Gospel of Timothy gives a clue about the coming of Islam

  • Thread starter Thread starter believer
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 110
  • Views Views 14K
I had many - but they're personal so I can't share them here.

i have too. but trumble has a point.
science is a system which analyzes things that can be proven.
religion is a system that requires no proof. (this does not imply that it is false (though some like to insinuate this).
it is just a different system.
 
I'm not the one who is a pro in a Bible exegesis, and neither is anybody on this forum.
Actually, I am. I have been trained in biblical exegesis. I have an M. Div. from an acredited seminary. And I make my living as a pastor where one of my prime responsibilities to provide proper biblical exegesis to the people in my congregation.

We ppl feel many things, true, but no offense, you've got no proof that the comfort you feel is coming from the "Holy Ghost"...

MadeenJibreel, I feel for you. The question you are asking does not even have any bearing upon the issue before us in the text.

I'm guessing that either (a) English is not your first language, (b) you are not a particularly educated in linguistics nor understand grammar very well (though you probably do speak more than one language, which is good), (c) you are very young and easily excited about things have a great deal of passion. None of this is to speak poorly of you. It is not to say that you are a bad person, or lacking in any personal character trait, in fact some of them such, as passion, are quite commendable. But I think it is hard for you to slow down enough to take a look at the actual evidence, the facts and the text to truly understand what others are saying, or to even see what it actually does say for yourself.

The tern, "the Comforter" is a translation of a Greek word, "paracletos". So other translations, also appropriate because as you must be familiar with rarely are there word-for-word translations between any two languages, one could render this same word as "Counselor", "Helper", "Advocate". All of those ideas are tied up in the word "paracletos". But the key to understand who/what this word "paracletos" refers to is that Jesus goes on in several specific places to say, "the paracletos, the Holy Spirit". That is just as if one were to say, "the Prophet, Muhammaed (pbuh)". The use of the comma in the phrase is a tool in English grammar to tell us who the Prophet is that the speaker is referring to. It is to a very specific prophet. Without the identification one might think of some other prophet. For instance, if speaking to a Mormon, they might just automatically think you were talking about Joseph Smith, who is their prophet. And likewise, if Jesus had not go one to identify who this Comforter was, we could possibily be confused thinking of many other individuals who comfort us. I might think of my Mom. You might think of Muhammad, and someone else might think of their boyfriend or girlfriend. So, to keep that from happening Jesus uses a particular grammatical construction by which he tells us who it is that he has identified as the "paracletos", and when we apply that to these passages Jesus tells us that the "paracletos" is no other than the Holy Spirit. It is NOT Muhammad, and those who think that they can find that in this passage are, in my opinion, grasping at straws.

The Sprit of Truth, spoken about in this prophecy referes to none other than Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
No. It doesn't. Please, let the text speak for itself. If you do, I think you will see that it does not even anticipate Muhammad, let alone imply that the Spirit of Truth is him. Here is just one of the things that Jesus tells his disciples about this "Spirit of Truth" he says that "he lives with you and will be in you" (John 14:17). Now I have never heard it asserted that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) lived with and was in any of Jesus disciples. Yet the Spirit of Truth does. Hence the Prophet Muhammad, on that alone, is excluded from being the one Jesus is speaking of when he refers to the "Spirit of Truth".
 
Last edited:
If that is what you use the Bible for, then I suggest that you stop using it. Because while you may not understand it, 2000 years of history show that it is understood "by Christian logic" to testify to the very things that you say that it disproves. To think that you are going to change 2000 years of history by your form of logic is to be so ego-centric in your view of the world that it means you obviously cannot see what others see. It is thus going to be your own spiritual myopica that is what it ultimately pointed out, not the contradictions or other things that you think are there, but truly exist only in your own mind and not in reality.

If you ask an average Christian about trinity, they will tell you that they don't understand it, if you ask them why you do so and so, you will not get a satisfying answer. WIll you really believe in what your priest says to you? Without even verifying his truthfulness? Why is it that the official Church has so many definitions in contradiction with the Bible?
Say...original sin?
Say...God and son of God? I know you tried to justify this one, but you failed. Say...mother of God? This means God has grandfather and grandmother or...?
Say...praying to God, Jesus and/or the Holy Ghost or even Mary for that matter?
Say...a confession? And not directly asking God to forgive you? (like you gotta go to a confession to somebody who perhaps has more sins on his back that you?)
Say...Jesus' name not present in the OT?
Say...Moses and other prophets from the OT never ever speak of Jesus?
Say...The 1st Commandment is God is One, yet 2000 of history says three? All of the sudden it's three not one, even though the Bible denies the trinity.
Say...Jesus doesn't know everything, yet 2000 of history still believes he is God?
Say...Jesus had needs, so he depended on things, surely God the Creator does not depend on His creations.
Say...Jesus was prostrating to God (read the Bible), yet Christians today do not feel like praying like he did? Who is a better example of God's servant - Jesus or the priests???

If you want me to continue the list, I will inshaAllah. I somehow do feel the questions from my list will not be answered. But that I do understand. It's hard to resolve all the paradoxes. In that there's many proofs that people changed what God has sent through Jesus, peace upon him.
 
Actually, I am. I have been trained in biblical exegesis. I have an M. Div. from an acredited seminary. And I make my living as a pastor where one of my prime responsibilities to provide proper biblical exegesis to the people in my congregation.



MadeenJibreel, I feel for you. The question you are asking does not even have any bearing upon the issue before us in the text.

I'm guessing that either (a) English is not your first language, (b) you are not a particularly educated in linguistics nor understand grammar very well (though you probably do speak more than one language, which is good), (c) you are very young and easily excited about things have a great deal of passion. None of this is to speak poorly of you. It is not to say that you are a bad person, or lacking in any personal character trait, in fact some of them such, as passion, are quite commendable. But I think it is hard for you to slow down enough to take a look at the actual evidence, the facts and the text to truly understand what others are saying, or to even see what it actually does say for yourself.

The tern, "the Comforter" is a translation of a Greek word, "paracletos". So other translations, also appropriate because as you must be familiar with rarely are there word-for-word translations between any two languages, one could render this same word as "Counselor", "Helper", "Advocate". All of those ideas are tied up in the word "paracletos". But the key to understand who/what this word "paracletos" refers to is that Jesus goes on in several specific places to say, "the paracletos, the Holy Spirit". That is just as if one were to say, "the Prophet, Muhammaed (pbuh)". The use of the comma in the phrase is a tool in English grammar to tell us who the Prophet is that the speaker is referring to. It is to a very specific prophet. Without the identification one might think of some other prophet. For instance, if speaking to a Mormon, they might just automatically think you were talking about Joseph Smith, who is their prophet. And likewise, if Jesus had not go one to identify who this Comforter was, we could possibily be confused thinking of many other individuals who comfort us. I might think of my Mom. You might think of Muhammad, and someone else might think of their boyfriend or girlfriend. So, to keep that from happening Jesus uses a particular grammatical construction by which he tells us who it is that he has identified as the "paracletos", and when we apply that to these passages Jesus tells us that the "paracletos" is no other than the Holy Spirit. It is NOT Muhammad, and those who think that they can find that in this passage are, in my opinion, grasping at straws.

No. It doesn't. Please, let the text speak for itself. If you do, I think you will see that it does not even anticipate Muhammad, let alone imply that the Spirit of Truth is him. Here is just one of the things that Jesus tells his disciples about this "Spirit of Truth" he says that "he lives with you and will be in you" (John 14:17). Now I have never heard it asserted that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) lived with and was in any of Jesus disciples. Yet the Spirit of Truth does. Hence the Prophet Muhammad, on that alone, is excluded from being the one Jesus is speaking of when he refers to the "Spirit of Truth".

necu ni pokusati odgovoriti na vrijedjanje
 
If you ask an average Christian about trinity, they will tell you that they don't understand it, if you ask them why you do so and so, you will not get a satisfying answer.

Well, tomorrow I will see a number of "average" Christians. I will ask them and see if they tell me that they don't understand. I suspect they understand more than you give them credit for. You just don't like their understanding and don't appreciate the explanations that they give, because you have yet to understand as they do.
 
Well, tomorrow I will see a number of "average" Christians. I will ask them and see if they tell me that they don't understand. I suspect they understand more than you give them credit for. You just don't like their understanding and don't appreciate the explanations that they give, because you have yet to understand as they do.

:sl:

Greetings of Peace Brother Gene,

i see that "we" have been sorely testing your patiernce resently, my apologies.

you DO have a couple of posts that i would like reply to. ahem, this being one of them.

you recently stated your opinion about Christmas being a "religious" holiday, me being a heretic via JW's and Herbert W.Armstrong, we know my position as well.

that out of the way, i am going to challenge your position that the folks that come to your service are "average" Christians. IF you have folks that attend service EVERY WEEK, then i would mark them as better than average! MUCH BETTER actually. similarly, Muslims pray 5 times a day, but not many brothers pray 5 times a day AT THE MASJID! better than average, well not so sure as that's what i try to do and i doubt that i'm better than average...

with this in mind, i suggest that the "AVERAGE" Christian probably goes to "church" twice a year, Easter and Christmas with the odd wedding or funeral tossed in. that being said, i would suggest that instead of asking your "better than average Christians" at service today, take you and some of "your flock" and head to the shopping malls. at random, ask the folks there if they are "Christian" and those that respond affirmatively, ask THEM to explain the trinity!

THAT would give you a better idea of what the "average" Christian understands about the trinity! and i'm pretty sure it would prove the Muslim point of view on this one!

:w:
 
:w:

I actually did give evidence based on logical reasoning:
- the Holy Ghost never speaks, so he can't be the Comforter (not the speaking one at least)
- the Comforter will speak in the Name of God
- he will speak what he hears (not what he thinks to speak)
- he will come after Jesus departs
- etc.

I understand that brother, but what I am saying is, a person provides evidence for his view, another person has a different view provides evidence for his view. Now, if both views are about the same, or if the person which has the weaker view comes forward, this person should then show why the other person's view is not acceptable.

So for example, the text of the Bible clearly says this paraclete is the Holy Spirit, now, you need to show why this is not so, you need to show that the Bible is wrong in saying that this person is the Holy Spirit.

So you have put forth evidence, the Holy Ghost never speaks, so he can't be the Comforter (not the speaking one at least), to logically show why the Holy Spirit can't be the paraclete, but you have to now show evidence to discredit the Bible for saying that the Holy Spirit is, because the Bible does identify him as that.
 
I understand that brother, but what I am saying is, a person provides evidence for his view, another person has a different view provides evidence for his view. Now, if both views are about the same, or if the person which has the weaker view comes forward, this person should then show why the other person's view is not acceptable.

So for example, the text of the Bible clearly says this paraclete is the Holy Spirit, now, you need to show why this is not so, you need to show that the Bible is wrong in saying that this person is the Holy Spirit.

So you have put forth evidence, the Holy Ghost never speaks, so he can't be the Comforter (not the speaking one at least), to logically show why the Holy Spirit can't be the paraclete, but you have to now show evidence to discredit the Bible for saying that the Holy Spirit is, because the Bible does identify him as that.

How about this?
Christians say that God is omnipresent (pls correct me if I'm wrong).
Next: they say "Holy Ghost/Comforter" will come after Jesus departs, but:
1. He's already there with Jesus and
2. He has nowhere to go, since they say "he is omnipresent".

If it would be possible that the one who is omnipresent could go and come back etc. then I don't see how? If you're everywhere, then what exactly is means "he will come back after Jesus is gone"??

Am I missing something from logic they didn't teach me in school?? Probably.
 
Perhaps they believe he(?) is omnipresent, but we, humans, can't see him and when he comes, he will merely show/reveal himself...
 
How about this?
Christians say that God is omnipresent (pls correct me if I'm wrong).
Next: they say "Holy Ghost/Comforter" will come after Jesus departs, but:
1. He's already there with Jesus and
2. He has nowhere to go, since they say "he is omnipresent".

If it would be possible that the one who is omnipresent could go and come back etc. then I don't see how? If you're everywhere, then what exactly is means "he will come back after Jesus is gone"??

Am I missing something from logic they didn't teach me in school?? Probably.

Akhi, what this will show is that there is something wrong with the understanding of the author. But it does not show that it is not the Holy Spirit, this can be used as supporiting evidence. But not evidence to show that the words Holy Spirit do not mean Holy Spirit.

What a Christian might tell you is that, we are mere mortal and cannot understand and infinate God. I mean the trinity is just as hard of a concept bro.
 
Akhi, what this will show is that there is something wrong with the understanding of the author. But it does not show that it is not the Holy Spirit, this can be used as supporiting evidence. But not evidence to show that the words Holy Spirit do not mean Holy Spirit.

What a Christian might tell you is that, we are mere mortal and cannot understand and infinate God. I mean the trinity is just as hard of a concept bro.

Look, simple and straightforward - are you putting me on trials here? Coz if u are, then back off. It seems like you're helping them...clarify your stance.
 
Am telling you what a Christian will tell you. Those that I've come across anyway.
 
Am telling you what a Christian will tell you. Those that I've come across anyway.

I'm not getting you akhi - we all have a bit different understanding of the things, so let Christians speak for themselves. Some of them still owe me some answers.
I hope they're not avoiding to answer.
 
:sl:

Greetings of Peace Brother Gene,

i see that "we" have been sorely testing your patiernce resently, my apologies.

you DO have a couple of posts that i would like reply to. ahem, this being one of them.

you recently stated your opinion about Christmas being a "religious" holiday, me being a heretic via JW's and Herbert W.Armstrong, we know my position as well.

that out of the way, i am going to challenge your position that the folks that come to your service are "average" Christians. IF you have folks that attend service EVERY WEEK, then i would mark them as better than average! MUCH BETTER actually. similarly, Muslims pray 5 times a day, but not many brothers pray 5 times a day AT THE MASJID! better than average, well not so sure as that's what i try to do and i doubt that i'm better than average...

with this in mind, i suggest that the "AVERAGE" Christian probably goes to "church" twice a year, Easter and Christmas with the odd wedding or funeral tossed in. that being said, i would suggest that instead of asking your "better than average Christians" at service today, take you and some of "your flock" and head to the shopping malls. at random, ask the folks there if they are "Christian" and those that respond affirmatively, ask THEM to explain the trinity!

THAT would give you a better idea of what the "average" Christian understands about the trinity! and i'm pretty sure it would prove the Muslim point of view on this one!

:w:


Well, it's good that you defined "average", for we are indeed thinking of two discreetly different groups of people.

The group you are talking about that goes to church twice a year, we call "C & E" Christians. Another word that might describe them is nominal Christians, that is Christian in name only. And that probably because they were born in a culture where Christianity was the dominant religion. My guess is that you're right, few of these people could articulate much, if anything, regarding the Christian faith. I'm not sure what that proves. Ask people who haven't been educated in a particular school of belief to articulate those beliefs and find out that they can't do it convincingly. That's sort of what I would expect. Most of them probably know the story of Santa Claus and the Easter bunny better than of Jesus because that's what the culture they live in teaches. Since they attend to all of the services involving those figures more regularly than they do to that which involves Christ, maybe, instead of Christain, we should call them SantaBunnyians?:D
 
Last edited:
To Grace Seeker

How about this?
Christians say that God is omnipresent (pls correct me if I'm wrong).
Next: they say "Holy Ghost/Comforter" will come after Jesus departs, but:
1. He's already there with Jesus and
2. He has nowhere to go, since they say "he is omnipresent".

If it would be possible that the one who is omnipresent could go and come back etc. then I don't see how? If you're everywhere, then what exactly it means "he will come back after Jesus is gone"??
 
Re: To Grace Seeker

How about this?
Christians say that God is omnipresent (pls correct me if I'm wrong).
Next: they say "Holy Ghost/Comforter" will come after Jesus departs, but:
1. He's already there with Jesus and
2. He has nowhere to go, since they say "he is omnipresent".

If it would be possible that the one who is omnipresent could go and come back etc. then I don't see how? If you're everywhere, then what exactly it means "he will come back after Jesus is gone"??

Christ didn't say the Holy Spirit would "come back", He said the Holy Spirit would be sent to them as a Comforter after He is gone. To remind His followers of all that He had said and taught. That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit went anywhere or has to "physically" travel anywhere. It was simply a reminder to His followers that He is always with them.
 
Re: To Grace Seeker

Christ didn't say the Holy Spirit would "come back", He said the Holy Spirit would be sent to them as a Comforter after He is gone. To remind His followers of all that He had said and taught. That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit went anywhere or has to "physically" travel anywhere. It was simply a reminder to His followers that He is always with them.

You're explanation is full of contradictions now:

- if the Holy Ghost leaves the scene with departure of Jesus, that means he's moving, going, ...
- if however, "he never leaves them", then how can he "come back" (or how can he be "sent back" to them)? where from will he "be sent back"?

Keltoi said:
It was simply a reminder ... He is always with them

Either you got it wrong or the Bible. If he's always with them, how can he be sent back to them? Anyway, if Holy Ghost is God as Christians think, and if Christians think God is omnipresent, then going back-forth makes no sense, correct?
 
Re: To Grace Seeker

You're explanation is full of contradictions now:

- if the Holy Ghost leaves the scene with departure of Jesus, that means he's moving, going, ...
- if however, "he never leaves them", then how can he "come back" (or how can he be "sent back" to them)? where from will he "be sent back"?



Either you got it wrong or the Bible. If he's always with them, how can he be sent back to them? Anyway, if Holy Ghost is God as Christians think, and if Christians think God is omnipresent, then going back-forth makes no sense, correct?

Who said the Holy Spirit leaves the scene with the departure of Jesus? Perhaps another way of understanding it would be this: Think of "sent" as not where the Holy Spirit is going, but where it comes from...which is God. I think you are too hung up on the coming and going aspect, when that isn't even the point. Christ is talking to His followers, men and women, and to comfort them when His body is gone, He promises them that the Holy Spirit will be "sent" to them, meaning a blessing from God will be with them. This is what happens when you get hung up on semantics.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top