May I ask, "Is English your first language?" The reason I ask is because I can't follow what you are trying to say. You are correct that Allah (subhana wa ta ala) is One God and, yes, I (as a Muslim) believe that Christians ascribe partners with Allah (swt) in saying that Jesus (alayhi salam) was the Son of God and at the same time God in human flesh. I believe that this is a most grievous sin to ascribe partners or equals with Allah (swt) which I call 'shirk'. However, don't lose hope in the Mercy of Allah (swt) because He can forgive even that if you will repent of it before your death.
The "Paraclete"
- Thread starter SalamChristian
- Start date
- Replies 175
- Views 29K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | PHP 8.4 patch for vBulletin 4.2.5
- Status
Good, I learned something tonight!
In that case, how can both versions of the Lord's Prayer be accurate in relaying what Jesus actually said?
Which translation are you reading? I have 7 different ones and believe that the Gracious Quran translated by Ahmad Zaki Hammad is best.I have currently read only a modest 1/3 of the Qu'ran.It has been revealing so far, though, I must admit.
My question was a fair one to challenge a statement that I do not believe is true.
SalamChristian
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 186
- Reaction score
- 5
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
They both have the same meaning. The grammatical details are not important to the meaning of the text.
Jesus also makes it clear that it is the thought that counts, and God knows what you are going to pray before you pray it to him. As long as you have the idea right, you are accurate unto Jesus' teachings.Lastly, they are technically in agreement, one just doesn't capture all the same moments that the other one does. I heard Theologian N.T. Wright describe the Gospels like this: it's like a movie, some parts are edited by the director, but you know that all of the parts are true.
That is how the Gospels work. They are snapshots, but that does not make them untrue. The Qu'ran is different in format, because it is not a human account, but one literally written by an Angel. God does not send multiple Angels to provide the same account, he only sends one, so there is only one account.
Last edited:
That is really beside that point that they are not ACCURATE. Since either one added some words or the other took some away, there is no question but that they are both NOT accurate, for that matter there is no evidence that either of them are accurate and precisely what Jesus (as) said to his disciples. If there is a single instances where the NT can be shown to be INACCURATE, there is no way that the NT in general can be claimed to be accurate. I am sorry but getting it close and conveying the meaning just isn't good enough. We can't play horse-shoes with the Word of God. If words were added or taken away in a single instance then one can't have confidence the same wasn't done in more critical verses such as say John 3:16.They both have the same meaning. The grammatical details are not important to the meaning of the text.
Do you really know that the Bible truly captures and accurately conveys even the meaning of what Jesus (as) said? Did Jesus (as) really say what he is quoted as saying in Mark 16:15-18 or did some scribe take literary license and add them because he knew what Jesus meant and should have said?
Wrong. The Quran was not written by an angel, but rather conveyed from Allah (swt) through Jibrael to Muhammad (saaws). And, no, Jibrael did not convey a message to Saul on the road to Damascus, nor is there evidence that he did so to John on the Isle of Patmos.
Hello,
To answer you question, yes, I know what a red herring is. Is this your understanding of one: "A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue." I did not intend my post to take us off-topic or one that is irrelevant. Your question to Sol is to find a place where the Holy Spirit speaks, and I was suggesting, basically, you would have found it by using a phrase search. Since the topic related to the allegation that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel, I suggested look at the OT and NT Scriptures and inserting Gabriel as the object. My hope was that you would see it doesn't fit.
Sol gave you an example from the NT of the Holy Spirit speaking. Also consider:
Acts 1:16 "Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus." Commentary: It is the Holy Spirit speaking by the mouth of David. Acts 2:4 confirms how the Holy Spirit gives believers "utterance" so it is not them who are speaking of themselves, but by the Holy Spirit.
Acts 13:2 "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." Commentary: This is the example Sol gave you. Pretty clear is it not?
Acts 20:23 "Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me." Commentary: Obviously the Holy Spirit was speaking, most likely by the mouth of His disciples, to speak regarding the sufferings Paul was to endure.
Acts 21:11 "And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." Commentary: This is amazingly similar to the biblical "thus saith the Lord.." and is clear to any reader that it is the Holy Spirit speaking and giving a prophecy.
Acts 28:25 "And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers," Commentary: This text is equating that what was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah was, in fact, the Holy Spirit speaking.
1 Corinthians 2:13 "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." Commentary: The Holy Spirit teaches men.
Hebrews 3:7 "Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice," Commentary: This is a reference to a Psalm from the OT, regarding the speaking to be the Holy Spirit has said.
1 Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" Commentary: That the Holy Spirit speaks to men should be abundantly clear now.
The Holy Spirit speaks, teaches, convicts, rebukes, forbids, et. At the very least I think you can conclude that this is the record of the NT.
Yes, I do. With good reason. But a discussion of the reliability of the biblical text would be off-topic here. But I am glad to discuss it anytime.
They both have the same meaning. The grammatical details are not important to the meaning of the text.
Lastly, they are technically in agreement, one just doesn't capture all the same moments that the other one does. I heard Theologian N.T. Wright describe the Gospels like this: it's like a movie, some parts are edited by the director, but you know that all of the parts are true.
That is how the Gospels work. They are snapshots, but that does not make them untrue. The Qu'ran is different in format, because it is not a human account, but one literally written by an Angel. God does not send multiple Angels to provide the same account, he only sends one, so there is only one account.
At some point, or not, I would like to challenge this view you have Salam, with all sincerity and humility. If you accept both Old and New Testaments as accurate and true, then there is no reconcilation of them with the Qur'an. But that would take this thread off-topic.
Khalil_Allah
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 56
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
This is one of the best points of debate for Muslims and Christians because it gets right at the heart of our differences.
"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful." 7.157.
Some say that "parakletos" in Greek can be translated to Aramaic as "Ahmad." This is a slam dunk for Muslims if it is true, but I'm no etymologist. That would basically replace "comforter" or "advocate," or whatever the particular version says, as "ahmad." aHMaD, muHaMmaD. But again, I don't know.
What I do know is that Muhammad's life and his claims are far greater evidence that he is the Paraclete Jesus described than any notion of the "Holy Spirit" being the Paraclete. The Qur'an says "whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel." Look in any version of the Bible, John 14-16, and you find this "comforter," "advocate," "helper," or whatever and he 1) speaks words not his own, 2) testifies about Jesus, 3) teaches/guides mankind, 4) stays with mankind forever.
Take these 4 descriptions and go to a Muslim. Do not mention the Bible or Qur'an or anything, and ask the Muslim who you are describing. It is my guess that 9 out of 10 Muslims will immediately believe you are describing Muhammad. Do the same to a Christian, and you will find a varied array of answers. Generally, they settle on the "Holy Spirit." It is a part of the Trinity that lives inside each Christian who testifies to the crucifixion and that Jesus died for our sins. Something along these lines. But where is any proof that the holy spirit speaks words not his own, testifies about Jesus, teaches and guides mankind, and stays with mankind forever? I mean real, rational proof. There is none.
I have zero doubt that the physical manifestation of this Paraclete is Muhammad, the mercy to mankind, the last of God's messengers. He spoke what was revealed to him (he could not read or write and grew up in a pagan society). He testified to Jesus' prophethood and that Jesus is the Messiah who will return to lead the believers (Muslims are to follow Jesus if he returns during their lifetimes). There is no question as to whether Muhammad was a teacher and a guide for mankind. And, lastly, Muhammad's life has been preserved like no life before or after in detailed, accurate records and accounts of his sayings and actions. Muslims are commanded to love Muhammad more than any other and, as such, they preserve the true account of his life, and will until there are none left.
Just think about all he did and what all he claimed. Browse through the Wikipedia article on him. The man was miraculous in ways different than Jesus, but he reiterated the message of Jesus. If that is not enough, then open any Bible to John 14-16, and you will find his description, as promised in the Qur'an. Christians, this message is for you:
"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful." 7.157.
"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful." 7.157.
Some say that "parakletos" in Greek can be translated to Aramaic as "Ahmad." This is a slam dunk for Muslims if it is true, but I'm no etymologist. That would basically replace "comforter" or "advocate," or whatever the particular version says, as "ahmad." aHMaD, muHaMmaD. But again, I don't know.
What I do know is that Muhammad's life and his claims are far greater evidence that he is the Paraclete Jesus described than any notion of the "Holy Spirit" being the Paraclete. The Qur'an says "whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel." Look in any version of the Bible, John 14-16, and you find this "comforter," "advocate," "helper," or whatever and he 1) speaks words not his own, 2) testifies about Jesus, 3) teaches/guides mankind, 4) stays with mankind forever.
Take these 4 descriptions and go to a Muslim. Do not mention the Bible or Qur'an or anything, and ask the Muslim who you are describing. It is my guess that 9 out of 10 Muslims will immediately believe you are describing Muhammad. Do the same to a Christian, and you will find a varied array of answers. Generally, they settle on the "Holy Spirit." It is a part of the Trinity that lives inside each Christian who testifies to the crucifixion and that Jesus died for our sins. Something along these lines. But where is any proof that the holy spirit speaks words not his own, testifies about Jesus, teaches and guides mankind, and stays with mankind forever? I mean real, rational proof. There is none.
I have zero doubt that the physical manifestation of this Paraclete is Muhammad, the mercy to mankind, the last of God's messengers. He spoke what was revealed to him (he could not read or write and grew up in a pagan society). He testified to Jesus' prophethood and that Jesus is the Messiah who will return to lead the believers (Muslims are to follow Jesus if he returns during their lifetimes). There is no question as to whether Muhammad was a teacher and a guide for mankind. And, lastly, Muhammad's life has been preserved like no life before or after in detailed, accurate records and accounts of his sayings and actions. Muslims are commanded to love Muhammad more than any other and, as such, they preserve the true account of his life, and will until there are none left.
Just think about all he did and what all he claimed. Browse through the Wikipedia article on him. The man was miraculous in ways different than Jesus, but he reiterated the message of Jesus. If that is not enough, then open any Bible to John 14-16, and you will find his description, as promised in the Qur'an. Christians, this message is for you:
"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful." 7.157.
Khalil_Allah
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 56
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
This is the Bayyinah
Khalil,
Good reply, and I am glad you quoted this Surah. In my opinion you have done what the Qur'an tells you to say to the Christians..."Go to your own texts!" Bravo. Since you believe this is Allah telling us to do this, I have to conclude that Allah would not direct me to a corrupted text. Therefore, John 14-16 are the authentic, preserved words of Jesus.
Beginning in Chapter 14 we find this with regard to the Comforter:
1. 14:16 - He would be given to those to whom He was speaking to (and all believers in Jesus) and would be with them forever. This cannot be Mohammed because the Christians for the first 600 years had no knowledge of Mohammed or Islam.
2. 14:17 - He is the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot receive him because it does not see Him. The world does not know Him, but the disciple knew Him. He was dwelling with them and would be in them. This cannot be Mohammed. The world did see him. Mohammed was not living with the disciples at that time, nor is there any notion that Mohammed would indwell Christians.
3. 14:18 - Jesus said, "I will not leave you comfortless. I will come to you." This Christ said right after He promised to send the Comforter. Here Christ is equating the Comforter with Himself.
4. 14:26 - The Comforter is identified in this text as the Holy Spirit, not Mohammed. Muslims have contended that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel. If I accept that the Comforter is Mohammed, and accept what this text is saying, then the only conclusion is that Mohammed is Gabriel. Rather, Mohammed is not the Comforter spoken of by the Lord Jesus. In this text, the Holy Spirit comes in the name of Jesus. Mohammed did not come in the name of Jesus. Nor did Mohammed bring to remembrence all things that Jesus said.
5. 15:26 - The Comforter is sent from the Father, is the Spirit of Truth, and proceeds from the Father, and testifies of Jesus. It cannot be said that Mohammed was sent by the Father, is the Spirit of Truth, and proceeds from the Father. Nor did Mohammed bear the testimony of Jesus Christ.
6. 16:7 - The Comforter is sent by Jesus. Mohammed never claimed to be sent by Jesus.
7. 16:8 - The Comforter reproves the world of sin because they do not believe in Jesus, of righteousness because Jesus was raised from the dead, and of judgement because Satan is judged. Mohammed did not reference and center all things around Christ Jesus. THe Comforter does.
8. 16:13-14 - The Comforter glorifies Jesus. Mohammed did not glorify Jesus.
We cannot pick and choose sections of John 14-16 so that in our minds we may try to apply it to Mohammed. We must take the whole, and all points. It should be abundantly clear that the things spoken of by Jesus concerning the Comforter could never apply to Mohammed. The fact that Jesus said the Comforter IS the Holy Spirit should settle the matter to every honest, truth-seeking Muslim.
Khalil_Allah
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 56
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Clever logic, Fivesolas, but your sarcasm is not lost on me.
Allah also says:
[All] praise is [due] to Allah , who has sent down upon His Servant the Book and has not made therein any deviance.
[He has made it] straight, to warn of severe punishment from Him and to give good tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a good reward
In which they will remain forever
And to warn those who say, " Allah has taken a son."
They have no knowledge of it, nor had their fathers. Grave is the word that comes out of their mouths; they speak not except a lie.
Then perhaps you would kill yourself through grief over them, [O Muhammad], if they do not believe in this message, [and] out of sorrow.
Take His guidance and be among those who receive the glad tidings, is what I'm saying.
But as to the matter at hand, if we base our argument in the Bible, then we are all trying to build a house on a foundation of sand. There are countless versions of the Bible with limited representation of the original, and anyhow, Biblical scholars discredit John more than the Synoptic Gospels. Your premise is based on the idea that the Bible is Jesus' actual, authentic words, yet he spoke Aramaic. My premise is the unchanged Qur'an and the clear evidence of general knowledge about a historical figure. Read surat-ul-bayyinah habibi.
Allah also says:
[All] praise is [due] to Allah , who has sent down upon His Servant the Book and has not made therein any deviance.
[He has made it] straight, to warn of severe punishment from Him and to give good tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a good reward
In which they will remain forever
And to warn those who say, " Allah has taken a son."
They have no knowledge of it, nor had their fathers. Grave is the word that comes out of their mouths; they speak not except a lie.
Then perhaps you would kill yourself through grief over them, [O Muhammad], if they do not believe in this message, [and] out of sorrow.
Take His guidance and be among those who receive the glad tidings, is what I'm saying.
But as to the matter at hand, if we base our argument in the Bible, then we are all trying to build a house on a foundation of sand. There are countless versions of the Bible with limited representation of the original, and anyhow, Biblical scholars discredit John more than the Synoptic Gospels. Your premise is based on the idea that the Bible is Jesus' actual, authentic words, yet he spoke Aramaic. My premise is the unchanged Qur'an and the clear evidence of general knowledge about a historical figure. Read surat-ul-bayyinah habibi.
Khalil,
I meant no sarcasm in my reply at all. I know tone is difficult to communicate in writing, but I hope you can believe that. To me it is disrespectful to be sarcasitc when we are discussing a serious topic.
I am not going to claim victory in our discussion. You have taken the discusson off of what the text says, to another subject, namely the integrity of the NT text. This is a worthy topic, but not the subject of this thread.
Now, I will reiterate. You instructed me from the Qur'an to look to my own Scriptures. I did so, and showed you what I found. Your reply to that was that my Scriptures are untrustworthy. Tell me then, why does Allah in the qur'an tell me to search my own Scriptures for a confirmation, then when I don't find one, I am told, "well, that is because your Scriptures are messed up."
I hardly believe that an All-Merciful, All-Holy God would exhort me to search a corrupted text. I don't think you believe that either. You are suggesting Khalil, that in order for me to see that the Qur'an is true, I must first believe it to be true. Would you accept this from anyone? In fact, this is how the Roman Catholic church works its deceptions on gullable souls. They say we must first accept the authority of the Pope, then we will accept the Papal doctrines.
Certainly my premise would be based on the reliability of the NT text. Should I not reason from a position of belief, even as you are? And I have good reasons to trust in the reliability and authenticity of the text.
At least I am happy you think my logic is clever. lol
Sol Invictus
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 394
- Reaction score
- 14
wait a minute, that's not true. no one says that parakletos can be translated as ahmad in aramaic. that is false. what muslims do instead is that they argue that the word should actually be periklytos:
so no, your argument fails to make your point. there is not a single textual variant which renders parakletos as periklytos and without that the muslim argument falls apart. not that it doesn't already fall apart when one actually looks at what is said about the parakletos.
instead of taking merely four descriptions why don't you take the entire text and see if muhammad fits the bill. clearly he does not. look at the muslim arguments, none of them actually propose interacting with the full text because clearly when one does so they'll see that the islamic prophet couldn't possibly be the paraclete.
Last edited:
Khalil_Allah
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 56
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
No worries fivesolas.
And none with you, Sol Invictus.
I just think that if you sit down and put two and two together, you've got Jesus saying that Muhammad is coming after him. Looking at the two texts together, it makes more sense than anything else. But then again, I'm a Muslim, so I'm obviously inclined to think this way.
In the end, we don't know exactly what Jesus said, and we don't know if the Qur'an is referring to John anyway.
Keep praying and doing good deeds and we'll find out on the Day of Judgment, God-willing.
And none with you, Sol Invictus.
I just think that if you sit down and put two and two together, you've got Jesus saying that Muhammad is coming after him. Looking at the two texts together, it makes more sense than anything else. But then again, I'm a Muslim, so I'm obviously inclined to think this way.
In the end, we don't know exactly what Jesus said, and we don't know if the Qur'an is referring to John anyway.
Keep praying and doing good deeds and we'll find out on the Day of Judgment, God-willing.
Sol Invictus
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 394
- Reaction score
- 14
no worries indeed and at the very least, it is good that we can end on a good note.No worries fivesolas.
And none with you, Sol Invictus.
I just think that if you sit down and put two and two together, you've got Jesus saying that Muhammad is coming after him. Looking at the two texts together, it makes more sense than anything else. But then again, I'm a Muslim, so I'm obviously inclined to think this way.
In the end, we don't know exactly what Jesus said, and we don't know if the Qur'an is referring to John anyway.
Keep praying and doing good deeds and we'll find out on the Day of Judgment, God-willing.
that said, we do have the words that jesus said and they're in the bible and so i think that we should turn to these. if muslims wish to claim that muhammad is spoken of in the gospel of john then they should begin to interact with the full text. however, one will note that not a single muslim argument is based on the full text and whenever the muslim is questioned on this, all their answers consist of one evasion or another as to why they can't prove that muhammad is the individual spoken of if all the evidence is examined.
now, i think that we should only go with the explanation that can account for all the factors and it is my opinion (and actually implied in the muslim opinion as well since they never try to prove their position with all the factors) that when one examines everything that is said of the paraclete, the individual can only be the holy spirit.
indeed we will, i suppose.
Khalil_Allah
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 56
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
what do you mean by evasions? I don't want to be evasive in the matter.
Sol Invictus
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 394
- Reaction score
- 14
i'm not primarily calling you evasive but i'm merely saying that when asked if the muslim can use the full text to prove that muhammad is the paraclete they will always give you an answer for why they can't prove that muhammad is the paraclete when the full text is examined. either it is corruption in the bible or what have you, at the end of the day the answer always consists of we can't because [insert whatever reason here]. you'll note that the same is true in this thread. the single christian response has been to ask the muslim to prove their position by looking at the full text and we have received a variety of responses which all acknowledge that they cannot do so. i do not wish to sound like i look down on muslims etc. but it is pretty clear that muhammad is not and could not be the paraclete when all the evidence is examined. from the arguments and responses provided so far, it would not be wrong to say that muslims and christians are in perfect agreement on this.
Khalil_Allah
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 56
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
See, I'm pretty set on the idea that Muhammad is the Paraclete. I don't think anyone has really "PROVEN" it either way.
What from the text of the Bible proves for you that he is not?
What from the text of the Bible proves for you that he is not?
- Status