The "Paraclete"

[SalamChristian]

Doesn't clear up anything, except that I haven't been consistently using "subordinationist" lol.

If you want to use these terms, fine. According to these terms, Tertullian is a subordinationist. He views Christ as "external" to the father. A simple Google search would show you that this is overwhelmingly the opinion of Tertullian:

http://www.google.com/search?q=tert...W40QG-reTyDQ&start=0&sa=N&fp=502bef87f4123836

9/10 of those links at least talk about Tertullian being a subordinationist, a forerunner of subordinationist ideology, or some variation thereof. All you had to do was make the effort to consider my point long enough to type the phrase in Google to see that I am backed up by a lot of credited people, lol. You have to work with me here if you want to truly hear me. I can't make you hear me if you shut me out from the start.

As for Tertullian's use of the "economic" metaphor, it is biblical. "economic" = "oikos" + "nomos" in Greek. Rules of the House. The metaphor that Christ consistently uses in the gospel is of him being "in the house" of the Father. However, the "equal" clause does not follow from either Tertullian's teachings or the "oikos" metaphor.

Like I showed you, look at all of those links. Look at that overwhelming majority witnessing to Tertullian's subordinationist trinity. A quote from the first link there, published by the Princeton Theological Seminary:

"No doubt Tertullian's subordinationism is very marked. Though he conceives of the prolate Logos and Spirit as truly God, they are, in his view, God at the periphery of his being, going forth, in a certain reduction of deity, for the world-work"

It is not historically correct to suggest the doctrine of the Trinity was invented post-apostolic. It was simply dealt with in-depth by the 4th century.

Your point is my point. To claim that Tertullian is referring to the trinity in the phrase "believe in the son, father, and holy spirit" is ludicrous, because it was not dealt with in-depth until the 4th century. It was not a ****able offense until then, so certainly Tertullian isn't implying ****ation for not believing in the trinity? No, he must be implying ****ation for not believing the gospel, the Father's power, and the immanence of the Holy Spirit, or something to that effect. It's called historical criticism, people, and it is important!

Peace

 

[YieldedOne]

Frankly, I've always wondered how the "holy spirit" can be interpreted to be an angel (Gabriel). One of the main Old Testament prophesies was about God's Spirit being "poured out" upon all peoples in the consummation of all things.


Ezekiel 36
“Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God."


Joel 2
“And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
29 Even on the male and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit.

Then there's Peter QUOTING Joel 2 in Acts...
When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested [1] on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15 For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:

17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18 even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
20 the sun shall be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood,
before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.
21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

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

Absolutely none of these passages make any sense if God's "Spirit" is nothing more than an created angel (Gabriel).

Just my thought.

 

[JPR]

Look at the footnotes in the book, they point out that Montanus has declared he is the "paraclete," and they make this connection between Tertullian and Montanus. Look up Tertullian's relation to Montanus. Tertullian accepted Montanus' claims to have a special access to the prophecies of the "paraclete," or to be the paraclete, or whichever of these two possibilities was the true case.

The footnote in the book point to the description Tertullian made about the "carnal men", or catholics, as opposed to Montanists who are spiritual. Could you point me where, in the book, he refers to Montanus? To me, Tertullian is saying that you can have the Holy Spirit, Paraclete, only if you believe in God as the Father, Son and Spirit. Basically believe what Jesus said, that's why I said his view is the same as ours, in the text I read.

Okay, but what about Gabriel?

Woodrow made a good comment that the Paraclete should have free will. Tertullian says : "...them who believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."


What I meant by "Father, Son and Spirit" is exactly that: christian belief (since Tertullian was christian) of all that the Sonship means (crucifixion, Messiah, Son of God). If we start picking and choosing different definitions for christian beliefs outside the Bible, then what good is it? So because muslims don't believe in crucifixion and that Jesus was the Son of God, but agree he was the Messiah, then they can't believe in the same Jesus we do!

About muslims believing in the Spirit, you mean the Paraclete being Muhammad or in the Spirit? It can't be the same Spirit as we believe in because that would make them polytheists (to their view).

As for the Father, well, if He has no Son, then He's not really a Father?

So far on this Forum and a bit everywhere I looked, I saw muslims call God a three-headed beast, call us polytheists, that we are doomed, that Allah is One, and try to find contradictions in the Bible about the Oneness of God and how the trinity is a blasphemy. I, for one, wouldn't ascribe them any of our beliefs! But I agree that this subject is like walking on eggs, the thin line between heresy and countless injurious commentaries.

 

[SalamChristian]

the sentence just before "he drove out prophecy and brought in heresy".

Again, this is actually probably a reference to Montanus. Montanus' claimed to have written down the "new prophecy" from the "paraclete" Apparently Montanus wrote the book "the New Prophecy" which required stricter morality than other Christian communities, and claimed he either was the Holy Spirit, or had received it as a prophecy directly from the Holy Spirit. How much more similar to the Qu'ran could this be, lol?

 

[SalamChristian]

Could you point me where, in the book, he refers to Montanus?

The footnote and reference are on p. 27, like I said at the beginning of this thread. It clearly says "Remember that Montanus has accepted the title 'Paraclete.'"

Look at my comment that I just posted, and you will see how there is significant textual evidence that Tertullian was referring to Montanus. Also, google anything about Tertullian and Montanus, and you will see that Tertullian was a staunch supporter of Montanus. He is recorded as having written 7 books in support of Montanus. I believe it is Eusebius who records this fact about Tertullian.

Peace

 

[SalamChristian]

Frankly, I've always wondered how the "holy spirit" can be interpreted to be an angel (Gabriel).

Where do you see Revelation coming from? It is referred to in the text as both coming from the Angel sent by Jesus and also the Spirit.

One of the main Old Testament prophesies was about God's Spirit being "poured out" upon all peoples in the consummation of all things.

Again, why do we a assume that if Spirit takes a liquid-like, invisible form in people, it can't also take another form elsewhere? A lack of imagination? Is that truly the only barrier to this?

Again, how is it that Revelations is described as being a prophecy both from the Angel from Jesus and the Spirit "Pneuma". Not just a Spirit, but THE Spirit. Pneuma, as people have already pointed out in this thread, refers to a liquid-like substance--wind, breath. Not only this, but it is written that the Angel testified to everything that he saw concerning the word of God (Jesus). These are all characteristics of the Holy Spirit, and the "paraclete." And, moreover, they claim that The Spirit and the Angel from Christ are the same thing!

Peace

P.S. I have a lot of work to do. I won't have the chance to respond for awhile. There is so much information in this thread, however, that I know there are plenty of new ideas for people to argue about while I'm gone.

 

[SalamChristian]

One last thing!

I saw muslims call . . . that Allah is One . . . I, for one, wouldn't ascribe them any of our beliefs!

Allah is One, dude. You aren't accepting the Gospel of Jesus if you deny this, for he makes it clear that you must believe the "Lord your God is One" to be saved. So there is one belief that we share with the Muslims. Let the hate out of your heart, brother.

everywhere I looked, I saw Muslims . . . try to find contradictions in the Bible

Cool. So you are angry at the Muslims for this. But this is MY thread, and I submitted an idea that is neither an orthodox Christian view nor an orthodox Muslim view for discussion, to see if it could bridge the worlds exegetically. So prove me wrong with the text or with some kind of criticism relating to the text, and leave finger pointing at our Muslim brothers's behavior for somewhere else.

Peace

 

[Fivesolas]

In the interest of getting back on topic, I think we have established that the Comforter spoken of in the Gospel of John is not a reference to Mohammed.

I think it has been sufficiently shown, from the Scriptures, that Mohammed is not the Comforter spoken of by John.

The Comforter is the Holy Spirit, not Mohammed.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Subordination is considered one of the 3 great heresies of trinitarianism, along with modalism. The position of the church has been anti-subordinationist since the Aryan-Athanasian controversy. Church historians of Tertullian point out that this heresy is the logical endpoint of his theology. Today, the position of the church is considered by many to be predominately anti-subordinationist, as "subordinationist influences" have been creeping into the church, as they say. If you want to argue that heresies are not different than orthodox stances, be my guest.

i believe that it has already been mentioned but there two different types of subordination---one of which is biblical while the other is not. one is functional subordination and the other ontological subordination. the bible is quite clear that the son is functionally subordinate to the father (i.e. the father sent the son, the son came to do the will of the father, the son in being found a man made himself a servant of the father) this in no way means that the members of the trinity are not equal in nature but rather that they are distinct in role. hence the titles of the father, the so, and the holy spirit. the subordination which the church condemned is of a subordination in being. one which posits that the members of the trinity are not equal in essence and that the father is the true god etc. this is what we find in the theology of jehovah's witnesses and mormons for example.

We claim that Jesus has literal sonship.

no, we claim that the son is truly the son of teh father but not that he has literal sonship. literal sonship entails biology in that the son would be a union of god and a consort (as it is misunderstood in the qur'an). our sonship while truly real, is more figurative.

The Throne belongs to God and Christ, but if the Holy Spirit from God promises that he who conquers (meaning all believers who conquer) will be able to sit on the throne, then wouldn't this be fitting? Again, my exegesis of those two verses in Revelations show that an interpretation that "he who conquers" refers in a neutral tone to any believer, and that this is the preferred interpretation unless another arises. That it is the Throne of Christ and God as well does not disprove the interpretation, because, as I said, these verses also have God promising to share his throne with believers.

no, the conquerors do not sit on the throne of god at all. the conquerors become incorporated into the family of god and thus become co-rulers in the sense that they are part of the ruling family. it is christ who is the first-born among many brothers who rules with the father and sits on his throne. when god says that he will share his throne with believers it is far more probable to take it to mean dominion in that the believers will become part of the ruling family and will be even higher than angels. look at the very book you cite. it ends with christ and god being seated on the single throne and everyone else serving them (i hate to use this language but do so only to emphasize the distinction between christ and the other two members of the trinity)! nowhere are the believers worshiped by the angels. they do not become the temple of the city nor do they provide the light which illuminates all the world. the river of life flows from the single throne of christ and god and not from anywhere else. do you not see how exclusive these descriptions are? god says that he is the alpha and the omega and christ says that he is the alpha and the omega! god sits on his throne and christ sits on the very same throne! the kingdom is that of god and of the lamb! god is worshiped and christ is worshiped in the same breath! nowhere do you find a single instance of the believers sitting on god's throne, in fact they will serve christ:

1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever. ---revelation 22:1-5 NIV

once more sharing god's throne refers to his dominion in that the believers enter god's family and thus effectively become part of the ruling family. the expression of reigning with christ does not mean sitting on god's throne.

if we are to return to the point about conquering, here is what the bible says concerning the beast:

The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world. ---Revelation 13:5-8 NIV

notice that the beast conquers through making war. the saints of god conquer through losing their lives to the beast. there is no greater glory one can give to god than to hold fast to what they have received from him to the death. so this verse shows you that the link you wished to assert is untenable. it is only the beast who conquers through war and not the saints. furthermore, given that the thematic unit of the conqueror is one of evil (how can you say that his association with, war, hunger and death is not evil?), this only further reinforces my point.

concering the claim that a revelation might have been given to muhammad, we must see if his claims align with those in the bible. it is interesting that you keep trying to make links between the qur'an and the bible and find any similarities between these so as to try to unify these two texts when you ignore the most important fact! does the islamic prophet acknowledge the son?

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

now salam, what will you believe? if the bible is true then muhammad could not be from god because he does not acknowledge the son. in fact, whoever the source of the qur'an really is, they are quite adamant that they do not acknowledge the father either and as such they couldn't be from him. the bible is very clear about how to tell whether things are from god and this has to do with whether these revelations conform to what god has already revealed:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! --- Galatians 6:6-9 NIV

from the above you can see that from the very beginning people have tried to pervert the gospel and from the words above we can at least imply that the claim that an angel had spoken to an individual with new revelation was not unheard of during the time of the apostles (nor in our modern-day seeing as joseph smith made the very same claim!). islam does not present us with the same gospel and as such cannot be from the same source as the bible. i must once again reiterate that your method is one in which we have to ignore the truth claims that both the bible and the qur'an make about themselves. i would not even want to be more theologically united with muslims when this would come at the cost of sacrificing the integrity of our respective holy books. you either have christianity or islam, you do not have christianity-lite and islam-lite (well, that is if you're not a baha'i). it's all or nothing.

 

[SalamChristian]

In the interest of getting back on topic, I think we have established that the Comforter spoken of in the Gospel of John is not a reference to Mohammed . . . The Comforter is the Holy Spirit, not Mohammed.

I would have to agree. Unless someone comes up with a new exegesis or verses I didn't expect, I am not seeing the "paraclete" as Muhammad.

Gabriel, however, we have not disproven. The argument that Gabriel may be the Holy Spirit stands. From the arguments that are currently on the thread, the possibility looks rather compelling to me. And seeing as the Qu'ran is revealed from Gabriel into the hearts of believers, and that it provides legal guidance and discernment as well as comfort and claims to be the Book of Truth and the Clear Book so frequently, the evidence for this exegesis as it stands in this thread is compelling. The argument that the Holy Spirit cannot both take angelic and pneumatic form has been shown to derive from a lack of imagination, not from certain textual contradictions, so far.

Moreover, It is quite possible that the Conqueror and White-clothed horseman on a white horse of the first seal of Revelations may be Muhammad, exegetically speaking. Muhammad was all of these things. He also owned bows. Ishmael is also identified in Genesis as being the "archer of Paran," and one of our Muslim sisters on the board has pointed out her interpretation that Paran is a symbol for Muhammad.

Also, the same sister has identified the "Ruler of the World" as being one of Muhammad's titles in Arabic.

As I see it, we still need to exegetically resolve these issues for the debate to be resolved. As I am reading it, there is a possibility Gabriel is the "paraclete," who revealed the Qu'ran to Muhammad, like he revealed Revelations to John. Moreover, it is possible Muhammad is the conqueror foretold of in Revelations 6 and elsewhere, as I read the texts, and that this is actually a commendable title and not a pejorative one. Lastly, as I am reading all of the texts as a whole (Revelations, Qu'ran, Gospels, Exodus), it seems Muhammad is contending he establishes the true community of believers, the Ummah, and that the Qu'ran connects this to the Parable of the Sower of the Word and God's calling of Israel out of Diaspora.

Prove it wrong! Or prove it right! Somebody, lol. What are your thoughts?

Peace

 

[Sol Invictus]

Also, the same sister has identified the "Ruler of the World" as being one of Muhammad's titles in Arabic.

As I see it, we still need to exegetically resolve these issues for the debate to be resolved. As I am reading it, there is a possibility Gabriel is the "paraclete," who revealed the Qu'ran to Muhammad, like he revealed Revelations to John. Moreover, it is possible Muhammad is the conqueror foretold of in Revelations 6 and elsewhere, as I read the texts, and that this is actually a commendable title and not a pejorative one. Lastly, as I am reading all of the texts as a whole (Revelations, Qu'ran, Gospels, Exodus), it seems Muhammad is contending he establishes the true community of believers, the Ummah, and that the Qu'ran connects this to the Parable of the Sower of the Word and God's calling of Israel out of Diaspora.

umm wait, the conqueror isn't conquering anything for god. if in fact he came to conquer the world for god then he failed because it is christ who goes to conquer the world from the beast and that is when the angels in heaven celebrate that the kingdom of earth has become that of god. what is actually far more interesting is the fact that the conqueror does conquer the world, yet at the end it is christ who has to conquer the world for god's sake. we know that the beast also conquers the world and rouses it's inhabitants to make war on god. christ comes down and destroys the army of the beast. from my reading, it seems that the conqueror and the beast are the same individual. both conquer through the use of war (while the saints conquer through giving their lives) both achieve victory and rule. if both of them rule and yet the christ has to rescue the world from the rule of the devil, then it can only mean that both of these are evil and in fact the same person. let us also not forget that the conqueror is followed by evil and the rule of the beast is a disaster where war, hunger and death break out on the whole world. this is perfectly in keeping with war, hunger, and death coming at the heels of the conqueror. so no, you have not shown that the conqueror is a good figure at all. once again in identifying him with muhammad you have slapped all the muslims on this board in the face.

 

[Fivesolas]

I submitted for a new thread on the Holy Spirit. Hopefully it gets approved.

 

[SalamChristian]

I submitted for a new thread on the Holy Spirit. Hopefully it gets approved.

Cool. I will pay attention to it. I probably won't post anymore. This is draining energy from me lol.

Sol,

I have read all of your posts and taken your points into consideration. I am going to re-read Revelations sometime in the near future, and consider your points. I do not see your points as being conclusive proof of anything. The debate, as I see it, is a question of probabilities. Either you argue the conqueror probably is or probably isn't Muhammad, based on vague "thematic" uncertainties, or argue that Gabriel is or isn't the Holy Spirit also based on vague metaphors and peripheral verses.

I will leave you with this verse:

"And to the one who conquers and who continues in my deeds until the end, I will give him authority over the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod and like clay jar's he will brake them to pieces, just as I have received the right to rule from my Father" Revelations 2: 26-8

The text indicates that the "conqueror" is not Christ, but he will receive authority from Christ over his flock and he will rule them with an "iron rod." The verb for "rule them" here is actually "shepherd them," making even more overt references to the people of Christ.

I will keep my eyes pealed for the new thread, and pay attention to what people have to say.

Peace

 

[Grace Seeker]

Just want to applaude those members participating in this thread for being able to disagree with one another's ideas without becoming disagreeable and resorting to personal attacks. Would that more threads were dialogues of this kind.

 

[MustafaMc]

MustafaMc,

One of the tools that might be helpful for you is to use biblegateway or another online Bible search engine that allows you to do key word searches. For example, when I search for the phrase "Holy Ghost" using the KJV (King James Version) of the Bible, I find that phrase appearing 89 times in the New Testament. It appears most frequently in the book of Acts. What you could do is look through those different passages to test your hypothesis.

I do this with the Qur'an. I have not found a good key word searcher yet, but I have found the Qur'an online. So, when I have a question or a hear a claim made about the Qur'an's message, I go to the Qur'an and check it out.

If you search a modern translation, such as the NKJV, NASB, ESV, or NIV, then use the phrase "holy spirit" If you think the Holy Spirit is Gabriel, then substitute in your mind the word Gabriel for every instance you find the phrase "holy spirit" and see how it works....you could also treat the Bible as a whole, and do this for the OT as well. Here are some examples:

Psalm 51:11 "Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Gabriel from me."

Matt 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Gabriel."

Mark 1:8 "I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Gabriel."

Luke 11:13 "If you then, who are evil, now how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Gabriel to those who ask him!"

I simply inserted Gabriel to where I found the phrase Gabriel. Doesn't make much sense does it...

Have you ever heard of a 'red herring'?

"If the Holy Spirit is God, then wouldn't He speak of His own and not what He heard from someone else?"

Why not asked the question, "If the Holy Spirit is God, then how is this explained within the trinitarian vewpoint that He does not speak of His own, but whatever He hears He speaks."

Why would I re-phrase the question? But it would be improper to ask that it be answered from a Modalist viewpoint. It must be granted to the trinitarian to reason from his/her viewpoint, and not anothers. Agree?

You made absolutely no sense to me on this. I have a challenge for you: Give me a single word that the Holy Spirit is quoted as saying anywhere in the NT.

I am well aware of biblegateway.com and use it often. A good Islamic search engine is http://www.searchtruth.com/

 

[MustafaMc]

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.

Do you honestly think that is a true statement?

 

[Sol Invictus]

I have a challenge for you: Give me a single word that the Holy Spirit is quoted as saying anywhere in the NT.

you must have missed my post mustafa, here is an excerpt:

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

notice how he speaks with authority. it is he that has called barnabas and saul and he who commands believers.

Just want to applaude those members participating in this thread for being able to disagree with one another's ideas without becoming disagreeable and resorting to personal attacks. Would that more threads were dialogues of this kind.

indeed it is greatly refreshing to be able to carry on such a discussion without a recourse to insults. if we cannot come to an agreement with one another then at the very least we should uphold a sense of mutual respect and charity. i had almost gotten used to being insulted for my particular opinion when posting here and so this change in atmosphere is extremely appreciated.

that said, this was a good discussion.

 

[MustafaMc]

Do think that the "paraclete" could be referring to Gabriel, who gives the Qu'ran to Muhammad (pbuh), and not Muhammad? Yes? No? Maybe?

I could see how one could make a case for that as Gabriel conveyed the Message from Allah (swt) to Muhammad (saaws); however, I don't see that Gabriel was sent to mankind, but rather to Muhammad (saaws). Muhammad (saaws) is the one who taught his companions all things and his teachings remain with us today.

 

[SalamChristian]

Peace my Muslim and Christian brothers,

Sol, Grace Seeker:

I am also glad that we had such a fruitful discussion. While both I and Sol made very forceful comments, I believe we both made them out of love for each other and an honest desire to correct each other and learn from dialogue. We both reassured each other of this periodically, as did others on the forum. I also would like to commend our Muslim brothers and especially the Muslim sister who was very nice and provided numerous verses in her response.

I could see how one could make a case for that as Gabriel conveyed the Message from Allah (swt) to Muhammad (saaws)

Hallelujah! Allahu Akbar! I am glad I finally got through to one of my Muslim brothers. I hope that this thought bears fruit for one of us in our studies.

his teachings remain with us today.

In the Qu'ran, which are the exact words provided by Gabriel. In fact, wasn't the Qu'ran only memorized in the early years, and the believers were told to memorize it by heart, so that it wasn't misinterpreted/misunderstood? I'm not sure that Muhammad (pbuh) did any interpreting of the Qu'ran. It is the "clear book," alif lam ra. All he had to do was apply it to his life and believe it, and that is all.

Also, Sol, I do want to show you respect and answer one question of yours that was certainly a very significant one. You brought up the requirement in the Gospels that someone cannot have the father unless they believe in the Son. Here is my response:

That specific statement refers to believing in the Messiaship of Jesus--believing that he is Christ, he came with the message of God (Gospel), and he is not just another guy who died. We established that this is a possible interpretation of the phrase "son of God" in the Gospels on another thread. At the time of Jesus (and even today), the Jews are expecting a Messiah (annointed one) who will be the chosen, unique son of God. All of those beliefs are arguably met by Muhammad (pbuh) and the Qu'ran. The Islamic Jesus (pbuh) is the Messiah (the annointed one a.k.a the Christ), he is God's Word blown into Mary, he lived a sinless life, and after his time on earth God took him up to him (tawaffa).

Peace everybody

 

[SalamChristian]

Mustafa

Do you honestly think that is a true statement?

I think that it is a true statement. In fact, I think that the OT, NT, and Qu'ran can be reconciled, based on my current reading. Of course, I don't speak arabic, so my opinion might not mean much to a lot of people out there. But, I have read a whooooole lot of articles on Sura 4:157, and I think that, if that ayah is indeed currently misinterpreted, then a correct interpretation could potentially cause everything else to line up.

I have currently read only a modest 1/3 of the Qu'ran. It has been revealing so far, though, I must admit.

However, let's keep broad-based rejections of each others Holy books out of this discussion. It has been a fruitful, peaceful, thoughtful debate so far. I believe that it has opened up minds to reinterpreting their respective scriptures with an honest heart, and let's keep it that way!

Peace