Muslims: Please note the Advocate is the Holy Spirit

[jimkhong]

But that Gospel is now lost and the one Christians use today is a mix of truths from the original Injil and falsifications that the Church and Christians tried to impose.

Hey, by the way, Muslims, is there a definitive list of which parts of our Bible do you think we have falsified and which is part of the authentic original Injil? It is sometimes difficult to debate with Muslims using shifting goalposts.

I mean, if Muslim quote this verse to prove that the Advocate is Mohammad, does this mean that they think this verse is authentic? Can we avoid a situation where if this verse can be conclusively proven to refer to the Holy Spirit, Muslims do not change its status to be one of the falsified verses?

It has happened so often in my past experience. Where the conclusion is not to the liking, the facts are changed.

 

[MartinJordan]

Hey, by the way, Muslims, is there a definitive list of which parts of our Bible do you think we have falsified and which is part of the authentic original Injil? It is sometimes difficult to debate with Muslims using shifting goalposts.

I mean, if Muslim quote this verse to prove that the Advocate is Mohammad, does this mean that they think this verse is authentic? Can we avoid a situation where if this verse can be conclusively proven to refer to the Holy Spirit, Muslims do not change its status to be one of the falsified verses?

It has happened so often in my past experience. Where the conclusion is not to the liking, the facts are changed.

I think this can be similar to my post, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13015751&postcount=206, unfortunately, no Muslim has responded I had shown there is a tendency to look at verses but not in order.

To me, I think that the silence (to respond) speaks volumes.

MJ

 

[icamhif]

To me, I think that the silence (to respond) speaks volumes.

Silence is not always proof of lack of answers. I think it would be more conclusive if you try making your case in a Muslim forum and see what you get.

 

[MartinJordan]

Silence is not always proof of lack of answers. I think it would be more conclusive if you try making your case in a Muslim forum and see what you get.

While I waited, they had no problem going to other threads though.

MJ

 

[jimkhong]

Silence is not always proof of lack of answers. I think it would be more conclusive if you try making your case in a Muslim forum and see what you get.

Have you tried? Nowadays it is almost impossible to get a decent debate. The problem is that politics intrude (many Muslims do not differentiate between religion and politics like we do) and that there are many sensitive areas which are no-go (suddenly, you get accused of insulting them)

I now only discuss religion one-on-one with Muslims only if they approach, which is rare. It takes time to develop a relationship conducive to an honest discussion. Sadly, I used to be able to do so with friends in school. Now, discussions with those same friends are very stilted. Or alternatively, Muslims approaching non-Muslim fora, not looking for an echo chamber for their views.

I have to say, though, I find Shites and Sufis easier to talk to on religion.

 

[icamhif]

While I waited, they had no problem going to other threads though.

MJ

Good point.

 

[MartinJordan]

Good point.

MJ

 

[TruthBearer]

What is a “valid” prophecy? Presumably one that comes from God? How do you judge that?
If some fringe group in 550 AD expected another prophet, would you take that as “proof” even though this fringe group no longer exists?

Well, I would take Judaism, and the prophecies of the Messiah.

If I follow Orthodox Judaism today as the standard understanding of the Prophecies of the Messiah, I would conclude Jesus is the NOT the Messiah.

There were obviously many different Jewish sects that existed during the time Jesus, some or few may have saw the prophecies of the Messiah and felt they fit Jesus. “this fringe group (that) no longer exists” that felt Jesus fit the prophecy would probably no longer be in existence as they would have become Christian. “this fringe group (that) no longer exists” directly validates the prophecy refers to Jesus.

Similarly, these “fringe group(s) (that) no longer exists,” that suggest that another prophet was to come after Jesus, may no longer exist because they have embraced Islam, thus validating the prophecies refer to Muhammad.

 

[opulumpu]

TruthBearer

"There were obviously many different Jewish sects that existed during the time Jesus, some or few may have saw the prophecies of the Messiah and felt they fit Jesus. “this fringe group (that) no longer exists” that felt Jesus fit the prophecy would probably no longer be in existence as they would have become Christian. “this fringe group (that) no longer exists” directly validates the prophecy refers to Jesus.

Similarly, these “fringe group(s) (that) no longer exists,” that suggest that another prophet was to come after Jesus, may no longer exist because they have embraced Islam, thus validating the prophecies refer to Muhammad".

Can you explain how the second “fringe group(s) (that) no longer exists because they embraced Islam” validate the prophesies refer to Mohammed. How many of the prophesies were fulfilled by Mohammed. One of the criteria used by some Jewish Othordoxy in disqualifying Jesus as the Messiah is that His lineage cannot be traced to David through Joseph because, as Christians claim, Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Despite all the prophesies fulfilled by Jesus, some Jewish sects do not accept Him as the Messiah. So how in the world would these sects have accepted Mohammed as the Messiah when he was not a Jew to begin with!!!, throw in the fact that Mohammed did not fulfill any of the prophesies in the Old Testament.

What I see from Moslems is that they are trying to validate the authenticity of Islam, vis-a-vis Mohammed, by reference to the Bible. Until Islam writes its own music and plays its on song, I will question its authenticity.

 

[mamlukman]

What I see from Moslems is that they are trying to validate the authenticity of Islam, vis-a-vis Mohammed, by reference to the Bible. Until Islam writes its own music and plays its on song, I will question its authenticity.

There is a dilemma in Islam, although I’m sure Truthbearer will deny it. On the one hand, Muslims want to be seen in the Abrahamic tradition–Jews, Christians, Muslims. To do this they have to acknowledge the Old and New Testaments, and try and find passages there to support their position. Thus the title of this thread: “Muslims please note the Advocate is the Holy Spirit” (rather than Muhammad). So Muslims are forced to refer to the Bible to defend their own position–and the Qur’an even tells Muslims to refer to the Bible or Christians several times.

On the other hand, by the standards of both Jews and Christians, Muhammad cannot be a prophet and Islam is a false religion. So when Muslims refer to the Bible, they have a problem. Jews and Christians can quote passages of the Bible to refute Islam. So Muslims are forced to say “No, sorry, your Bible is corrupted,” and conveniently deny anything that opposes Islam. But they can’t ignore the Bible.

There is a very good video on this by David Wood:
youtube.com/watch?v=v2_0Z62-GO8&spfreload=10

 

[DCNBILL]

Well, I would take Judaism, and the prophecies of the Messiah.

If I follow Orthodox Judaism today as the standard understanding of the Prophecies of the Messiah, I would conclude Jesus is the NOT the Messiah.

There were obviously many different Jewish sects that existed during the time Jesus, some or few may have saw the prophecies of the Messiah and felt they fit Jesus. “this fringe group (that) no longer exists” that felt Jesus fit the prophecy would probably no longer be in existence as they would have become Christian. “this fringe group (that) no longer exists” directly validates the prophecy refers to Jesus.

Of course that fringe group still exists, it is called the Catholic Church and we still affirm that Jesus is The Messiah.

 

[TruthBearer]

There is a dilemma in Islam, although I’m sure Truthbearer will deny it. On the one hand, Muslims want to be seen in the Abrahamic tradition–Jews, Christians, Muslims. To do this they have to acknowledge the Old and New Testaments, and try and find passages there to support their position. Thus the title of this thread: “Muslims please note the Advocate is the Holy Spirit” (rather than Muhammad). So Muslims are forced to refer to the Bible to defend their own position–and the Qur’an even tells Muslims to refer to the Bible or Christians several times.

On the other hand, by the standards of both Jews and Christians, Muhammad cannot be a prophet and Islam is a false religion. So when Muslims refer to the Bible, they have a problem. Jews and Christians can quote passages of the Bible to refute Islam. So Muslims are forced to say “No, sorry, your Bible is corrupted,” and conveniently deny anything that opposes Islam. But they can’t ignore the Bible.

There is a very good video on this by David Wood:
youtube.com/watch?v=v2_0Z62-GO8&spfreload=10

I do not think Islam is in a dilemma.

The Bible has been altered, that is a historical fact. Muslims are taught to neither disbelieve in the bible nor believe in it. Yet there has been enough that has been preserved in the bible to see Muhammad in the bible.

For me, when I was Muslim, there were two collections of verses that convinced me that Muhammad was prophesied in the bible.

Old Testament

**“As for Ishmael, I have heard thee. Behold, I have blessed him… and I will make him a great nation.” **(Genesis 17:20)

The Ishmealites settled in the Arabia. This is a fact. Ishmael was not made a great nation until the coming of Muhammad.

**
New Testament**

This is the testimony given by John when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 He confessed and did not deny it, but confessed, “I am not the Messiah.”[g] 21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you** the prophet**?” He answered, “No.” (John 1:19-21)

In these passages, the Jews were expecting three different prophesied people. The Prophesied Elijah, The Prophesied Messiah, and the Prophesied Prophet…

Catholic and Orthodox argue that the Messiah and the Prophet are same person Jesus.
However, if one looks into the actually prophecies of these two, they will see there is a difference between the two, The Prophesied Messiah, and the Prophesied Prophet…

For me, that was enough. There was no need to study in more bible back than, and I didn’t.

**I’ve studied more bible after I left Islam, then when I was actually Muslim. **Most Muslims do not study the bible, the Quran is enough for them.

Many ex-Christians have converted to Islam based on the Prophecy of the Paraclete, and understood from that, it was speaking about Muhammad. It doesn’t matter what the Church believes about those verses, many ex-Christians have converted to Islam because of those verses.

Go Figure.

At the same time, we have ex-Muslims who have converted to Christianity, based on verses in the Quran, Jesus being the word of God for example. Even though Muslims scholars do not understand it the way ex-Muslims have understood them (those verses pertaining tot he word of God).

Go figure.

 

[TruthBearer]

I do accept equally august Islamic traditions (less six centuries ) rights to hold views to the contrary but I find it sad for one religion to find its existence dependent on undermining someone else’s traditions.

So Christians don’t undermine the Jewish tradition when they disagree with the Jews who do not believe Jesus is the Messiah??? Or the Jews who believe Christianity is idolatry for worshiping a man???

Christians do not rely on Jews for their interpretation of the Old Testament, nor do Muslims rely on Christian for their interpretations of the New Testament or the Old Testament for that matter.

 

[jimkhong]

So Christians don’t undermine the Jewish tradition when they disagree with the Jews who do not believe Jesus is the Messiah??? Or the Jews who believe Christianity is idolatry for worshiping a man???

Christians do not rely on Jews for their interpretation of the Old Testament, nor do Muslims rely on Christian for their interpretations of the New Testament or the Old Testament for that matter.

Why should we? If what we seek is true understanding then we all agree that each has got his/her own way to reading the scriptures and who am I to judge if God chooses to lead someone in a way different from mine. As our Bahai friends say, there are many different ways of climbing the mountain.

The difference between (most) Muslims and (most) Christians is the starting point. Muslims start with the fact that Quran is always right and so all other facts are seen in that light. That is why you would read the entire Bible, come upon a particular verse that you interpret in a way other than what it was intended, ignore/reject all other verses (eg., on the resurrection) as false and say that the Bible prophesies the coming of Mohammad even though many other verses (which you would reject as falsified) content the contrary. You cannot do anything different: otherwise, you would no longer be Muslim.

I do not need you to justify yourself because that is what your values are and who am I to judge you. As you rightly point out there are Muslims who convert to Christianity through reading the Quran just as there are Christians who convert to Islam by reading the Bible. You choose the religion according to your values. If you believe dogma comes before context, you are more likely to become Muslim - why should that be wrong even if it is alien to me. One’s value is between him and God.

So, for a Jew not to accept Jesus as the Messiah, I can understand. Many reject, some due to theological reasons, some due to cultural reasons (inertia of having grown up Jewish) some due to historical reasons (don’t like Christian persecution of Jews in the past). Whatever their reasons I accept them and love them as Jesus taught us to.

However I have to point our that Christianity’s relationship with Judaism is fundamentally different from Islam’s relationship with Christianity & Judaism.
(1) we do not accuse the Jewish scriptures of having been falsified… In fact we use the identical scriptures as the Jews. We do not claim that the Jews have an earlier lost scriptures, especially when there is no historical evidence outside of our religion.
(2) we do not deny our Jewish heritage: indeed, we embrace it. We are not ashamed of it and we regard our saviour as a Jew, not a Christian. We do not deny (nay, we emphasise) the Jewish influence on his education and we definitely do not airbrush out all non-Christians who have taught him anything.
(3) we share most of the scriptural studies with the Jews - we can attend each other’s seminary (& often do) and share the same methodology - that the scriptures are written by the hand of men under the inspiration of God. We share much of the same interpretation, except where it touches on the relationship with the NT. So, then yes: we are proud to inherit much of the Jewish tradition of scriptural studies.
(4) we fully support Judaism basis of why they see themselves as a religion and accept their salvation history as our own. We do not change their stories and then accuse them of falsifying history.

I accept the way you regard us and the Jews as different from the way we regard Judaism. Because we have different values. You can’t regard us other than the way you do because if you do, you are no longer a Muslim. We on the other hand cannot deny our Jewish heritage because it is part and parcel of being a Christian. Different values. Different ways of seeing the world. Different ways of evaluating facts and context.

 

[TruthBearer]

However I have to point our that Christianity’s relationship with Judaism is fundamentally different from Islam’s relationship with Christianity & Judaism.
(1) we do not accuse the Jewish scriptures of having been falsified… In fact we use the identical scriptures as the Jews. We do not claim that the Jews have an earlier lost scriptures, especially when there is no historical evidence outside of our religion.
(2) we do not deny our Jewish heritage: indeed, we embrace it. We are not ashamed of it and we regard our saviour as a Jew, not a Christian. We do not deny (nay, we emphasise) the Jewish influence on his education and we definitely do not airbrush out all non-Christians who have taught him anything.
(3) we share most of the scriptural studies with the Jews - we can attend each other’s seminary (& often do) and share the same methodology - that the scriptures are written by the hand of men under the inspiration of God. We share much of the same interpretation, except where it touches on the relationship with the NT. So, then yes: we are proud to inherit much of the Jewish tradition of scriptural studies.
(4) we fully support Judaism basis of why they see themselves as a religion and accept their salvation history as our own. We do not change their stories and then accuse them of falsifying history.

I am NOT Muslim.

I would say, perhaps this is because Islam is more Abrahamic than it is Moasic.

Worship of the Muslims is unlike Jewish and Christian worship which is liturgical.

Christianity is built on Old Testament.

While Islam is based on what had survived from the religion of Abraham among the Ishmaelites in Mecca, as well as the Revelation of Muhammad, the Quran. The Ishmaelites were not Jewish, yet they worship the one God of Abraham. (And that was an oral tradition). In Mecca they were called Hanif. They worshiped the one God of Abraham.

So the basis of both religions are very different, although there are similarities, in that they have Abraham as an origin.

Moses had the influence of ancient Egyptians. Ishmealites did not have this Egyptian influence on their practice and belief And I am not saying it is a bad thing, just a reflection of why Islam and Judaism as to why they worship slightly different.

There are some things that Christians do accuse the Jews of changing in regard to their scripture. I would have to look up the particulars. The basis of original Christians was the Septuagint Old Testament, while Jews use The Masoretic Text.

 

[jimkhong]

I am NOT Muslim.

Well, its not your fault Anyway, doesn’t change anything, does it?

Worship of the Muslims is unlike Jewish and Christian worship which is liturgical.

Interesting observation. Jewish and Christian worship is liturgical in that it is communal. Muslim worship is a lot of personal ritual - in the view of some Muslim, overly so. The way purification is done, the position of the chest et etc. Some Catholics stickler for the GIRM is nothing in comparison.

There are some things that Christians do accuse the Jews of changing in regard to their scripture. I would have to look up the particulars. The basis of original Christians was the Septuagint Old Testament, while Jews use The Masoretic Text.

The difference between LXX and MT is historical and not doctrinal (ironically only became an issue between Catholics and Protestants - unnecessarily so, in my view - but not between Catholic-Orthodox and Jews). Let us know what is it that we are supposed to have accused the Jews of having changed and I will let you know whether it is a historical non-doctrinal issue (like the LXX-MT) or it was cultural-historical and not church teaching. Then again, I could be wrong.

 

[dronald]

I do not think Islam is in a dilemma.

For me, when I was Muslim, there were two collections of verses that convinced me that Muhammad was prophesied in the bible.

Old Testament

**“As for Ishmael, I have heard thee. Behold, I have blessed him… and I will make him a great nation.” **(Genesis 17:20)

The Ishmealites settled in the Arabia. This is a fact. Ishmael was not made a great nation until the coming of Muhammad.

I don’t think Christians or Jews will argue if this passage came true or not. We all agree it was fulfilled, but you can’t just ignore the context surrounding what you quoted:

Genesis 17:17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child? "

18 And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you! "

19 God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. { b Isaac b means b he laughs b } I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.

20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation.

21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year. "

With that said, I find it hard to believe that this should bring one to believe that Muhammad must be a prophet. Especially considering that God clearly says here that Isaac is a bigger deal.

**
New Testament**

This is the testimony given by John when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 He confessed and did not deny it, but confessed, “I am not the Messiah.”[g] 21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you** the prophet**?” He answered, “No.” (John 1:19-21)

In these passages, the Jews were expecting three different prophesied people. The Prophesied Elijah, The Prophesied Messiah, and the Prophesied Prophet…

Catholic and Orthodox argue that the Messiah and the Prophet are same person Jesus.
However, if one looks into the actually prophecies of these two, they will see there is a difference between the two, The Prophesied Messiah, and the Prophesied Prophet…

For me, that was enough. There was no need to study in more bible back than, and I didn’t.
.

This was your smoking gun? How did you not question the implications of what the Jews were asking within the historical context of that time? Perhaps you did not understand 1st Century Judaism when this question was asked, nor did you continue reading on.

This argument is very common by Muslims, regardless of the fact that it’s utterly ridiculous and fails to investigate the reason the Jews were looking for “A Prophet.”

First and foremost, when the Jews were looking for their Messiah they were looking for a Davidic Messiah who would lead Israel to conquer over its enemies. It was believed that this Messiah would be anointed by a Prophet in the same way that David was by Samuel.

So the questions make sense. “Are you the Prophet who will anoint the Messiah.” John says no. Because he wasn’t. Jesus was far above being anointed because He was not just “another Prophet” as the Jews had expected. Jesus was far above, and therefore was anointed with the Holy Spirit. Oil would not do.

However, John was a symbol of the Prophet and a symbol of Elijah! And John actually did step in to represent the Prophet who would anoint the Messiah, Jesus. Take a look,

Matthew 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.

14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me? "

15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. " Then he consented.

16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;

17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.

I highlighted two important passages there. John knew that he was unworthy to anoint Jesus, but Jesus being very Jewish wanted to “Fulfill all righteousness” and allow for the symbolic anointing before the true anointing by the Holy Spirit (verse 16.)

And finally, John too denies being Elijah in the same way, however the Bible is clear that indeed John is a symbol of Elijah.

 

[DCNBILL]

I don’t think Christians or Jews will argue if this passage came true or not. We all agree it was fulfilled, but you can’t just ignore the context surrounding what you quoted:

Genesis 17:17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child? "

18 And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you! "

19 God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. { b Isaac b means b he laughs b } I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.

20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation.

21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year. "

With that said, I find it hard to believe that this should bring one to believe that Muhammad must be a prophet. Especially considering that God clearly says here that Isaac is a bigger deal.

This was your smoking gun? How did you not question the implications of what the Jews were asking within the historical context of that time? Perhaps you did not understand 1st Century Judaism when this question was asked, nor did you continue reading on.

This argument is very common by Muslims, regardless of the fact that it’s utterly ridiculous and fails to investigate the reason the Jews were looking for “A Prophet.”

First and foremost, when the Jews were looking for their Messiah they were looking for a Davidic Messiah who would lead Israel to conquer over its enemies. It was believed that this Messiah would be anointed by a Prophet in the same way that David was by Samuel.

So the questions make sense. “Are you the Prophet who will anoint the Messiah.” John says no. Because he wasn’t. Jesus was far above being anointed because He was not just “another Prophet” as the Jews had expected. Jesus was far above, and therefore was anointed with the Holy Spirit. Oil would not do.

However, John was a symbol of the Prophet and a symbol of Elijah! And John actually did step in to represent the Prophet who would anoint the Messiah, Jesus. Take a look,

Matthew 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.

14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me? "

15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. " Then he consented.

16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;

17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.

I highlighted two important passages there. John knew that he was unworthy to anoint Jesus, but Jesus being very Jewish wanted to “Fulfill all righteousness” and allow for the symbolic anointing before the true anointing by the Holy Spirit (verse 16.)

And finally, John too denies being Elijah in the same way, however the Bible is clear that indeed John is a symbol of Elijah.

Ahh, the initial revelation of the Trinity! I love that part!

 

[TruthBearer]

First and foremost, when the Jews were looking for their Messiah they were looking for a Davidic Messiah who would lead Israel to conquer over its enemies. It was believed that this Messiah would be anointed by a Prophet in the same way that David was by Samuel.

.

It doesn’t seem like Jesus fit the Jewish description either.

That was your smoking gun???

 

[TruthBearer]

Well, its not your fault

Interesting observation. Jewish and Christian worship is liturgical in that it is communal. Muslim worship is a lot of personal ritual - in the view of some Muslim, overly so. The way purification is done, the position of the chest et etc. Some Catholics stickler for the GIRM is nothing in comparison.
.

I would say, the main worship of the Muslims (Salat) is both communal as well as personal. It recommended that the Obligatory Salat be done as a congregation and the Recommended or optional salat be done individually.

The obligatory Salats can be done indivudally.