aadil77
Glory Be To Allah
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 978
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
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
Is the Holy Spirit the angel Gabriel?
- Thread starter Fivesolas
- Start date
- Replies 224
- Views 44K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
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
IB Legend
- Messages
- 6,469
- Reaction score
- 1,053
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- 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
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 15
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?
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?
YieldedOne
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 15
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.
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
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 15
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
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
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 15
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! 
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!)
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!
)
Last edited:
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
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 15
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...
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...
Last edited:
YieldedOne
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 15
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
THAT'S what I wanna see. ;D
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
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 186
- Reaction score
- 5
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Peace brothers, all of you.
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
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
Last edited:
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)
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)
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
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 15
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.
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.
Last edited:
YieldedOne
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 15
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".
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".
Last edited:
Ali Mujahidin
SaifulLah
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 109
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
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
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 15
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?
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
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 15
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....
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....
Last edited:
Ali Mujahidin
SaifulLah
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 109
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
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.