Page 2 of 7

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:31 pm
by manfred
This is self-contradictory garbage. The Qur'an also calls Jesus the Messiah, so even according to Mohammed the "messianic age" started with Jesus. The NT uses HB texts to support the idea that Jesus was the Messiah, and Mohammed accepted that. Jewsih reading of these passages are of course different. Clearly old Mo did not quite understand was "Messiah" was as obviously the arrival of the Messiah would make further "prophets" impossible.

And just because some people call Jesus a "prophet", that does not mean he was one. If someone calls you an idiot, does that mean you are one?

This means, as far as the apostles were concerned, they certainly would believe and testify they live in the "messianic age", and they would see the events a Pentacost as evidence.

What Joel had written, many years before, was very similar to much of the other writings of the prophets. He speaks of the anger of God and his eventual forgiveness. He speaks of returning what "the locust have eaten". And he mentions a new flourishing of prophetic tradition in Israel. Finally he tells people how to be safe from the wrath of God, and his last judgement.

All that Peter did in his sermon, for goodness sake, was to take a passage from Joel 2 and re-interpret to apply to his current day. He says the day Joel mentioned when there will be a flourishing of prophecy is in fact the present day, Pentecost day.
“And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
29
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.


Joel does indeed connect this passage, by location, to "judgement day"... and the apostles did indeed believe that this day was very close by, or to be precise. you should behave as if it was today or tomorrow, as nobody could tell when it would happen.

According to the Eastern Orthodox Christian hymns, the ancient hymnographer Anatolius links Joel’s prophecy to the birth of Christ. In Joel 2:30, he says that the blood refers to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the fire to the Divinity of Christ, and the pillars of smoke to the Holy Spirit. Again, this is a re-interpretation by a much later Christian writer, similar to the way Peter interpreted his passage from Joel. There is no reason to assume that this is what Joel had in mind.

Your confused attempt to make room for Mohammed in the NT has failed, eagle. Try something else.

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:55 pm
by Eagle
It isnt "some" people, but the multitudes who recognized him as a prophet. What the unknown Greek authors (not the apostles), who proved themselves time after time ignorant of the Hebrew texts, believed regarding the messianic age is irrelevant and the point still stands that the HB, and Joel and particular speak of collective revelation the manner in which it is described at pentecost, as only reoccuring once a list of specific criteria indicating the start of the end of times are fulfilled, none of those criteria occured anywhere near pentecost. So the point still stands, if Jesus' statement concerning the paraclete is not and could not be related to pentecost, then what did he mean by it?

As to the messiah title, The Arabic massih stems from M-S-H meaning to swipe one surface opposite another either to clean or to mark. The meaning is basically the same for the Hebrew mashiach steming from M-S-CH which means to paint, smear or annoint, more generally to spread a liquid on a surface. That swiping process, when performed by a human in a religious context must be with the proper oil and ceremony as described in Ex30:22-33. The consequence to the recipient is that he becomes selected for a special, sacred purpose 1Sam10:1-2. The title however can sometimes be used symbolicaly even if not preceded by the ceremonial, when it is God Himself doing the "swiping" as is the case with the non-Jewish king Cyrus Isa45:1. Besides prophets, and a non Jew, the title is used for Jewish priests and kings 1Kings1:39,19:15-6,Lev4:3,Ex28:41,Isa61:1 or also for objects like the Jewish Temple or unleavened bread Ex40:9,Num6:15. The common denominator is, as already stated, the dedication for a specific purpose through marking.

In ignorence of the above, Christians speak of the end-time Jewish king, who in addition will be "a" qualified messiah like the aforementionned animate and inanimate entities, as "the" messiah, in an attempt to create an aura of exclusivity surrounding the title. In their zeal and because nowhere does the HB speak of that personality preceded by the definite article, they have gone as far as modifying Dan9:25 that does not have a definite article in front of "mashiach" except in Christian corrupted version. This example of textual corruption at the hands of Christians and Trinitarians more particularily to advance their faulty religious ideas, is far from being an isolated case.

The Quran however simply uses "massih" as one of Jesus' proper names, more specifically, one of a set of names by which he would be designated, as is clear from the angelic annonciation to Mary, without attaching any theological implication to the word, without giving any credence to the absurd claim made by the unknown Greek Testament writers that he is the anointed Jewish King prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, a claim that turned the HB/NT into a convoluted mess as can be seen all throughout the Judeo-Christian history and their never ending disputes regarding the identity of that promised figure (among other issues)
2:113"And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say".


Although linguistically as shown above, the Arabic term "al massih" may describe any entity, animate or inanimate, marked for a spiritual purpose, like prophethood, the fact the Quran only designates Jesus, among all prophets with that word, shows that the purpose isnt to apply the linguistic, or religious meaning to him, much less the fabricated apocalyptic one. The Quran never depicts Jesus as identifying himself with that mythical Jewish figure, whose descriptions he does not fulfill anyway as anyone familiar with the HB knows, rather always states, as shown earlier, that "al massih" was (and is still) the name by which others called him, be it his enemies when they used the title sarcastically, or his followers. This is something that was decreed before his birth to the world. In 3:45 the angel informs Mary of what his names will be "al massih, Isa, son of Mary".

As a side note, if Jesus had a Hebrew name no one knows what it might have been since there are no early NT writings with his Hebrew name. The Christian scriptures were written in Greek, in which the name given is Iesous, which cannot iterate into the Hebrew Yeshua. The closest transliteration of Iesous is Yeshu, and for Yeshua would be Iesouas. The reason for the Christian need to associate Iesous with Yeshua is because of their attempt at connecting it with a noun that they think sounds similar and means "salvation"; y'shu'ah. Besides being a feminine word, it isnt even pronounced the same as Yeshua because of the muted first letter "yod".

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:57 pm
by manfred
Although linguistically as shown above, the Arabic term "al massih" may describe any entity, animate or inanimate, marked for a spiritual purpose, like prophethood, the fact the Quran only designates Jesus, among all prophets with that word, shows that the purpose isnt to apply the linguistic, or religious meaning to him, much less the fabricated apocalyptic one.


:lotpot:

Inanimate "prophets"?

And I should have known, you mere correct what the Qur'an says, as usual.

And Jesus is a girl's name you say.... You really should stop smoking da ganja... not good for you.

ישוע would be the Hebrew version, and it means "deliverance" ... as a noun that is female, but as a name?

As to "Iesouas", Greek does not generally use several vowels one after the other, except for predefined combination. So it simply gets shortened to "Iesous", which also makes is neatly fit into the third declension in Greek, making it easy to form cases.

Yeshua is short for yehoshua (Joshua) and is a male name for at least 10 people in the Hebrew bible.

In Greek, the ending "-a" is generally female (not always though), so it was replaces with a "-s" to make it fit with Greek Grammar. Also, there is no letter shin in Greek, so a sigma, the closest thing, was substituted.

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:38 pm
by Eagle
@the person that is using manfred's account

It isnt Jesus which is feminine but the hebrew word y'shu'ah. Its use for a name still doesnt change its feminine gender, also it doesnt even sound like Yeshua (muted yod) and neither does the Greek Iesous gets iterated into Yeshua but Yeshu instead...

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:45 pm
by manfred
Less talking nonsense, more reading :

read.... or I come and "press"you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)

READ

READ

Image

Jibril prepares to “press so tightly” Muhammad will think it means death.

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:47 pm
by Eagle
And the point still standsb regardless of all the attempted diversions; if Jesus' statement concerning the paraclete is not and could not be related to pentecost, then what did he mean by it?

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:53 pm
by Eagle
Sure the revelational experience, the indwelling of the spirit of holiness is a traumatic sometimes violent event, as is written all over the HB, while others were drunk at pentecost Ephesians5:18...

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:15 pm
by manfred
Eagle wrote:And the point still standsb regardless of all the attempted diversions; if Jesus' statement concerning the paraclete is not and could not be related to pentecost, then what did he mean by it?


No, eagle, Mohammed did not time travel 600 years back into the past on a magic donkey, and got the apostles drunk.

Your question is silly, as the premise is false, the "if" part. Jesus's statement does relate to pentacost, as we have repeated pointed out.

What did he mean by it is explained plainly by the events that are described to follow that statement.

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:00 pm
by Eagle
It isnt Muhammad but the holyspirit that changed its manner and effect on people by getting them drunk at pentecost.

No ammount of word play will solve the problem until Joel, a messianic passage, is reconciled with the pentecost story, which will never happen because the possibility for collective revelation to occur is linked to the fulfillement of certain criteria. These well known criteria didnt happen anywhere near the pentecost events. So the question remains, what got these people drunk? What did Jesus mean with the sending of this other paraclete?

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:41 pm
by manfred
Eagle wrote:It isnt Muhammad but the holyspirit that changed its manner and effect on people by getting them drunk at pentecost.

No ammount of word play will solve the problem until Joel, a messianic passage, is reconciled with the pentecost story, which will never happen because the possibility for collective revelation to occur is linked to the fulfillement of certain criteria. These well known criteria didnt happen anywhere near the pentecost events. So the question remains, what got these people drunk? What did Jesus mean with the sending of this other paraclete?



All you do is repeating the same thing over and over, and all this has been answered by now a dozen times.

a) Peter used a quote from Joel. He interpreted it to apply to the time he spoke. Whether or not that was "fair usage" is for you decide. It does not make any difference to the events surrounding Pentacost, which have been discussed by now with you, who is not in least bit interested in that, really ad nauseam.

b) Nobody got drunk at Pentecost. Observers mistook what they say as people being drunk. That is why Peter addressed them. When he did that he quoted that bit from Joel, mostly to rebut the charge of drunkenness. As I have told you a dozen times, that is a preacher's privilege. And it is your privilege to decide for yourself if you feel that was an appropriate connection. However it is abundantly clear that Peter, the one used the quote, thought to matched at least to some extent the occasion. It is also clear that the apostles connected the events at Pentacost with the statement made by Jesus in John's gospel. And then comes eagle, 2000 years later, who was not there and claims Pentacost is about a bunch of drunks and the "paraclete"really was Mohammed, 600 years later. This contradicts the testimony of the NT and is a mere polemic.

c) The Messianic age started with the birth of Jesus, according to Christianity. I have told you repeatedly that an analytical disection of the events of Pentacost are not possible, and all we can point is are the EFFECTS of that experience.

d) Paraclete is not a name or title, but a description of a function: the comforter/counsellor/defender. It is most commonly, by John, just in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, but not exclusively so. Jesus is also called a comforter/counsellor/defender. However, John is careful to ensure that whenever he used the word there can be no misunderstanding as to who he means.Sadly he did not ever meet you... for you specially he might have drawn a picture.

So eagle, wrong again, "Holy Spirit" and "gin" are not the same thing.

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:22 pm
by Eagle
Nobody is trying to dissect or rationalize the events of pentecost, but to reconcile the difficulty of having a messianic event occuring outside the messianic era. And the repetition of Peter's interpretation of Joel doesnt address this, just as is the case with what the Greek writers allege the apostles believed concerning the paraclete prophecy. Saying that Jesus was speaking of pentecost adds another failed prophecy to his list of NT failures, since he should have known that for collective revelation to happen simultaneously the messianic age and its list of criteria need to be fulfilled, and none were at pentecost. So the question remains, What did Jesus mean with the sending of this other paraclete?

Why would anyone blame the scribes and Pharisees for mockingly pointing to the apparent state of drunkedness of the people when their erratic movements and incomprehensible speech has nothing to do with the well known signs of revelational experience through the spirit of holiness which the Greek writers assume they were filled with?

And no messianic era started anywhere near Jesus' time, since not a single one of the HB criteria were fulfilled then.

And nobody is asserting that paraclete is a name, sure it is a title, but the title of a specific individual to come after Jesus.

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:25 pm
by manfred
, but to reconcile the difficulty of having a messianic event occuring outside the messianic era.


And for the fifth time... Jesus, being the messiah, obviously started the messianic era. So there is no "difficulty".

I also pointed out to you that the thing you call the day judgement was expected in a short time after the crucifixion.

Why would anyone blame the scribes and Pharisees for mockingly pointing to the apparent state of drunkedness of the people when their erratic movements and incomprehensible speech has nothing to do with the well known signs of revelational experience through the spirit of holiness which the Greek writers assume they were filled with?


"well known signs of revelational experience"? Really? You mean like Mohammed, having fits, sweating, rolling on the floor and then ranting on about who to kill or subdue next those signs?

How God enters into people's lives is not following any particular pattern, and you cannot tell God what he must do and how.

And no messianic era started anywhere near Jesus' time, since not a single one of the HB criteria were fulfilled then.


Really? So the Qur'an is mistaken when it calls Jesus the messiah?

What is true that Jesus was not exactly the Messiah many Jews expected... certainly not at the time. That is why he was rejected by the established religious leadership. The expectation was more of a military man who would save the Israelites from the Romans. Jesus very much broadened this narrow idea. He did not come to drive the Romans away, but to save all of us from the consequences of our sinful actions. Jesus was not the warrior king, but the king of another domain. He was not merely a liberator of a people, but a liberator for all mankind.

However, there are quite a number of text references from the HB that Christians have put forward to support the claim that Jesus is the messiah. Again, what you want to believe is you affair.

But you cannot have it both ways. Jesus either is the messiah or not. If he is not then the Qur'an is inaccurate or even lying, and if he is then the "problem" you harp on about evaporates.

And you keep telling yourself that NONE of the HB criteria are met by Jesus.

Well here they are:

http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/art ... e-messiah/

First of all, he must be Jewish

Yes he was.

He must be a member of the tribe of Judah

Yes he was.

He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon

The gospels also testify to that.
-“And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” (Isaiah 11:12)


Again that is a matter of interpretation... the narrow view would be he bring people home to Israel. The Christian view is that he collects together ALL of humanity under his "banner".
…and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them..”


And in every church there is a tabernacle, in which he is "present" in the form of the sacrament.


In fact we can go over ALL of the criteria (they vary slightly from one Jewish group to another) and see how they apply to Jesus. That of course is a matter of interpretation, and Jewish people would generally have a different interpretation than Christians one.

So, your groundless assertion that Jesus does not meet "HB criteria" only depends on what interpretation of these criteria you which to apply.

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:39 am
by Eagle
The criteria of the messianic age, which must all be fulfilled by an individual to fit the role of the predicted end time messiah are well known, do not vary among Jewish groups since they are all clearly mentionned in the HB, and include the global ingathering of the Jews, rebuilding of the temple, ushering of the age of unfaltering observance of the Law, universal peace, universal knowledge of God, blissful utopia, end of evil and sin, disease and death. Obviously none of those criteria ever occured anywhere near Jesus' era and no amount of reinterpretation and repetitions will help. Neither do the opinions, expectations and interpretations of the Greek writers. No messianic era, no collective revelation through the spirit of holiness and no messiah. So the question still stands, who was this other paraclete predicted to come after Jesus?

Jesus being inadvertently, and due to ignorence and unfamiliarity with the Hebrew scriptures, painted by the Greek writers as a false messiah that could not satisfy the aforementionned requirements has no effect on the Quranic usage of the word viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18240&p=239121#p239093

Jesus was rejected by his fellow Jews, not for claiming to be the promised ruler, but because, just like his predecessors Israelite prophets whom they calumnied, rejected, killed, for harshly condemning their straying from their own Books. There is a reason why plenty evidence exists for Jewish messianic claimants during or just a few years after Jesus, but not 1 concerning a person named Jesus who claimed to be the Davidic king. There is a reason why the Greek authors could not but paint that whole part of Jesus' ministry as some sort of hidden reality, with Jesus telling his followers to keep it to themselves Mk8:29, secretly admitting it to a woman Jn4, and offering differing answers to the high priest's charge against him, either obscuring or confirming the charge of him claiming to be the king messiah Matt26:63-64,Lk22:70,Mk14:62. Yet Jesus himself says
Jn18:20"I have spoken openly to the world..I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret."

Like all prophets Jesus taught nothing secretly, neither did he devise some plans in the dark. He spoke publicly and boldly everything he was told to convey, and when he gathered alone with his followers and spoke to them, he did not state anything new or different than what he openly declared.

Again, the signs of one entering into a communication with the divine through the spirit of holiness are well known, and stamped all over the HB and down to the Quran as experienced by the last Ishmaelite prophet viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18240#p239089

There is a reason why the scribes and Pharisees derided the group of people at pentecost; their drunk like erratic behavior and incomprehensible speech had nothing to do with the phenomenon of receiving God's spirit of holiness.

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:53 am
by Eagle
As to Jesus satisfying the messianic lineage requirements, well unfortunately even that aspect was misunderstood by the Greek writers, who understandibly could not sift through the intricacies of Jewish tribal prejudices.

As alluded to, the HB's requirements for the Jewish Messiah are primarly based on lineage. According to Jer30:7,33:17,Ps89:34 that anointed King is to come exclusively from David's line and more precisely from David's son, Solomon's descent 1Chron22:9,2Sam7:12-16.
In addition, the king of Judah named Jeconiah/Jehoiachin/Coniah's line was cursed and excluded from the royal line forever Jer22:24. This means the king Messiah must be descended from King Solomon but not descended from King Jeconiah. That last requirement automatically cancels the writer of Matthew's gospel's attempt at tracing Jesus' genealogy to David, since he mistakenly includes Jeconiah in his listing Matt1:1.

Another important point is the fact that in Jewish law, genealogy is traced specifically through the father because only the male passes on his tribal rights to the biological descendants. The census was conducted paternally as well. Because the virgin birth undermines the notion of Jesus being the Messiah, one is forced to consider this as if Joseph passed on the tribal rights via adoption, even though such rights do not exist. The only rights of inheritance that accrue to an adopted child are those pertaining to tangible assets, such as property, not blood-rights and/or curses. When a Jewish child is adopted he still retains the lineage of his biological father. A Benjamite adopted by a Levite priest would never become a priest. There are examples in the Tanakh of a priest who adopts a son from another tribe. In Ezra2:61,2Samuel21:2 the children of Barzillai's daughter were called by his name and they were not considered Levites, nor Jews. Or in 2Kings11:1, Athalia went on to destroy "all those of royal descent" following the death of her sons. Had it been possible to pass on the royal line via adoption she would have just done it.

And even if such passing of rights via adoption existed, Matthew's genealogy mistakenly includes Jeconiah's name.

In Luke3's genealogy, which is attributed to Joseph as well, Jeconiah isnt in the listing but it does not mention King Solomon's name either and lists in Luke 3:27 Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (see also Matt1:12) who are both descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. Luke3:31 further states that Jesus was the descendant of Solomon's brother Nathan, eliminating any legitimate claim to the throne.

But again, both Luke and Matthew’s lineages are useless because Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph and thus had no right to those bloodlines.

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:57 am
by manfred
Eagle you kept saying that Jesus does note meet a SINGLE criteria, which clearly is false. And I don't care if you think the genealogies given in the gospels are not accurate, many people do. The point made to you that whether or not Jesus meets the criteria is a matter of interpretation.

Second, you have by-passed the inconvenient fact that the Qur'an clearly calls Jesus the Messiah.If suggesting that he is not, you need to then also dismiss the Qur'an.
genealogy is traced specifically through the father


False.... to this day, to determine if someone is Jewish, the MOTHER's religion is was matters.

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:29 am
by frankie
Eagle

Please outline your reasons for the paraclete to be Mohammed.

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:23 am
by manfred
Hi frankie, well, that is the sad part... Muslims HAVE TO find Mohammed mentioned BOTH in the Torah and the gospels, and in the texts as they were during the lifetime of Mohammed. If they cannot then the Qur'an's claim to be "divine" has failed, and with it all of Islam. So, instead of accepting Mohammed is NOT mentioned in any of these texts, and hence putting the Qur'an into a new category, a book mostly based on things Mohammed may have said, they are performing feats of mental contortions to place Mohammed were he is not found.

The strategy is the same they use when "defending" the Qur'an: re-interpreting things, changing words even, or, if all that fails, claiming the texts of the bible has been maliciously changed, without any evidence of course.

I am sure in many ways eagle is a nice guy, but, as with most Muslims, a discussion of religion brings out the worst in him.

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:42 am
by Eagle
Saying that a thing is false without providing arguments in support doesnt constitute a proper answer. Jesus could not be the messiah predicted to come in the Hebrew scriptures, since he does not meet 1 of the well known criteria, otherwise those who support the claim could have brought forth 1 such requirements. The errors of the Greek writers' genealogies, that not only exposed their lack of familiarity with the intricacies of Jewish texts, leading to the elminiation of Jesus as a messianic claimant based on lineage, arent a matter of interpretation and opinion, but of objective assessment. For example, Jeconiah shouldn't be in the list, yet he is. Jesus needs a biological father to pass on the tribal rights of the davidic line, but he had no father. Being Jewish isnt what passes on specific tribal rights which is the exclusive prerogative of the father, per Jewish law. Further, when a Jewish girl marries into another tribe (than the one they are born into) they lose their tribal status of birth and take that of their husband, meaning Mary's genealogy becomes meaningless to the discussion.
After the genealogy Luke's author stresses that Joseph has Davidic ancestry, nowhere does he suggest the same of Mary whom some try claiming the genealogy in Luke is speaking of. Luke even makes Mary a relative of Elizabeth, and she is a descendent of the priestly family of Aaron. Elizabeth is also married to Zechariah, himself a Levite. The clear inference as also implied in the Quran is that Mary has priestly, not royal blood.

And the Quran calling Jesus the messiah is unconnected to these tribal requirements, as shown a few posts back.

But the question remains, What did Jesus mean with the sending of this other paraclete?

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:29 pm
by manfred
So, Ok, eagle, according to you Jesus is not the messiah. Have you dumped you copy of the Qur'an yet, as it is telling you otherwise?

Re: Who or what is the paraclete

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 1:14 pm
by Eagle
It isnt a matter of personal opinion, but of proper understanding of the Hebrew texts, which the Greek writers couldnt grasp while making up their Gospels and other books. Only a passing glimpse of their glaring errors has been exposed in the previous posts. And this is a Christian problem, not a Muslim one since it is only the former that insists in identifying Jesus with the figure predicted to come in the HB. The Quran only says what his names will be, how others will call him, which includes "the messiah".

All these however are irrelevant tangents because the original question as regards the identity of the paraclete predicted to come by Jesus still hasnt been answered.