The "Paraclete"

[SalamChristian]

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

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

 

[MustafaMc]

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

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

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

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

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

Salaam Alaikum

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

Peace brother

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

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

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

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

Peace

 

[MustafaMc]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

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

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

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

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

http://thecult.info/blog/2010/03/20/hadith-alleged-death-of-jesus-1-meaning-of-tawaffa/

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

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

Peace brother

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

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

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

Peace

 

[MustafaMc]

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

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

 

[Sol Invictus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[selsebil]

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

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




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

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



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

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

Peace brother

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

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

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




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

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

Worth repeating as that is how we see Paul.

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

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

 

[Fivesolas]

Worth repeating as that is how we see Paul.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace

 

[SalamChristian]

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

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

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

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

Peace

 

[Fivesolas]

Salam,

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

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

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

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

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