) Insofar as the Jewish idea of the Holy Spirit is inextricably linked to God's active Presence, therein is it's divinity.

3) For my money, the Holy Spirit of God was "exclusive" to Jesus in terms of Jesus being the ONE Messiah of God. Long and short of it, the Messiah of God is one upon whom the Spirit of God "rests" and works upon (Check out Isaiah). The Messiah is the means by which the Spirit is "poured out on all flesh" (See Joel). This is why even though John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from birth, he called Jesus the one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire...as God's MESSIAH! Make sense?

[missy]

This is why even though John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from birth, he called Jesus the one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire...

then why does Jesus himself get baptised by John?

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then
John consented. (Matthew 3:13-15)

anyway, i'll research more on this InshaAllah....
rite now gtg...

[gmcbroom]

To fulfill all righteousness.