Muslims: Please note the Advocate is the Holy Spirit

  • Thread starter Thread starter MartinJordan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:compcoff:
icamhif said:
When Muslims point to John 14 as “proof” of Muhammad, Christians rightly point out that the context shows that the Helper is the Holy Spirit. Yet, an unstated assumption is that there is only one interpretation of that verse: the historical, contextual, and literal meaning. The Holy Spirit is literally inside us. Muhammad can’t be literally inside us. Case closed? I think not. One can suggest that Muhammad is “inside” his followers in that he is spiritually guiding them through the teachings of Allah. This metaphor doesn’t sound any les reasonable than Paul saying that Christ is in him in the sense that Christ sanctified him (Galatiabs 2:20).

When Christian apologists debate Jews, however, we take an entirely different approach to Biblical hermeneutics. We insist that Isaiah 53 has to be a Messianic verse, even though there is nothing from the context of Isaiah that makes that clear. Jews are comfortable in saying that Isaiah 53 is merely referring to Israel, and the context supports that interpretation. Yet, we continue to insist that the verse has multiple meanings, including a Messianic meaning.

So it seems to me that Christian apologists are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. When we debate with Muslims, we take a very conservative and often literal approach to Biblical hermeneutics. Yet, when we debate with Jews, we take a more fluid, multiple meaning, and often metaphorical approach to Scripture interpretation.

Any one has an answer to this perceived double-standard?
Click to expand...
:compcoff:🍿
 
icamhif said:
When Muslims point to John 14 as “proof” of Muhammad, Christians rightly point out that the context shows that the Helper is the Holy Spirit. Yet, an unstated assumption is that there is only one interpretation of that verse: the historical, contextual, and literal meaning. The Holy Spirit is literally inside us. Muhammad can’t be literally inside us. Case closed? I think not. One can suggest that Muhammad is “inside” his followers in that he is spiritually guiding them through the teachings of Allah. This metaphor doesn’t sound any les reasonable than Paul saying that Christ is in him in the sense that Christ sanctified him (Galatiabs 2:20).

When Christian apologists debate Jews, however, we take an entirely different approach to Biblical hermeneutics. We insist that Isaiah 53 has to be a Messianic verse, even though there is nothing from the context of Isaiah that makes that clear. Jews are comfortable in saying that Isaiah 53 is merely referring to Israel, and the context supports that interpretation. Yet, we continue to insist that the verse has multiple meanings, including a Messianic meaning.

So it seems to me that Christian apologists are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. When we debate with Muslims, we take a very conservative and often literal approach to Biblical hermeneutics. Yet, when we debate with Jews, we take a more fluid, multiple meaning, and often metaphorical approach to Scripture interpretation.

Any one has an answer to this perceived double-standard?
Click to expand...
…uhmmm, new thread?
 
kimg901 said:
Did your prophet raise those from the dead? Did he raise from death himself? No. Muhammed is nothing like Jesus. He was only a man. Jesus cured the sick, fed the masses. No other prophet in the history of the Bible raised people from death. Only God can do such a thing.
Click to expand...
Only God can raise someone from death. That is very true. The big or small or the easy or difficult but God do everything. So if a prophet performs a miracle in fact God do that. Jesus performed many wonderful miracles and all these were by power and permission of God.

Prophet Muhammed performed many miracles. He gave heal, the water came out and run from His fingers, the stones and dead trunks spoke, the few meal increased with His prayer, the trees walked etc. So Muhammed did non of these miracles by Himself. So raising someone from death is a miracle and Jesus could do that with power of God as He performed others miracles with power of God. Jesus always said “I will ask from Father(God)”.
 
icamhif said:
When Muslims point to John 14 as “proof” of Muhammad, Christians rightly point out that the context shows that the Helper is the Holy Spirit. Yet, an unstated assumption is that there is only one interpretation of that verse: the historical, contextual, and literal meaning. The Holy Spirit is literally inside us. Muhammad can’t be literally inside us. Case closed? I think not. One can suggest that Muhammad is “inside” his followers in that he is spiritually guiding them through the teachings of Allah. This metaphor doesn’t sound any les reasonable than Paul saying that Christ is in him in the sense that Christ sanctified him (Galatiabs 2:20).

When Christian apologists debate Jews, however, we take an entirely different approach to Biblical hermeneutics. We insist that Isaiah 53 has to be a Messianic verse, even though there is nothing from the context of Isaiah that makes that clear. Jews are comfortable in saying that Isaiah 53 is merely referring to Israel, and the context supports that interpretation. Yet, we continue to insist that the verse has multiple meanings, including a Messianic meaning.

So it seems to me that Christian apologists are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. When we debate with Muslims, we take a very conservative and often literal approach to Biblical hermeneutics. Yet, when we debate with Jews, we take a more fluid, multiple meaning, and often metaphorical approach to Scripture interpretation.

Any one has an answer to this perceived double-standard?
Click to expand...
  1. It was We Who created man, and We know what suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein. Qaf(50):16
God is always inside us(with His power and affect). There is no place and time for God and there is no need for God to come on the world.

If you mean that God concern, direct, save us with being inside us, that is possible. But there should not be need for coming. And also God never did such thing. God sent prophets. If God would do that by Himself then there would not be any mean to say bad or evil because God would force and that would not be fair.

If Holy Spirit is God and that God can take form and shape and travel in space etc. then how will we keep apart God from matter and time? If we assume such things for God then how will we reconcile these situations with eternal attributions? God create and affect matter and time but God do not get into those. God is beyond of matter and time. Such statements for God imply a thought of materialism.
 
hasantas said:
  1. It was We Who created man, and We know what suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein. Qaf(50):16
God is always inside us(with His power and affect). There is no place and time for God and there is no need for God to come on the world.

If you mean that God concern, direct, save us with being inside us, that is possible. But there should not be need for coming. And also God never did such thing. God sent prophets. If God would do that by Himself then there would not be any mean to say bad or evil because God would force and that would not be fair.

If Holy Spirit is God and that God can take form and shape and travel in space etc. then how will we keep apart God from matter and time? If we assume such things for God then how will we reconcile these situations with eternal attributions? God create and affect matter and time but God do not get into those. God is beyond of matter and time. Such statements for God imply a thought of materialism.
Click to expand...
John 16: 12-15-

12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

What did Jesus mean here (I’ve put in bold) Earlier you stopped at verse 13. I’m awaiting your comments.

MJ
 
icamhif said:
When Muslims point to John 14 as “proof” of Muhammad, Christians rightly point out that the context shows that the Helper is the Holy Spirit. Yet, an unstated assumption is that there is only one interpretation of that verse: the historical, contextual, and literal meaning. The Holy Spirit is literally inside us. Muhammad can’t be literally inside us. Case closed? I think not. One can suggest that Muhammad is “inside” his followers in that he is spiritually guiding them through the teachings of Allah. This metaphor doesn’t sound any les reasonable than Paul saying that Christ is in him in the sense that Christ sanctified him (Galatiabs 2:20).

When Christian apologists debate Jews, however, we take an entirely different approach to Biblical hermeneutics. We insist that Isaiah 53 has to be a Messianic verse, even though there is nothing from the context of Isaiah that makes that clear. Jews are comfortable in saying that Isaiah 53 is merely referring to Israel, and the context supports that interpretation. Yet, we continue to insist that the verse has multiple meanings, including a Messianic meaning.

So it seems to me that Christian apologists are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. When we debate with Muslims, we take a very conservative and often literal approach to Biblical hermeneutics. Yet, when we debate with Jews, we take a more fluid, multiple meaning, and often metaphorical approach to Scripture interpretation.

Any one has an answer to this perceived double-standard?
Click to expand...
This is an incredibly pertinent and valid point.

God bless you 🙂

.
 
MartinJordan said:
I really don’t know why but some Muslims insist that the Advocate or the Comforter is their prophet.

Why is this?:

How many Muslims believe this and if they do, and what makes them so sure?

MJ
Click to expand...
Most Muslims don’t really care what the Gospels have to say. It is how some interpret it after the coming of Muhammad. Much like Jews do not interpret prophesies of Jesus, the same way Christians do. It is how Christians interpret Old Testament after Jesus arrived, not necessarily how Jew understood those prophesies to began with.

Basically, the Christians are to the Jews, what the Muslims are to the Christians. Each with accuse the other of misinterpretation of their said scripture.
 
icamhif said:
When Muslims point to John 14 as “proof” of Muhammad, Christians rightly point out that the context shows that the Helper is the Holy Spirit. Yet, an unstated assumption is that there is only one interpretation of that verse: the historical, contextual, and literal meaning. The Holy Spirit is literally inside us. Muhammad can’t be literally inside us. Case closed? I think not. One can suggest that Muhammad is “inside” his followers in that he is spiritually guiding them through the teachings of Allah. This metaphor doesn’t sound any les reasonable than Paul saying that Christ is in him in the sense that Christ sanctified him (Galatiabs 2:20).

When Christian apologists debate Jews, however, we take an entirely different approach to Biblical hermeneutics. We insist that Isaiah 53 has to be a Messianic verse, even though there is nothing from the context of Isaiah that makes that clear. Jews are comfortable in saying that Isaiah 53 is merely referring to Israel, and the context supports that interpretation. Yet, we continue to insist that the verse has multiple meanings, including a Messianic meaning.

So it seems to me that Christian apologists are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. When we debate with Muslims, we take a very conservative and often literal approach to Biblical hermeneutics. Yet, when we debate with Jews, we take a more fluid, multiple meaning, and often metaphorical approach to Scripture interpretation.

Any one has an answer to this perceived double-standard?
Click to expand...
Simple solution: stop debating. Seriously though, an interesting question in its own right.
 
Zachary said:
There is no original Qur’an either.
.
Click to expand...
The method for the preservation of the Quran and Gospel is different. The muslims have a better method of preservation than the Christians.

There are ten different variations of the Quran (These ten variations are considered part of the Original Quran) that have been preserved, with exact pronunciation and most of the ancient meanings of the Arabic language have been preserved as well. The primary method that the Quran was preserved through was memorization, and the written text was a secondary method.

The Gospels on the other hand, some was originally in Greek while others were Aramic, and later translated to Greek. The Greek Gospels were mainly preserved through scribes. There were various methods by which the scribs preserved these text, one was reading the text and then copying them by hand. Mass preservation was having some reading the Gospel and having several scribes copy what they heard.

In light of these methods, academically speaking scholars have stated that additions and subtractions have been made to the current Gospel, and this has been attested to by both Christian and non Christian scholars. But I am unaware any substantiated errors in the Quran.
 
hasantas said:
  1. It was We Who created man, and We know what suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein. Qaf(50):16
God is always inside us(with His power and affect). There is no place and time for God and there is no need for God to come on the world.

If you mean that God concern, direct, save us with being inside us, that is possible. But there should not be need for coming. And also God never did such thing. God sent prophets. If God would do that by Himself then there would not be any mean to say bad or evil because God would force and that would not be fair.

If Holy Spirit is God and that God can take form and shape and travel in space etc. then how will we keep apart God from matter and time? If we assume such things for God then how will we reconcile these situations with eternal attributions? God create and affect matter and time but God do not get into those. God is beyond of matter and time. Such statements for God imply a thought of materialism.
Click to expand...
Ahh, so my question is irrelevant because Muslims don’t even claim that John 14 has multiple meanings (Holy Spirit and Muhammad). Thanks for clearing that up for me.
 
TruthBearer said:
The method for the preservation of the Quran and Gospel is different. The muslims have a better method of preservation than the Christians.

There are ten different variations of the Quran that have been preserved, with exact pronunciation and most of the ancient meanings of the Arabic language have been preserved as well. The primary method that the Quran was preserved through was memorization, and the written text was a secondary method.

The Gospels on the other hand, some was originally in Greek while others were Aramic, and later translated to Greek. The Greek Gospels were mainly preserved through scribes. There were various methods by which the scribs preserved these text, one was reading the text and then copying them by hand. Mass preservation was having some reading the Gospel and having several scribes copy what they heard.

In light of these methods, academically speaking scholars have stated that additions and subtractions have been made to the current Gospel, and this has been attested to by both Christian and non Christian scholars. But I am unaware any substantiated errors in the Quran.
Click to expand...
The Topic please. Above is not what I intended for this thread.

MJ
 
MartinJordan said:
The Topic please. Above is not what I intended for this thread.

MJ
Click to expand...
I responded to something in the thread. And it is related to the topics. How do we know what is in John 14 is exactly what Jesus said, if it is possible that a a word or two could have been added or deleted. A single word can change the meaning of a statement.
 
TruthBearer said:
I responded to something in the thread. And it is related to the topics. How do we know what is in John 14 is exactly what Jesus said, if it is possible that a a word or two could have been added or deleted. A single word can change the meaning of a statement.
Click to expand...
Because it’s consistent to the rest of what Jesus is saying. As I repeated, some Muslims are skipping verses. THAT is the problem.

See: biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14

Especially: Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit

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[c] 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.”

22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

23 Jesus replied,** “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.**

25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 **But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
**

So the Advocate IS the Holy Spirit.

Note: It is from the NIV which is not Catholic.

MJ
 
icamhif said:
When Muslims point to John 14 as “proof” of Muhammad, Christians rightly point out that the context shows that the Helper is the Holy Spirit. Yet, an unstated assumption is that there is only one interpretation of that verse: the historical, contextual, and literal meaning. The Holy Spirit is literally inside us. Muhammad can’t be literally inside us. Case closed? I think not.

One can suggest that Muhammad is “inside” his followers in that he is spiritually guiding them through the teachings of Allah. This metaphor doesn’t sound any les reasonable than Paul saying that Christ is in him in the sense that Christ sanctified him
Click to expand...
(Galatiabs 2:20).

Paul is talking about the Spirit that comes through Christ from the Father. It’s not a metaphor. It is really the Spirit. Divine.

See Galatians 4:6:Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”

The rest of your post, should be another thread.

And no. There is No double standard or intent. It is Love for God and His Word. Daily we Thank God for sending his Son to us and He is continually with us by indwelling of the Holy Spirit to His Church.

MJ
 
MartinJordan said:
Because it’s consistent to the rest of what Jesus is saying. As I repeated, some Muslims are skipping verses. THAT is the problem.

See: biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14

Especially: Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit

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[c] 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.”

22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

23 Jesus replied,** “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.**

25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 **But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
**

So the Advocate IS the Holy Spirit.

Note: It is from the NIV which is not Catholic.

MJ
Click to expand...
Muslim see the Holy Spirit as the Angel Gabiel. The Angel Gabriel inspired Muhammad. Their interaction with Muhammad is their interaction with the Holy Spirit. That is a possible explanation.

You could argue, well, that isn’t the most apparent meaning. I could use the same argument against Christians with other verses in the bible.

The bottom line is this, both Muslims and Christians only accept apparent meanings when it is consist with their dogma. When it is not consistent with their dogma, they venture into ambiguous explanations of the bible.

For example, In the Old Testament it say, God is not a man nor the son of man. I look at that and think how could any Christian be a Christian. Muslim have verses that state, “The Jews and Christians use to worship their rabbis and priest as lords.” which isn’t true, and makes the Quran false, if taken on its apparent meaning. But neither Christians or Muslims accept such verses on their apparent meaning.

There is no consistency when it comes to interpretation no matter what religion you follow.
 
TruthBearer said:
Muslim see the Holy Spirit as the Angel Gabiel. The Angel Gabriel inspired Muhammad. Their interaction with Muhammad is their interaction with the Holy Spirit. That is a possible explanation.

You could argue, well, that isn’t the most apparent meaning. I could use the same argument against Christians with other verses in the bible.
Click to expand...
But Muslims are championing Jesus as Prophet, yet they skip some of his words that are in the NT. Which they say they believe. Isn’t that odd?

Even a Jewish contributor here can follow what is being asked . And the reply (which was for John 14 : 26) was a guess. 🤷

So that’s why Im asking another thread should start when you talk about the OT, as Melzterboy has implied should be interesting.

MJ
 
MartinJordan said:
But Muslims are championing Jesus as Prophet, yet they skip some of his words that are in the NT. Which they say they believe. Isn’t that odd?
MJ
Click to expand...
I find both Christian and Muslims explanations to be odd when it comes to certain verses.

The problem is Muslims don’t regard the gospel as 100% correct.
 
TruthBearer said:
I find both Christian and Muslims explanations to be odd when it comes to certain verses.

The problem is Muslims don’t regard the gospel as 100% correct.
Click to expand...
What is NOT odd is to ask to complete the verse and comment on it, which has yet to be given any support whatsoever.

MJ
 
TruthBearer said:
Most Muslims don’t really care what the Gospels have to say. It is how some interpret it after the coming of Muhammad. Much like Jews do not interpret prophesies of Jesus, the same way Christians do. It is how Christians interpret Old Testament after Jesus arrived, not necessarily how Jew understood those prophesies to began with.

Basically, the Christians are to the Jews, what the Muslims are to the Christians. Each with accuse the other of misinterpretation of their said scripture.
Click to expand...
And yet, Jesus is the Messiah, and the Paraclete refers to Muhammad’s Revelation, and Baha’u’llah is the return of Jesus Christ in the glory of the Father.

What people say has no bearing on these truths.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top