Who or what is the paraclete

[Eagle]

Except that King's previous statements all revolve around the explicit theme of equal rights. Even if he did not spell these words in a given speech one can infer his intent in case of ambiguity. Only if his statement is pulled out of the larger context of his pattern of thought then one can twist his words.

That is what the unknown Greek writers of the Gospels did in all of their stories. Pulled out of the larger biblical context (which unfortunately for them includes the Hebrew Bible) the Gospels make some sense in certain places even if it remains an overall weak text in terms of consistency but the more the context is enlarged, such as by adding information from the HB, let alone factual independent information, the more their stories fall apart. The case of pentecost is an example. It cannot have occured in light of the HB messianic criteria, none of which were fulfilled anywhere near the supposed event, be it the appearance of an individual from the required lineage and the accomplishment of the tasks required of him.

[manfred]

Eagle, I really must insist you move on the topic now or close it. You had all the answers you asked for many times over.

There are 100% clear cut "criteria" for the Messiah in the HB. The theme comes up in a number of writers in various ways. During the time Jesus the general understanding of the "Messiah" was someone defeating the Romans, for example.

We are all aware and do not need to be told 100 times that Judaism rejects the notion that Jesus was the Messiah. Christianity picks up the "Messiah" theme and interprets it in a new way. The Messiah is no longer a "war lord" leader or a political figure, but something else. And Christian authors supply arguments from the HB bible to support their point of view. You can accept what they say or not, as you wish. They do not try to supply "proof", but merely supply evidence to suggest that their idea is also supported by other writers of the HB.

And as pointed out countless times by now, the flaw in your logic is this: you disingenuously present the JEWISH view of what the "Messiah" should be treated as "proven fact", and then claim that much of the testimony of gospel is false. This is hypocritical, as you yourself do not believe that, because you cannot, as a Muslim.

You ignore the Christian account, and you are hiding the fact that in YOUR OWN RELIGION Jesus is called the "Messiah".

Should a Muslim not apply the standard of his OWN religion and not someone else's?

According to Islam, Jesus is the Messiah, even though, as you say, it is not really clear what they mean by that. Therefore according to Islam the "messianic age" started with the birth of Jesus. Therefore the rest of the argument you have presented is mute.

This is John's account of Jesus' speech:

15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

The thing that Jesus promised to his disciples is clearly not some future man, long after they are all dead. It is something "inside them", the "spirit of truth", which will remain forever, something outsiders (like you) cannot see or know.

This does not describe, even by the liveliest of imagination, Mohammed. All the aspects Jesus mentioned are recurring in the account of Pentacost.

What the thing spoke about here "fulfilled" at Pentacost? That is Christian teaching, again you take that or leave that. Did this "process" end at Pentacost? Not according to Christianity. We would point at the great many people moved by God "spirit" to great things, some so much they are called "saints", but anyone is able to experience the power of this spirit if he or she only allows him to do his work within.

[Eagle]

Repeating the same misunderstandings and false premises then asking for the topic to be left as is, is not the proper way to conduct a dialogue.

For example it is dishonest to repeat that the Quran endorses the Gospels' claim of Jesus being the predicted messiah of the HB while it has been shown that the use of messiah in the Quran is clearly and unambiguously disconnected from any biblical theological baggage and simply refers to a name others know him by, just as anyone outside the Christian fold would refer to Jesus as "Christ" without believing in the religious connotation of the word.

It is equally dishonest to repeat the false notion that one may reinterpret what has now admittedly been described as 100% clear messianic criteria in the HB by seperating between a supposed Jewish understanding and a Christian one while these criteria are not subject to reinterpretation and neither do the Greek writers of the Gospels claim such a thing. They instead provide misquote after misquote from the HB to force fit Jesus' in those requirements. For example they present different genealogies, all embarrassingly incompatible with the clear cut HB lineage requirements. How does one reintepret for instance that Jeconiah cannot be among the candidate's ancestors? How does one reinterpret the fact that the temple was never rebuilt by Jesus or that death and sin never ended? For argument's sake, Can any Christian show how did Jesus, and by extension the pentecost events, even metaphorically or indirectly, in the most loose sense possible, meet a single one of those 100% clear criteria? Can anyone show how does any writer of the HB endorse any aspect of Jesus' life as fulfilling those requirements? Further, why did the indwelling of the holyspirit break the clear pattern of its effect on the individual as described from the HB down to the Quran?

That the predicted end times messiah was expected to defeat the Romans was only an indirect consequence of his fulfillement of the messianic accomplishments, which includes 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.

Once the above is understood and assimilated, we can move to how the prediction applies to the Ishmaelite prophet.

[manfred]

The Qur'an unreservedly applies the title Messiah to Jesus, eighteen times, and it attempts no explanation of it. This is all the more surprising in view of the Jewish and Christian belief that the title is reserved to the specially-chosen one of God, one man alone who stands above all other men, prophets and apostles included. The declaration that the Messiah was only an apostle is to be self-contradictory and the Qur'an's complete silence on the meaning of the title does not support your suggestion that is is merely an empty title.

Even if that that was the case, the point is that nonetheless we must conclude with certainty that according to Islam, the messianic age started with the birth of Jesus, as this title even in the Qur'an an is never applied to anyone else, which renders you argument mute.

It is equally dishonest to repeat the false notion that one may reinterpret what has now admittedly been described as 100% clear messianic criteria in the HB by seperating between a supposed Jewish understanding and a Christian one while these criteria are not subject to reinterpretation and neither do the Greek writers of the Gospels claim such a thing.

I have told you that the "criteria" are NOT "100% clear", and it depends where in the HB bible you look. And that "messiah" is understood somewhat differently by Jews and Christians is an obvious fact, something you seem to insist you want to ignore. You can say "100% clear" another 1000 times, it does not alter the fact that this simply is not accurate. And the writer of the gospels do claim a different understanding of Messiah than the one prevalent at the time. For a start, it is not a Jewish understanding that the Messiah is the "Son of God", and this a theme repeated by several authors of the gospels.

"For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead so that in everything He might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him and through him to reconcile to himself all things whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."

Colossians 1:13-20

How does one reinterpret the fact that the temple was never rebuilt by Jesus or that death and sin never ended?

In Christianity every church is equivalent to the temple, and every church houses the "presence of God" in the form of the sacrament in a "tabernacle". In addition, each person, as a vessel for the Holy Spirit, is also a temple.

And Christianity does not teach that somehow sin and death magically ends after Jesus, but that the CONSEQUENCES of both have changed.

Once the above is understood and assimilated, we can move to how the prediction applies to the Ishmaelite prophet.

The "above" your mention has been understood as nonsense a long time ago. However, it does not mean you are unable to explain you daft idea that Mohammed is the "paraclete" should you wish to do so.

[frankie]

So Eagle, still no reply from you to explain why you believe Mohammed to be the paraclete.

If it is so clear to you why he is, this is your opportunity to give the evidence for it.

Your lack of response appears to indicate your confidence in your prophet is evaporating, are you going to prove me wrong?

[Eagle]

@manfred

The Quran doesnt apply the title, but the name massih/christ as is clear from the angelic annouciation listing to Mary what people will name him.

The messianic age cannot be ushered solely by an individual's birth, even if it is the one with the required lineage, which wasnt Jesus' case anyway. That person needs to accomplish a list of things to validate his claim and to bring forth the messianic age.

Claiming the criteria are not 100% clear and failing to produce such an instance doesnt constitute a proper defence. One cannot claim to have a legitimate different point of view, if it is based on a faulty representation of the same independent information, which is the HB. For example the Greek authors create new characteristics which werent part of the original requirements, such as divine sonship. The understanding of those HB passages hasnt changed regardless of when or where they were read, or can any Christian point to a different messianic expectation by any Jewish group prior to Jesus? How does one metaphorically apply any single one of those criteria to Jesus, for example how is the exclusion of Jeconiah from the lineage a metaphorical criteria? Using which textual justification outside of the Greek authors' opinions, can one bend a clear criteria such as the rebuilding of a specific temple in a specific location where animal sacrifices and a priestly institution must be established, into the notion that this Jerusalem temple which was meant by te original author is no longer a fixed location? To argue that this point, among others, can be read in a different manner, then one would have to produce evidence from the same author or the same book allowing such an alternative reading. Bringing the opinion of an unknown author, disconnected from every aspects (time, language, religion etc) to the original author and simply present his views in support is a poor argument. How does the text in which the disapearance of sin and death is mentionned, allow for the reinterpratation of "disapearance" into "different consequences"?

[manfred]

OK, eagle, as this seems to go round in endless circles, I will allow one more post from you answering what you placed as a title to this thread "who or what is the paraclete", the way you understand that. Anything other than that will be removed.

All the things you keep repeating had a reply many times over, and if you don't like the reply, that is not my problem. It is simply idiotic to suggest that this issue is not a matter of interpretation. The facts speak for themselves. Obviously the Christian notion of "Messiah" is not the same as the one prevalent in the 1st century AD in Judea, nor exactly the same as the various (and differing) ideas expressed in the Hebrew bible. Like it or lump it, that is the way it is.

And if you don't like the idea that Jesus was the messiah from birth, well, then tell me at what point of his life he "became" the "messiah", as the Qur'an also calls him that eighteen times.

[frankie]

@manfred

The Quran doesnt apply the title, but the name massih/christ as is clear from the angelic annouciation listing to Mary what people will name him.

The messianic age cannot be ushered solely by an individual's birth, even if it is the one with the required lineage, which wasnt Jesus' case anyway. That person needs to accomplish a list of things to validate his claim and to bring forth the messianic age.

Claiming the criteria are not 100% clear and failing to produce such an instance doesnt constitute a proper defence. One cannot claim to have a legitimate different point of view, if it is based on a faulty representation of the same independent information, which is the HB. For example the Greek authors create new characteristics which werent part of the original requirements, such as divine sonship. The understanding of those HB passages hasnt changed regardless of when or where they were read, or can any Christian point to a different messianic expectation by any Jewish group prior to Jesus? How does one metaphorically apply any single one of those criteria to Jesus, for example how is the exclusion of Jeconiah from the lineage a metaphorical criteria? Using which textual justification outside of the Greek authors' opinions, can one bend a clear criteria such as the rebuilding of a specific temple in a specific location where animal sacrifices and a priestly institution must be established, into the notion that this Jerusalem temple which was meant by te original author is no longer a fixed location? To argue that this point, among others, can be read in a different manner, then one would have to produce evidence from the same author or the same book allowing such an alternative reading. Bringing the opinion of an unknown author, disconnected from every aspects (time, language, religion etc) to the original author and simply present his views in support is a poor argument. How does the text in which the disapearance of sin and death is mentionned, allow for the reinterpratation of "disapearance" into "different consequences"?

Eagle

The Quran doesnt apply the title, but the name massih/christ as is clear from the angelic annouciation listing to Mary what people will name him.

Gabriel does not give the title of Messiah for Jesus to Mary, he tells Mary to give her child the name Jesus, meaning “god saves” in Hebrew, which is what Gabriel also told Joseph, “for He will save His people from their sins” agreeing with the prophesy from Isaiah 7:14

The Quran gives Jesus the name Messiah without giving the reason why, which is very strange considering Allah is supposed to have initiated the prophesy of the Messiah, as well as His birth, death and resurrection.
So according to the Quran, why exactly was Jesus called the Messiah, we will never know because the Quran does not tell us.

But the Bible does, which begs the question, if Allah is who he says he is, the same god which gave rise to the prophesies about the Messiah in the Bible, why does Allah not claim the same in his alleged final revelation called the Quran?


Luke 1:26-35

26Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. 30The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.

32“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”

34Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.


Matthew 1:18-25

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
20But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

21“She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23“BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” Isaiah 7:14

24And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Jesus affirms the prophesies found in the O.T.together with the angel Gabriel’s messages to Joseph and Mary.

Matthew 26:27-29

27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

The Quran rejects all what the Bible tells us about Jesus, which it should not do if Allah were the same god.

QED Allah is not the God of the Bible

[Eagle]

@manfred

It isnt a question of 1st century AD interpretation or of various notions within the HB of what is expected of the predicted messiah, otherwise it would be easy to provide, as requested, as single Jewish group endorsing different opinions of those clear criteria. Specific questions were asked to which no answers were given; how can one adopt an alternate meaning of a statement without justifying that understanding from any statement from the original author? Which statement within the HB allows for the single physical temple of Jerusalem to be an indwelling abstract notion or a multiplicity of buildings regardless of the location? Which statement within the HB allows for the cursed Jeconiah to be part of the messiah's lineage?

[Eagle]

@frankie

The Quran doesnt give the name massih/christ to Isa and neither does it tell his mother what to call him with, as in the Gospel's account. It informs her of how he will be designated. Had the angel told her what she should call him by then it would be endorsing a theological meaning to the name. The nuance is clear. When a Jew, a Muslim or any non-Christian refers to Jesus as massih/christ, it is in reference to a proper name, since the Apostolic age, whether in modern or ancient usage, even in secular termminology, without any connection to the biblical theological implications.

[frankie]

@frankie

The Quran doesnt give the name massih/christ to Isa and neither does it tell his mother what to call him with, as in the Gospel's account. It informs her of how he will be designated. Had the angel told her what she should call him by then it would be endorsing a theological meaning to the name. The nuance is clear. When a Jew, a Muslim or any non-Christian refers to Jesus as massih/christ, it is in reference to a proper name, since the Apostolic age, whether in modern or ancient usage, even in secular termminology, without any connection to the biblical theological implications.

Eagle:

The Quran doesnt give the name massih/christ to Isa

What do these verses mean then when they name Jesus as the Messiah?


Quran 4.171

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.

Quran 3.45
Remember) when the angels said, "O Mary, God gives you good news of a word from Him (God), whose name is the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, revered in this world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (to God). He will speak to the people from his cradle and as a man, and he is of the righteous." She said, "My Lord, how can I have a child when no mortal has touched me?" He said, "So (it will be). God creates what He wills. If He decrees a thing, He says to it only, 'Be!' and it is."

Quran 4:157
...They said, "We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God." They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but the likeness of him was put on another man (and they killed that man)...

[manfred]

@manfred

It isnt a question of 1st century AD interpretation or of various notions within the HB of what is expected of the predicted messiah, otherwise it would be easy to provide, as requested, as single Jewish group endorsing different opinions of those clear criteria. Specific questions were asked to which no answers were given; how can one adopt an alternate meaning of a statement without justifying that understanding from any statement from the original author? Which statement within the HB allows for the single physical temple of Jerusalem to be an indwelling abstract notion or a multiplicity of buildings regardless of the location? Which statement within the HB allows for the cursed Jeconiah to be part of the messiah's lineage?

So the general expectation of the Jewish People about the Messiah does not count? They expected something that Jews today do not, and Jews before them also did not.

You find a list of people who have claimed to be the messiah in the last 2000 years here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_J ... _claimants

There are dozens of them. Each had a group of followers, some still do, to this day... And each, of course use various passages from the HB to support the claim, or their followers do.

It really is getting ridiculous now. Obviously who is the messiah is a matter of interpretation, and there is no "messiah tick list" in the Hebrew bible.

So will you finally get on with the topic now?

Who or what is the paraclete?

[manfred]

No more off topic endless repetitions.

[Eagle]

It isnt a repetition to point to the fact that a list of messianic claimants doesnt help the case for an alternate interpretation by any Jewish group of the clear messianic criteria of the HB.

What is the textual basis allowing for the temple of Jerusalem to be reinterpreted as an indwelling phenomenon or a multiplicity of buildings regardless of the location? Which statement within the HB allows for the cursed Jeconiah to be part of the messiah's lineage?

All these arent off topic issues since they directly relate to whether the Christian interpretation, based on the very text that refutes them, is correct in regards to the ushering of the messianic age and by extension the possibility of collective revelation at pentecost

[manfred]

It isnt a repetition to point to the fact that a list of messianic claimants doesnt help the case for an alternate interpretation by any Jewish group of the clear messianic criteria of the HB.

yes it is a repetition, eagle, and if I didn't in a way like you, I would have sent you on "holiday" by now.

Each of the claimants to be the Messiah (or in some case, just their followers) used the same HB with the ever so 100% clear criteria, right? So how come many of these have followers to this day? There is a sizeable Lubavitcher group of "orthodox" Jews just up the road from where I live, and they hold the belief that Menachem Mendel Schneerson was the Messiah...



Here is a picture of their community hall.... I once went there on Purim, at the invitation of a rabbi I am friends with, and got rather drunk...



He died in 1994.

What is also very telling is that it is NOT an "article of faith" for them to believe that he was the Messiah. While they all generally agree that he was the Messiah they also allow differing views, quite openly. So this means what I keep telling you, Messianic criteria are a matter of interpretation and in the end of belief.

And for the umpteenth time, the Qur'an also calls Jesus the Messiah, and it ONLY calls Jesus that. So you cannot have it both ways, either Jesus was the Messiah, and then the argument about the "Messianic age" is closed, or he was not, and then the Qur'an is wrong using that name.

So you made you point, now PLEASE MOVE ON.

[Eagle]

There have always been Jews who have thought such and such a person is the messiah. Even the most eminent and orthodox of their time, as was the case with Bar Kochba, but changed their mind prior to his death. Their belief however was always in light of the fulfilement of the same criteria that have been listed here, and when the life of these claimants ended prior to the fulfillement of the entire list, they were either rejected or, as is the case with Schneerson, the 7th rabbi of the lubavitch movement, some fringe die hard supporters found a "loophole" in order not to demote him from the title. Since all the dead will be resurrected during the messianic era -- why couldn't the messiah be one of them? Again, none has ever reintepreted the HB criteria to apply the title on Schneerson, he did, in his lifetime toil more than any contemporary in bringing back Jews to Judaism, Israel was founded in his lifetime, and other messianic factors which seemed as they might be soon be entirely accomplished in his own time.

It has been explained and yet the error keeps coming back, that the Quran uses the name, not the title massih/christ.

[manfred]

I do not accept your explanation of "messiah" in the Qur'an as it does not make sense. "Messiah" is not a name, but a title. "Jesus Christ" does not mean His first name was Jesus and his family name Christ.

And it does not matter in the slightest what the Qur'an "means" by "Messiah". In naming only Jesus to be the Messiah, it says Jesus was "the Messiah". We have seen many times that this title means different things to different people, in any case. But all agree there can only be one, including even the Qur'an.

So a Muslim accepts what the Qur'an explicitly states, i.e. Jesus is the Messiah. If he does not meet the "criteria", and Jesus is not the Messiah in your view, then you must also accept that there is a serious error in the Qur'an. The lame excuse that the Qur'an calls Jesus the Messiah but does not really mean it, is not borne out by the teachings of the Qur'an. In fact, the Qur'an says about Jesus 1) Al Masih, the Messiah, 2) virgin born, 3) Kalimat Minhu - a word from God and one of those nearest to God. In Islam it is also Jesus, and not Mohammed, who returns on the last day. So it is pretty clear that on the whole, Islam accepts most of the Christian teachings about "Messiah", with the exception of the divinity of Christ.

Now we have totally exhausted this question, and you have have expressed what you wanted to say. If you are unwilling to finally address your own topic, now is the time to say so.

[Eagle]

"whose name is al massih, Isa son of Marium"

The above which is in sura aal imran is not the same as

who is al massih, Isa son of Marium

It isnt about rejecting or accepting somebody's opinion of what the Quran says, but about applying correct reading skills. The Quran refers to the name, not the title. Although originally a title, Christ (massih), when applied to Jesus gradually became equivalent to his proper name, and this is undisputed, since the Apostolic age, whether in modern or ancient usage, even in secular termminology.

As to him being virgin born and kalimatullah (both of which were never believed to be, nor are among the HB messianic criteria), these have a clear and deep meaning in the Quran, disconnected from any biblical theological understanding. But that is another topic.

It will eventually be shown how the paraclete predictions apply to Muhammad, just as we clear up the misunderstanding that collective revelation is a possibility outside the messianic age, as is alleged to have happened at pentecost.

[manfred]

Oh give it a rest. I have answered you so many times, I lost count. No "misunderstanding". The Qur'an says Jesus is the messiah. It mentions virgin birth, miracles, ascension, and even "word of God" in connection with Jesus, as well as of course Messiah.

No "Name". It paints a portrays of the Christian notion of "Messiah" in most details, except the "son of God". So not a mere "name".

Read the Qur'an , for goodness sake.

[Eagle]

So the Quran says, word for word,

his name is al massih

but means "title".

All the things mentionned about Jesus in the Quran have deep implications and none are related to the messianic criteria (just as being God's word, virgin birth, ascension etc arent among the HB criteria).

In the next post it will be shown how Jesus' paraclete predictions apply to the prophet Muhammad.