The "Paraclete"

Status
Not open for further replies.
YO:Let's put it like this. The whole argument about Muhammad being the "Prophet" like unto Moses that Moses talks about in Deuteronomy (a prophecy about the future) is BASED UPON the God's Holy Spirit of Prophecy working upon Moses when he uttered that. You take away the Spirit of God from Moses...then you HAVE to deny that whole argument as being truly prophetic, even Judaically speaking!

Woodrow: Which would put you in agreement with us that what remains of the scriptures may not be what God(swt) revealed. i have no problem in believing that it is not a good source of proof, unless it is also repeated in the Qur'an in some form. However, the argument for using it is to show that even what Christians profess to be true, is an argument to validate Muhammad(PBUH) as being the Prophecised paraclete.

Hmm... All I meant to say was that even Muslims have to have a certain "Judaic" view of what the Holy Spirit does if they want to maintain the "Prophet like unto Moses" argument. That's all.

*******************************
YO: At any rate, the paraclete passages in John make SENSE in light of what the Jews in Jesus' day actually believed about the Holy Spirit of God and how it worked. Basically, Jesus as Prophet and Chosen of God had the authority to "pass on" the Spirit of Wisdom that worked within him to those whom he so chose...the Spirit that would further reveal God's Truth, Wisdom, and Power to those who followed him. It makes SENSE once you put it all together.

Woodrow: Not necessarily as the majority of the Jews did not believe what the Jews in Jesus' day actually believed about the Holy Spirit of God and how it worked. Christianity came about because the gentiles (Non-Jews) accepted the non-Jewish teachings of some of the early Christian founders. Paul gained his following through non-Jews as he predominantly preached to the gentiles.

I can show that not to be true. Right here and right now. From the "Gentiles and the Holy Spirit" section of the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on the Holy Spirit....

A very ancient source (Sifre, Deut. 175) explains, on the basis of Deut. xviii. 15, that in the Holy Land the gift of prophecy is not granted to the heathen or in the interest of the heathen, nor is it given outside of Palestine even to Jews. In the Messianic time, however, the Holy Spirit will, according to Joel ii. 28, 29, be poured out upon all Israel; i.e., all the people will be prophets (Num. R. xv., end). According to the remarkable statement of Tanna debe Eliyahu, ed. Friedmann, the Holy Spirit will be poured out equally upon Jews and pagans, both men and women, freemen and slaves.

Now, let's look VERY, VERY closely what the what Peter says at Pentecost in this link. I'm only going to put a little of his sermon, but I'd recommend reading it all. Please note that Peter's primary audience are JEWISH ADHERENTS. Very important.

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

When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”

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. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:

“‘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;
even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
And I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
the sun shall be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood,
before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.
And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

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

It's a COMPLETELY JEWISH CLAIM that Peter is making based on a COMPLETELY JEWISH UNDERSTANDING of how the Holy Spirit worked! No Gentile understanding involved.


There's absolutely NO denying this, to be sure. Not if we are simply being intellectually honest with the biblical data.


Well, Woodrow?
 
Last edited:
And about the "drunkeness" and "tongue-speech" being associated with the Spirit...that's SOOOOO Jewish!

1 Samuel 19:20-24
Then Saul sent messengers to take David, and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as head over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied. When it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they also prophesied. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they also prophesied. Then he himself went to Ramah and came to the great well that is in Secu. And he asked, “Where are Samuel and David?” And one said, “Behold, they are at Naioth in Ramah.” And he went there to Naioth in Ramah. And the Spirit of God came upon him also, and as he went he prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah. And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay naked all that day and all that night. Thus it is said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”
 
So, summing up...

If everything I've said above has any validity to it...then, from a JUDEO-Christian perspective, it's very, very, very, very, very, very clear that the "paraclete" of whom Jesus speaks most likely refers to the Spirit of God (and NOT Muhammad.)

There's much more evidence for that, when we take all in the Jewish perspective on what the Holy Spirit of God is.

Any disagreement?
 
Peacelover,
I do take what you are saying seriously. So I have investigated what you have said with regard to the Greek here. I am not sure what Greek text you use for your study, but I use the Stephanus Greek text from blueletterbible.com.

This said, you have asked the question with regard to the phrase "another Comforter" why Jesus would say "another." You remarked it is because He Himself is regarded as a Comforter, and is speaking of another. 1 John 2:1 is the verse that uses the word parakletos and translates it as "Advocate" in the KJV. I agree (and I think most Christians would) that Jesus is a Parakletos and He is speaking of another.

You ask the question, "If the Comforter is the Holy Ghost (Spirit) then how many Holy Ghost's are there?" Doesn't verse 26 answer that for you? "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost..." Obviously the Comforter spoken of in verse 26 is the "another Comforter" spoken of in verse 16. The debate isn't over whether there is one or two, but who the "another" is. Muslims say Mohammed. verse 26 of John say He is the Holy Spirit.

The question isn't "how many Holy Ghost's are there" but who is the "another Comforter" and who is the one that He is like. We agree that the one he is like is Jesus. Verse 26 says that the "another Comforter" is the Holy Spirit, not Muhammed. This should settle the issue.

The question/reasoning with regard to allos/allon and heteros is a valid point to raise. I would suggest to you that while your heading down the right road, you didn't explore the information far enough. Words, typically, have a wide semantic range and their meanings vary depending the context. The word "day" for example, can have a range from the daylight hours of the day, the first half of the day, or a 24 period. We would know the precise meaning by the context.

Does the Greek Allon/Allos have more than one meaning depending on context? How would we know? I am not yet professionally trained in Greek. However, one the elders/pastors of my church is. I will run this by him. Usually the resources I use I can find this rather quickly, but in this case I am not.

But let me tell you what I am going to clarify: That, indeed the verse, "καὶ ἐγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν ἵνα μένῃ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα which the transliteration of ἄλλον is allon, is the masculine accusative. I will leave the Greek analysis alone and simply deal with the presupposition in your argument.

Your logic is that since Jesus was a human, and the Parakletos/Comforter (the another one) is to be just like Jesus, then the Parakletos must be a human. The problem with this reasoning is that the same author of John 14 is the author of John 1. And he has clearly indicated that who Jesus is: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

The point is, if the Comforter spoken of in John 14-16 is to be of the same kind as Jesus, then according the John's Gospel, part of that is essential Deity. Therefore, the Holy Spirit (as the text actually says) is like Jesus, of the same kind, not Muhammed. Aside from the fact that Jesus took on the nature of man, Muhammed and Jesus have nothing in common.

Your reasoning has argued from the presupposition that Jesus is not God come in the flesh. If we accept the full teaching of the Gospel of John, then there is no issue here. I can understand why there is in the mind of a Muslim who is reasoning from the notion that Jesus was a man, and not God come in the flesh.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...something else I noticed.

If you look closely at the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on the Holy Spirit cited above...you will see absolutely NOTHING about the Holy Spirit being completely identical to ANY created angel, let alone the angel Gabriel.

That's extremely significant.

So, the ideas that 1) Muhammad is the intended "paraclete" spoken of by Jesus and 2) the Holy Spirit is completely identical to the angel Gabriel BOTH seem to be on very shaky ground, evidencewise. If Judaism is so close to Islam (respective to Christianity) than one would expect a bit more evidence in the direction of Islam's claims on those matters.

It feels so good to have intelligent inter-faith conversations on these things...rather than just vitrolic ad hominems and half-baked, unsubstantiated claims! Thanks heaps, y'all! :D
 
Last edited:
I made a point relevant to this discussion in the Holy Spirit/Angel Gabriel thread, because it is relevant to both discussions. I am going to go ahead and cross-post it here:

For those who claim that the "paraclete" is simply the Holy Spirit and nothing else, a serious exegetical problem arises:

In John 20, Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to the disciples:

"And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit." John 20:22

Jesus gives the Holy Spirit before he leaves.

In John 16 we are told:

"But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." John 16:7

Thus, the Paraclete cannot simply be the Holy Spirit, because Jesus blows the Holy Spirit onto the Apostles before he leaves, but the Paraclete cannot come to them until after. Of course, we are told also that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit (John 14:26).

Exegetically, we have to find a solution to this problem. The only solution I am seeing is that the Holy Spirit is greater than the Paraclete, but the Paraclete is one with the Holy Spirit (completely filled with it), similar in the relation of Jesus to the Father. This has precedent in the mystical language Jesus consistently uses (parables, prophecies). Consider this verse:

"That which is born of The Spirit is Spirit." John 3:6

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity." John 17

It is important to understand that this oneness which Jesus describes repetitively in the same language that he describes his oneness with the Father not only occurs through the Holy Spirit, but it is the Holy Spirit. We are all filled with the Spirit, so that God may be all in all, and yet each is distinct in their being, though not in their Spirit.

Indeed, this fits with our common understanding of the Spirit being within everyone, but also greater than that which resides within any single person.

Thus, the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is distinct from simply being the Paraclete, because the Holy Spirit of John 20:19 is not the Paraclete.

Moreover, when we look, we see that Messengers are given the name paraclete. Jesus himself is called Paraclete in 1 John 2:1, and paraclete has a distinct meaning of intercessor (which squares perfectly with the fact that the Holy Spirit is transmitted by touch and breath of beings who have it), among the others mentioned. Lastly, Jesus himself says that he will send "another Paraclete" in John 14:16, meaning there was a Paraclete before this one. If the Holy Spirit is eternal, this is especially problematic for the traditional interpretation that the Paraclete is simply a synonym for Holy Spirit and in no other way distinct.

Taking all of these things together, the simple understanding of the Paraclete as completely identical with the Holy Breath, as it was breathed onto the Apostles by Jesus in John 20, is inadequate. The Paraclete must come in a distinct form (even if identical in Spirit) of one who transmits/intercedes physically the Holy Spirit from itself, sent from the Father to the church at the request of Jesus, only after he is within heaven.

Peace Brothers
 
Last edited:
Again, taking the above verses and what they mean into our exegesis,

"paraclete to pneuma to hagion" thus more likely means "mediator/interecessor" of the Holy Spirit, from Heaven to Earth. In other words, the prophecy refers to one who will bring or transmit the Holy Spirit, sent by God to the churches on earth, at the request of Jesus. Muslim scholars are astute to point out that the "clete" of "paraclete" can also mean message and messenger in Koine Greek.

Peace Brothers
 
Last edited:
SalamChristian:
In John 20, Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to the disciples:
"And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit." John 20:22
Jesus gives the Holy Spirit before he leaves.
In John 16 we are told:
"But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." John 16:7
Thus, the Paraclete cannot simply be the Holy Spirit, because Jesus blows the Holy Spirit onto the Apostles before he leaves, but the Paraclete cannot come to them until after. Of course, we are told also that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit (John 14:26).

Exegetically, we have to find a solution to this problem. The only solution I am seeing is that the Holy Spirit is greater than the Paraclete, but the Paraclete is one with the Holy Spirit (completely filled with it), similar in the relation of Jesus to the Father.


This is no issue, bro. In John 16, Jesus is speaking BEFORE HIS CRUCIFIXION. In John 20, he breathes on them in a POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCE. If you look at John 16, his followers are confused because Jesus talks about "going away"...meaning going to die. Jesus basically tells them it's GOOD for them that this is happening...so that the Holy Spirit can be given to them. Just look at verses 16-23 when Jesus talks about their SORROW turning to JOY.


Jesus was clearly saying that the Holy Spirit could not be GIVEN OUT to his followers UNTIL he died and was raised from the dead. I really think any decent commentary on John will point this out.


In short, the whole issue that you raise is actually a NON-issue. It definitely doesn't involve some complex problem that involves TWO 'paracletes", one lesser and one greater. :omg:
 
Last edited:
Peacelover,

Therefore we see here that the literal meaning is not meant here, similarly in John 14:16, the phrase "abide with you forever" means that The Paracletos will be the last prophet, and "he will guide you into all truth" and "he shall teach you all things," so there will be no need for any further prophets.

I know it is the Muslim's belief that Muhammed is the last prophet. Christians do not accept this. Christians were not looking for another after the first coming of Jesus. Consider Hebrews 1:1-2: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

In addition, verse 17 of John 14 refers to the Comforter when He says, "..for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." What we have pointed out a few times is that when Muslims try to prove that the paracletos is Muhammed, there are portions of the text that are unaddressed, ignored, or said to be corrupt. Is it not clear to you that Muhammed was not living with the disciples in the first century and that there is no notion that Muhammed would make his home in the hearts of Christians?

"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. " (John 14:17)
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. " (John 16:7)
There is an apparent contradiction in these two verses...
Please do explain what you make out from it….

I am trying to imagine what contradiction you think is apparant. I think what you mean is that to you it seems contradictory that in one verse Jesus is saying that the Holy Spirit dwells with them, and in the other verse it is saying that He is yet to be sent. Simply notice in verse 17 of chapter 14 that at that time there was a manner in which the Holy Spirit had not yet come, that is, IN them. This happened on the day of Pentecost.

Rather the verse could be interpreted as, The coming Paraclete, came to the world to show them how they had been misguided in "sin" by believing that mankind can inherit sin and that someone's sin can be forgiven by the sacrifice of others. He also showed them how they had been misguided in "righteousness" by believing that a righteous person is one who has "faith" in the crucifixion and does nothing else, or who believes that another man's death will make him a righteous person. And they were misguided in "judgment" by believing that they will be judged by "faith" and other people's deeds and not their own deeds, or that God's "judgment" was to punish all mankind for the sin of one man.
Just a thought…..no offense intended!

I am not offended. That interpretation is rather self-serving is it not? There is no need for interpretation of the verses in question here as Jesus explained them. Re-read the text and you will see.

Jesus (peace be upon him) had "the whole truth" and had many things he longed to teach his disciples but he could not give it to them because they "cannot bear them now." These matters would only be revealed six centuries later by God through the agency of Muhammad (peace be upon him). What new truths has the Holy Spirit guided us into after the departure of Jesus (peace be upon him) which Jesus (peace be upon him) had no say in?

A good father does not feed his newborn child meat, but milk. So, there are things which Jesus would teach His Apostles by His Spirit sent to them that He was not teaching them at that time. Jesus knew what His disciples could bear at that time and what they could not. We do not take bits and pieces of the Lord's words and try to make them say something they do not say. So, consider the whole:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

Ask yourself, as you think of Muhammed, Is Muhammed the Spirit of truth? Who did Muhammed glorify? From whom did Muhammed receive? Who is this Jesus who claims that all things that the Father has are His?
 
in christianity being separated from god (primarily in hell) is the real death and so when christ said that his disciples would never taste death he meant that they would not be separated from god.

Right, that's wat I'm sayin too…..and there is a perfect link in both the verses,
John 11:25 and John 14:16---> That one should believe in Jesus (His Message – GOD is one without any partners whatsoever), for eternal life in Paradise as opposed to in hell ("separation from god "), and the implication that "he will abide in u forever" means that after jesus, another "comforter" (who will be the last of the messengers of God) will guide the people towards accomplishing the same goal. Here Jesus, is telling his disciples that u have to believe in him (The Paraclete) when he comes, and by " he will abide in u forever ", he means u'l have to lead ur life (in order to achieve ur "goal") according to what he teaches, in others word u'l hav to follow him because his message would be the final message. (Infact the Message is the SAME!)

Does this ring a bell ?!?
 
Fivesolas,
i'l cum bak 2 u soon InshaAllah.

Peace.
 
Your reasoning has argued from the presupposition that Jesus is not God come in the flesh.

whatever the presupposition may be, we need to analyse the text first. Isn't it?!

Is it not clear to you that Muhammed was not living with the disciples in the first century and that there is no notion that Muhammed would make his home in the hearts of Christians?

If we take the meaning of the verse literally, then neither Muhammad (pbuh) nor the Holy Spirit was living with the disciples, when Jesus said "for he dwelleth with you".

That interpretation is rather self-serving is it not? There is no need for interpretation of the verses in question here as Jesus explained them. Re-read the text and you will see.

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: " (John 16:8)
I brought it up because of ur argument: "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."

He did tell people about Jesus and his teachings, He conveyed the Word Of God. Just as Jesus did. Jesus centered all things around God, Muhammad did the same.

Ask yourself, as you think of Muhammed, Is Muhammed the Spirit of truth? Who did Muhammed glorify? From whom did Muhammed receive? Who is this Jesus who claims that all things that the Father has are His?

Yes, Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) is the Spirit of Truth. According to my understanding; a "Spirit" (pneuma-Πνεύμα) in the New Testament is a human Prophet, as seen from the following verse…
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1-3)


"He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. " (John 16:14)

In the above verse the term used is "Doxazo" which simply means 'to glorify' and glorifying doesn't necessarily mean worshiping. If we take this term to mean just glorify, then Yes, Muhammad (Pbuh) did glorify Jesus and all the other Prophets before him. In fact Belief in all of the Prophets sent by God (including the Last Prophet, "The Paraclete"/ Muhammad) is essential for complete Faith in God Almighty.

This phrase " for he shall receive of mine " highlights the very aspect of the duty of the Prophets sent by God i.e, to convey the Truth (same Message)--> "One God"
God obliged the Prophets with the duty of conveying the Truth, or in other words they all "received" the same command.
Hence the Message is the same,….. So, as Jesus (pbuh) was sent to the earth before Muhammad (pbuh) then he obviously conveyed the same thing before him, but the point is that after the prophesy of the coming of Muhammad (pbuh) [as in John 16:13-14] came true, he conveyed the same Message as taught by Jesus pbuh ("shall receive of mine" ----> shall receive the same message as I)

Makes sense..Right?!?!
Peace.
 
Hmmm...I just noticed that I didn't get any response on my last postings. About the Jewish views of the Holy Spirit and how the earliest church held those those very Jewish views.

Woodrow? Still with me, bro?

Whole thread collapsed

Reposting...

So, the ideas that 1) Muhammad is the intended "paraclete" spoken of by Jesus and 2) the Holy Spirit is completely identical to the angel Gabriel...BOTH seem to be on very shaky ground, evidencewise. If Judaism is so close to Islam (respective to Christianity) than one would expect a bit more evidence in the direction of Islam's claims on those matters.

 
Last edited:
whatever the presupposition may be, we need to analyse the text first. Isn't it?!



If we take the meaning of the verse literally, then neither Muhammad (pbuh) nor the Holy Spirit was living with the disciples, when Jesus said "for he dwelleth with you".



"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: " (John 16:8)
I brought it up because of ur argument: "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."

He did tell people about Jesus and his teachings, He conveyed the Word Of God. Just as Jesus did. Jesus centered all things around God, Muhammad did the same.



Yes, Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) is the Spirit of Truth. According to my understanding; a "Spirit" (pneuma-Πνεύμα) in the New Testament is a human Prophet, as seen from the following verse…
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1-3)


"He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. " (John 16:14)

In the above verse the term used is "Doxazo" which simply means 'to glorify' and glorifying doesn't necessarily mean worshiping. If we take this term to mean just glorify, then Yes, Muhammad (Pbuh) did glorify Jesus and all the other Prophets before him. In fact Belief in all of the Prophets sent by God (including the Last Prophet, "The Paraclete"/ Muhammad) is essential for complete Faith in God Almighty.

This phrase " for he shall receive of mine " highlights the very aspect of the duty of the Prophets sent by God i.e, to convey the Truth (same Message)--> "One God"
God obliged the Prophets with the duty of conveying the Truth, or in other words they all "received" the same command.
Hence the Message is the same,….. So, as Jesus (pbuh) was sent to the earth before Muhammad (pbuh) then he obviously conveyed the same thing before him, but the point is that after the prophesy of the coming of Muhammad (pbuh) [as in John 16:13-14] came true, he conveyed the same Message as taught by Jesus pbuh ("shall receive of mine" ----> shall receive the same message as I)

Makes sense..Right?!?!
Peace.

A few thoughts for you.

I do actually want to let the text speak for itself. What I have tried to show you is that your approaching the text from your presuppositions with regard to Jesus, an Islamic Jesus, rather than a biblical one. I would not expect you to do otherwise, however, I wanted to show you what it is you were doing. I am reasoning from the Scriptures, as the Bible presents Jesus, and not as Muhammed supposed him to be.

I am not sure how you can take these texts and end up with Muhammed. Jesus said the Paracletos was dwelling with them. Jesus said the Parakletos IS the Holy Spirit. So, it is very simple. The Parakletos is the Holy Spirit, not Muhammed. The Holy Spirit was dwelling with them, and would be IN them. There was a sense in which the Spirit of the Living God was with them, and a sense in which He was not. This is what I pointed out before.

If you think Jesus centered all things around God, then you have greatly misunderstood the NT text. Yes, Jesus glorified God. But all things centered around Jesus. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me." Jesus said He was the Bread of life. Jesus said we should believe in Him as we believe in God. This is nothing like Muhammed's teaching.

Concerning spirit, you would have us to believe that: a spirit is a prophet. This is simply wishful thinking. Prophets may speak by the Holy Spirit of God. Or, they may speak by another spirit. Not every spirit by which they speak is from God. Therefore, Christians are exhorted to test the spirits. This is what we are doing with regard to Muahmmed.

There is no chance that Jesus taught the same message as Muhammed. I understand that the Qur'an says so. In fact, it says its message confirmed what was previously revealed. Well, it doesn't. The only recourse the Muslim has at that point is to call into question the integrity of the text.

You say that Jesus is a prophet. Well said. Jesus prophesied that He would be crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. Muhammed taught that Jesus was not crucified. I don't raise this point to debate the crucifixtion. But we both know that if a prophet foretells something, and it does not come to pass, then he has spoken of himself and not from God. Jesus foretold His sufferings and resurrection. If Jesus did not die upon the cross as Muslims say, then neither can they say he was a prophet.

Furthermore, Jesus did not require that mankind honor and glorify Him as a prophet. He required that mankind honor Him even as they honor the Father. Do you give to Jesus the same honor as you do to God? I would imagine the answer is no. But Jesus said we must. And He said that if we did not, neither did we honor the Father (God). Who is this Jesus that could make such claim? Muhammed never spoke in this manner.
 
Last edited:
What I'm saying:

The "paraclete" passages in John are understandable only by using the Second Temple Jewish perspective on the Holy Spirit of God, specifically as it relates to Jewish messianic hopes at the time. When looked at this way, it because very unlikely that the "paraclete" statements were made with Muhammad in mind...while it is very likely that they were made with the Holy Spirit of God in mind. This is important because, looking at the Jewish views of the Holy Spirit, there is absolutely NO INDICATION that, at any time, the Holy Spirit was completely identified with the angel Gabriel. None at all. So, that should provide at least implicit evidence that the idea of Gabriel being nothing more or less than the Holy Spirit is completely at odds with the Jewish concept (current and past) of the Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...I just noticed that I didn't get any response on my last postings. About the Jewish views of the Holy Spirit and how the earliest church held those those very Jewish views.

Woodrow? Still with me, bro?

Whole thread collapsed

It has been a long time since I had any contact with the Jewish members of my Family (My Great-Grandmother on my Mother's side was Jewish). So I guess you get the little I learned from Jewish people I have known over the years.

My conclusion based only on my limited contact is that the Jews did and still do view the concept of "Holy Spirit" as being an attribute or a state of being. To say that a person has a "Holy Spirit" means the person strives to live a life of obeying God(swt), To call a person a 'Holy Spirit" implies the person is always seen. In that context it would be appropriate to refer to all of the Prophet(PBUT)'s and the Angels as being "Holy Spirits". To say a person is "filled with the Holy Spirit" seems to mean the person has very good qualities or attributes. I have never heard any Jew I know, attribute personification to "The Holy Spirit" or indicate "The Holy Spirit" is a specific being.
 
Woodrow:
My conclusion based only on my limited contact is that the Jews did and still do view the concept of "Holy Spirit" as being an attribute or a state of being. To say that a person has a "Holy Spirit" means the person strives to live a life of obeying God(swt), To call a person a 'Holy Spirit" implies the person is always seen. In that context it would be appropriate to refer to all of the Prophet(PBUT)'s and the Angels as being "Holy Spirits". To say a person is "filled with the Holy Spirit" seems to mean the person has very good qualities or attributes. I have never heard any Jew I know, attribute personification to "The Holy Spirit" or indicate "The Holy Spirit" is a specific being.

Well, they don't. What I mean is this: the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit is not hypostatic (As such, not a personality within the Trinty). The Holy Spirit is seen as SOLELY belonging to God.

At the same time, it's very clear that the Jewish view of the Holy Spirit doesn't just refer to generally holy beings, angelic or otherwise. There was a developed sense of God's Spirit and how it work in and among God's people. So, the Holy Spirit cannot merely be a "quality" of goodness and/or holiness in created being. It's an ACTIVE POWER inseparable with DIVINE PRESENCE that enabled prophecy, knowledge of God, and divine power.

The main thing is that it would have been absolutely FOREIGN to Jewish people of Jesus' day to say that the Holy Spirit of God was nothing more or less than the angel Gabriel. They would have looked at anyone who said that as severely misinformed, at best!
 
Last edited:
It's interesting. As I read all of the different Muslim arguments online for why they think that Muhammad is the "paraclete" of which Jesus speaks...I notice a severe dearth of 1) understanding the Jewish concept of the Holy Spirit and 2) contextual analysis of the origin of the Jewish Christian movement (ala Peter).

Honestly, it looks like arguments are cherry-picked out rather than actually looking at the historical lines of the Jewish Christians movement, it's understanding of the Holy Spirit, and HOW that actually matches up with what Jesus was saying in John. PARTICULARLY the Messianic hopes ala the Prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Joel.

For example the whole "the Holy Ghost was already with them" argument. This is simply a failure to even recognize HOW Jews in Jesus' day saw how the Holy Spirit operated...and the pre and post-messianic age expections about the Holy Spirit's operation.

Not nice. Not nice at all.
 
I want to add that what I believe is driving the Muslim to try to see Muhammed as the Paracletos isn't the text. It is the prior belief derived from the Qur'an that the Old and New Testaments speak of Muhammed. Basically, Muslims have to find Muhammed in the Bible. It is not an exegetical motivation, but an eisigetical exercise based on a pre-existing belief. This is the only eplaination I have for mishandling and wrangling of the text of Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top