The "Paraclete"

[SalamChristian]

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

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

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

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

 

[Fivesolas]

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

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

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

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

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

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

 

[Fivesolas]

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

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

Salam,

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

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

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

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

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

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

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

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

Peace

 

[Fivesolas]

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


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


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

Peace

Here is the transliteration of the text:

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

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

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

παράκλητος τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον
parakeltos ho pneuma ho hagios


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

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

hey salam,

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

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

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

 

[Fivesolas]

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

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

for he lives with you and will be in you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace

 

[Fivesolas]

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



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




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




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

Peace

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

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

 

[missy]

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

Isn't it Muhammad PBUH ??

 

[Fivesolas]

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

Isn't it Muhammad PBUH ??

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

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

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

 

[missy]

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

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

Isn't it Muhammad PBUH ??

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

 

[Fivesolas]

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

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

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

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.submission.org/jesus/holy_spirit.html

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

Peace

 

[Fivesolas]

Salam,

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

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

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

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

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

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

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

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

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

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


Sounds like it could be the Holy Spirit?


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


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


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

the bible identifies the holy spirit as the comforter

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

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

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

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

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

Peace my brothers, May the Truth come.