Muslims: Please note the Advocate is the Holy Spirit

[Reuben_J]

Haha

I thought the matter was settled. Ultimately, there is no basis to the assertion made.

As we have seen (or was that in another thread I contributed to), for Muslims the starting point is their dogma and the the context of the scriptures are read accordingly - ignoring/amending the context where they contradict with the dogma. Our starting point is
the message of God written within a context, which when understood in itself, yields the conclusion to us that God will send the Holy Spirit (not a human being) after Jesus ascended into heaven.

So far, in all my debates with Muslims, I have yet to see any logical response from Muslims after the other verses in the Bible and the context that state who the Advocate is (so obvious to us but patently ignored by Muslims when they do not comply with their dogma), are explained. Other than to insist that they are right.

The problem to me is after the debate, they go elsewhere and continue to insist that the Advocate is Mohammad even after the explanation is given. I find that insincere - at the very least, they should be qualifying their assertion with the Christian’s side of the arguments - in that they are more interested in pushing their conclusions rather than Truth.

This is especially pertinent when many Muslim missionaries in my country (mis)use the principle of taqiyya to jsutify lying in their missionary activities.

Frankly, to me personally, Muslims do a disservice for themselves when they try to justify Muhammad with Biblical verses like the Jn 14 or Deut 18:18. It is so ironic and fallacious. I would be put off rather than be persuaded. They would be better off just stick to the Quran or basic Islamic teaching.

 

[MartinJordan]

Frankly, to me personally, Muslims do a disservice for themselves when they try to justify Muhammad with Biblical verses like the Jn 14 or Deut 18:18. It is so ironic and fallacious. I would be put off rather than be persuaded. They would be better off just stick to the Quran or basic Islamic teaching.

Exactly. Just odd why the Biblical verses are used in the first place. Maybe the answer lies in the silence.

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

Just as Christians believe that God guides their priest and bishops. So do Muslims believe that God guides their scholars.

John 15 :18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. **21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me.

Our priests and bishops are following Jesus’ commandments it is passed on, even after the first disciples died. So again the Holy Spirit is exactly what the Church has taught us and we continue to depend on the Holy Spirit, what has been passed on by Jesus himself. Thus the Holy Spirit is the Advocate.

Muslims must understand this.

MJ**

 

[TruthBearer]

John 15 :18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. ****21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me.

Our priests and bishops are following Jesus’ commandments it is passed on, even after the first disciples died. So again the Holy Spirit is exactly what the Church has taught us and we continue to depend on the Holy Spirit, what has been passed on by Jesus himself. Thus the Holy Spirit is the Advocate.

Muslims must understand this.

MJ

When I was Muslim, I was on your side, and would say, Muslims should let Christians interpret Prophecies the way understand it, it’s the Christians book by the way.

**
But now I have a change of heart.** Christians do not follow Jewish commentary of the Old testament when it comes to Prophecies of Jesus, so why should Muslims follow Christians commentary of Bible when it comes to Prophecies of Muhammmad?

So in the next coming months, I will be looking into the Prophecies of Jesus and Muhammad, and comparing them, to see which arguments I think are objectively valid.
Not that I’m a scholar, but most of us who post on this board are not.

I just ordered alot of books on Muhammad in the Bible. And I plan reading why Christians object to it, and counter arguments.

I also plan on reading why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah and Christian arguments against Jewish arguments. It going to be an interesting few months.

Just got three volumes entitled, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus by Michael Brown. Excited. Now I’m looking for a book with Jewish Objections to Jesus.

So, it is possible that the Advocate is the Holy Spirit. But I will refrain from picking sides until I actually study it more closely.

 

[MartinJordan]

When I was Muslim, I was on your side, and would say, Muslims should let Christians interpret Prophecies the way understand it, it’s the Christians book by the way.

**
But now I have a change of heart.** Christians do not follow Jewish commentary of the Old testament when it comes to Prophecies of Jesus, so why should Muslims follow Christians commentary of Bible when it comes to Prophecies of Muhammmad?

So in the next coming months, I will be looking into the Prophecies of Jesus and Muhammad, and comparing them, to see which arguments I think are objectively valid.
Not that I’m a scholar, but most of us who post on this board are not.

I just ordered alot of books on Muhammad in the Bible. And I plan reading why Christians object to it, and counter arguments.

I also plan on reading why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah and Christian arguments against Jewish arguments. It going to be an interesting few months.

Just got three volumes entitled, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus by Michael Brown. Excited. Now I’m looking for a book with Jewish Objections to Jesus.

So, it is possible that the Advocate is the Holy Spirit. But I will refrain from picking sides until I actually study it more closely.

Fine. But so you know the Church doesn’t use scripture alone but it’s own experience with Jesus himself and how the Church suffered because of that. We profess we believe in the Triune God. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And we are joyful of this beautiful revelation.

MJ:harp:

 

[jimkhong]

When I was Muslim, I was on your side, and would say, Muslims should let Christians interpret Prophecies the way understand it, it’s the Christians book by the way.

**
But now I have a change of heart.** Christians do not follow Jewish commentary of the Old testament when it comes to Prophecies of Jesus, so why should Muslims follow Christians commentary of Bible when it comes to Prophecies of Muhammmad?

Wouldn’t that be dependent on your intentions? If you want to understand what a Christian thinks and why he/she holds a particular opinion, you would need to read Christian scriptures the way that particular Christian reads it. If on understanding that, you think that that point of view is wrong and wishes to convert to your point of view or your religion, then you push your way of reading both your scriptures and the Christian scriptures.

Of course, there is always a middle ground where you introduce your way of reading scriptures so as to see if the Christian understand it the same way or for both of you to understand how they differ by contrasting the two.

Anyway, all the best for your quest to uncover arguments/counter-arguments. If you come across any that is interesting, please don’t hesitate to put it up in this forum. It would be good to share and grow in our understanding of our faith. As long as everyone is sincere in understanding each of our own faiths, then it can only be good.

 

[TruthBearer]

Wouldn’t that be dependent on your intentions? If you want to understand what a Christian thinks and why he/she holds a particular opinion, you would need to read Christian scriptures the way that particular Christian reads it. If on understanding that, you think that that point of view is wrong and wishes to convert to your point of view or your religion, then you push your way of reading both your scriptures and the Christian scriptures.

.

My intention is it truly possible that another interpretation is acceptable. Catholics and Orthodox Christians aren’t expecting a prophet to come after Jesus,** I get that.** I guess the question that should be asked, were other ancient Christians expecting a prophet to come after Jesus, like the Ebionites, Malikites, Jacobites, Nestorian etc. If they were expecting a Prophet, then these Prophecies that are attributed to Muhammad, may indeed be valid prophecies, even if Catholics and Orthodox consider them heretics.

 

[jimkhong]

My intention is it truly possible that another interpretation is acceptable. Catholics and Orthodox Christians aren’t expecting a prophet to come after Jesus,** I get that.** I guess the question that should be asked, were other ancient Christians expecting a prophet to come after Jesus, like the Ebionites, Malikites, Jacobites, Nestorian etc. If they were expecting a Prophet, then these Prophecies that are attributed to Muhammad, may indeed be valid prophecies, even if Catholics and Orthodox consider them heretics.

Ah it is a personal quest. Would be happy if you uncover anything interesting.

I doubt if Jacobites and Nestorians expect another prophet and ditto with ‘Malikites’ if by them you mean Melchites/Orthodox. Would like to know what the Ebionites think though.

 

[TruthBearer]

Ah it is a personal quest. Would be happy if you uncover anything interesting.

I doubt if Jacobites and Nestorians expect another prophet and ditto with ‘Malikites’ if by them you mean Melchites/Orthodox. Would like to know what the Ebionites think though.

Part of me wanting to this research is After re-reading the Prophecy of The Paraclete and looking at it from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, it doesn’t make sense. I have a feeling that this prophecy may have been tampered with, either something taken away or added to.

Reflecting on the Prophecy of The Paraclete (Parakeltos:Greek), which means the Advocate or Shafia in Arabic. There are aspects that I did not consider before like:

1. Jesus said, “Another Paraclete.”
2. Jesus said, " If he doesn’t go the Paraclete will not come."

These two points, make it difficult for me to accept that it refers to the Holy Spirit, which descended upon him (Jesus), when he (Jesus) was baptized. This raises a number of questions and issues for me.

1. Are Christians saying the Holy Spirit was not there along with Jesus? If you say no, then there is no trinity, in the sense that God is One. Because my understanding of the Trinity is that God is one, and that one cannot experience, Holy Spirit, without experiencing The Father and the Word because they are ONE, and that one cannot experience the Word without experiencing the Holy Spirit and the Father, because** they are ONE**, this is what I was taught as a cathecumen of the Orthodox Church, I don’t know if Catholics teach that.
2. If he (Jesus) does not go (the Paraclete) Holy Spirit will not come. Doesn’t make much sense, because The Holy Spirit was there when Jesus was Baptized.

There is something added to or missing from that prophecy, that seems to have caused this confusion. It is a historical fact that many things have been added to the current Gospel of John, so this idea that Gospel of John may have been tampered with in this sense, is warranted.

Those are some of my thoughts.

 

[jimkhong]

Part of me wanting to this research is After re-reading the Prophecy of The Paraclete and looking at it from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, it doesn’t make sense. I have a feeling that this prophecy may have been tampered with, either something taken away or added to.

Reflecting on the Prophecy of The Paraclete (Parakeltos:Greek), which means the Advocate or Shafia in Arabic. There are aspects that I did not consider before like:

1. Jesus said, “Another Paraclete.”
2. Jesus said, " If he doesn’t go the Paraclete will not come."

These two points, make it difficult for me to accept that it refers to the Holy Spirit, which descended upon him (Jesus), when he (Jesus) was baptized. This raises a number of questions and issues for me.

1. Are Christians saying the Holy Spirit was not there along with Jesus? If you say no, then there is no trinity, in the sense that God is One. Because my understanding of the Trinity is that God is one, and that one cannot experience, Holy Spirit, without experiencing The Father and the Word because they are ONE, and that one cannot experience the Word without experiencing the Holy Spirit and the Father, because** they are ONE**, this is what I was taught as a cathecumen of the Orthodox Church, I don’t know if Catholics teach that.
2. If he (Jesus) does not go (the Paraclete) Holy Spirit will not come. Doesn’t make much sense, because The Holy Spirit was there when Jesus was Baptized.

There are two points here:

The first is the common question that has been raised by many people about the Trinity. Yes, God is one and indivisible; all three persons in the one being whom we call God are equally omnipresent and omnitemporal. So, yes the Holy Spirit is with Jesus at the time of his preaching just as Jesus was with the Father at the moment of Creation. However, we humans are not omnipresent and omnitemporal like God: we are all limited by time and space. So, from our point of view (literally), events are linear (not simultaneous). So, the apostles will encounter a time without Jesus after his ascension and will therefore require the Holy Spirit to comfort, guide and to fulfill the teaching of Jesus. Unless you are God, the fact that the three persons relates to us simultaneously at all times can only remain something theoretical as we are all limited by time and space.

The second is how we (Catholics & Orthodox) read our scriptures. Unlike fundamentalist Christians and Muslim (here, I mean from a doctrinal point of view, not a violent militarist meaning), we do not see scriptures as the sole source of revelation or interpret it in a literalist manner. Scriptures is really the written part of the broader tradition (meaning teachings handed down over the generations, not in a cultural practice sense of the word). As such, we have to understand the scriptures within the teachings that has been handed down from generation to generation (teachings determines scriptures; scriptures informs & elucidate teachings but do not create it).

Based on this, the teaching of the Church from the times of the apostles (as part of the oral tradition) has been that the Holy Spirit is the advocate that Jesus spoke about. That has been the consensus within the Catholic-Orthodox church and there has never been any dispute about it within the churches ever since (non-mainstream churches may have alternative views, but none of these teaching seem to be claim a tradition back to the apostles). The scriptures, which came later after the teachings, reflect that (you may even say that they were selected because they reflect the teaching).

So we know that the Advocate is the Holy Spirit because that is what has been taught in an unbroken line from the times of the apostles, without dissension.

There is something added to or missing from that prophecy, that seems to have caused this confusion. It is a historical fact that many things have been added to the current Gospel of John, so this idea that Gospel of John may have been tampered with in this sense, is warranted.

Those are some of my thoughts.

I think the one ‘thing’ scholars agree was added to the Gospel of John was Chapter 21. The fact that that chapter was added does not really follow that we can then decide that verses were not part of the original gospel where they do not accord with our conclusion (Aaah, the utility of conspiracy theories to help us fit facts to our conclusions). In any case, from the perspective of the church even if there was editing of the scriptures (and I am not saying that there was in this case), it is not material as scriptures are always read within the teaching of the Church.

 

[TruthBearer]

There are two points here:

The first is the common question that has been raised by many people about the Trinity. Yes, God is one and indivisible; all three persons in the one being whom we call God are equally omnipresent and omnitemporal. So, yes the Holy Spirit is with Jesus at the time of his preaching just as Jesus was with the Father at the moment of Creation. However, we humans are not omnipresent and omnitemporal like God: we are all limited by time and space. So, from our point of view (literally), events are linear (not simultaneous). So, the apostles will encounter a time without Jesus after his ascension and will therefore require the Holy Spirit to comfort, guide and to fulfill the teaching of Jesus. Unless you are God, the fact that the three persons relates to us simultaneously at all times can only remain something theoretical as we are all limited by time and space.

The second is how we (Catholics & Orthodox) read our scriptures. Unlike fundamentalist Christians and Muslim (here, I mean from a doctrinal point of view, not a violent militarist meaning), we do not see scriptures as the sole source of revelation or interpret it in a literalist manner. Scriptures is really the written part of the broader tradition (meaning teachings handed down over the generations, not in a cultural practice sense of the word). As such, we have to understand the scriptures within the teachings that has been handed down from generation to generation (teachings determines scriptures; scriptures informs & elucidate teachings but do not create it).

Based on this, the teaching of the Church from the times of the apostles (as part of the oral tradition) has been that the Holy Spirit is the advocate that Jesus spoke about. That has been the consensus within the Catholic-Orthodox church and there has never been any dispute about it within the churches ever since (non-mainstream churches may have alternative views, but none of these teaching seem to be claim a tradition back to the apostles). The scriptures, which came later after the teachings, reflect that (you may even say that they were selected because they reflect the teaching).

So we know that the Advocate is the Holy Spirit because that is what has been taught in an unbroken line from the times of the apostles, without dissension.

Traditional Sunni Muslims believe in tradition as well, and it is a fundamental part of the religion of Islam. that extremist and anti Islamist don’t get. Traditional Sunni Muslims have an unbroken chain as well. It is because of Sunni Islam, that I do have a great of respect for the Catholic/Orthodox tradition. ** I get it. ** In Sunni Islam, they teach, knowledge is not taken from books but the people who possess it. I get tradition and understand its place within a given religion and how it is separate from culture. At the same time, it has its flaws, and in the same breath I don’t disregard its beauty. But I don’t let its beauty blind me to its flaws.

I also get our conversation cannot really go any further than this because I understand the mind of a believer. I was once one.

I think the one ‘thing’ scholars agree was added to the Gospel of John was Chapter 21. The fact that that chapter was added does not really follow that we can then decide that verses were not part of the original gospel where they do not accord with our conclusion (Aaah, the utility of conspiracy theories to help us fit facts to our conclusions). In any case, from the perspective of the church even if there was editing of the scriptures (and I am not saying that there was in this case), it is not material as scriptures are always read within the teaching of the Church.

There was more than just a chapter added. And the Gospels are not historical documents as such.

Thank you for your time.

 

[mamlukman]

If they were expecting a Prophet, then these Prophecies that are attributed to Muhammad, may indeed be valid prophecies, even if Catholics and Orthodox consider them heretics.

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?

 

[opulumpu]

“I also get our conversation cannot really go any further than this because I understand the mind of a believer. I was once one”.

TruthBearer,

Having been once a believer (I assume a believer in Islam) you are in a position to appreciate the difficulty of Christians understanding where the Muslims are coming from. I agree with you that it is difficult for the conversation to go further considering that the beliefs of Christians and Moslems in the two main characters, Jesus and Mohamed and their mission, are diametrically opposed to each other. It does not matter whether the discussion is about the Holy Spirit, Heaven, hell or whatever.

As a Christian, in order to blieve Islam, I have to label Jesus a liar or a bombast when he said “I am the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father but through me”. If the quoted statement is true about Jesus, how can Islam go through Mohamed, past Jesus, to the Father. Accepting Islam is saying that Jesus did not complete his work on earth and the Father had to send another prophet after Him. If this is so, I ask the Moslems if Mohamed is the last prophet and proof that he is, or will there be other prophets.

Let us just agree to disagree peacefully.

May the peace of the Lord be with you TruthBearer, Christian, Moslem, Pagans, Atheists, Bhudists etc. etc…

 

[Joyful_Song]

I for one will never agree to disagree peacefully. There is right and there is wrong. There is politically correct and incorrect. There is our Lord Jesus Christ and there is refusing His Grace and Mercy. Amen.

 

[Servant19]

As a Christian, in order to blieve Islam, I have to label Jesus a liar or a bombast when he said “I am the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father but through me”. If the quoted statement is true about Jesus, how can Islam go through Mohamed, past Jesus, to the Father.

This is clearly because nearly all Christians are attached to the human Jesus.

The human Jesus was merely a vehicle for the Voice of God. He said so Himself that “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” (John 5:19)

and also:

“For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.” (John 12:49)

With this in mind, that Jesus said NOTHING that was not the Words of the Father, is it Jesus who is the “Way” or the Father?

Muhammad, similarly spoke the Words of the Father.

Following the Way of Jesus or Muhammad are both in reality the Way of the Father. There is no difference, except the AGE in which those Words were spoken and revealed. The Way is following the Words of the Father for the Age in which one lives in.

.

 

[MartinJordan]

Let’s stick with the Advocate is the Holy Spirit subject. Thanks.

MJ

 

[jimkhong]

As a Christian, in order to blieve Islam, I have to label Jesus a liar or a bombast when he said “I am the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father but through me”. If the quoted statement is true about Jesus, how can Islam go through Mohamed, past Jesus, to the Father. Accepting Islam is saying that Jesus did not complete his work on earth and the Father had to send another prophet after Him. If this is so, I ask the Moslems if Mohamed is the last prophet and proof that he is, or will there be other prophets…

There is one more option - decouple Jesus from the Bible and label the writers of the Bible as liars who did not represent the real story about Jesus. Muslim belief is that Jesus brought the Injil = Gospel (singular, and not the rest of the Bible) to the people of Israel (only to them - only Mohammad brought the scriptures to the rest of the world). 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.

Now, I do accept Muslims unbroken tradition in holding on to this view (they have to won’t they - otherwise, they will have to be Christians) even though I personally believe it is a result from a flawed methodology (conclusions come before facts) based on flawed knowledge (reading the Quran, Hadith - ok not all of it - and Sunnah from a Christian perspective, it is clear that Muslim/Mohammad understanding of Christians and Christian dogma did not come from orthodox trinitarian Christians). Still I do accept their right to make conclusions in their own way.

 

[MartinJordan]

As a Christian, in order to blieve Islam, I have to label Jesus a liar or a bombast when he said “I am the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father but through me”.
Let us just agree to disagree peacefully.

May the peace of the Lord be with you TruthBearer, Christian, Moslem, Pagans, Atheists, Bhudists etc. etc…

Careful when you state what Jesus said. It is “I am the way, the truth and the LIFE” . It might confuse non-Christians to think that we don’t know what Jesus said exactly when talking in context.

That said, Jesus IS the Light of the World. That of course means he is God. Just as the psalmist spoke of God as light: “The LORD is my light and my salvation” (Psalm 27:1)

Salvation depends on this.** Because only God can save**.

MJ

 

[jimkhong]

I also get our conversation cannot really go any further than this because I understand the mind of a believer. I was once one.

I am not sure why the conversation cannot go any further and am disappointed as it is giving me insights into the Muslim point of view.

I guess it depends on why we go into this discussion, isn’t it? If we are both seeking to prove that we are right, then we are at an impasse because we both are very clear about our opinions and neither is unlikely to convert the other. But if we are seeking to understand each other, I would like to understand the basis for the conclusions of Muslims and gain an insight into the values, culture and mindset that shapes that basis.

There was more than just a chapter added. And the Gospels are not historical documents as such.

Of course they are not: they are religious documents written to explain a particular religious point of view by adherents of that religion. If by that statement you mean that the Gospels are unhistorical (meaning inaccurate representation of historical events), I may agree with you but it should not make a difference because that was never the intention. They provide an interpretation of those historical events in accordance with the religious views of the writers. As such, in order to obtain an understanding of the writer, one must always read them within the traditions from which such writings emerge.

Of course you can read the Gospel ignoring such context and come to a conclusion that is a personal message between God and you (then, it will be best to keep it between the two of you as it doesn’t affect us). If you read them to come to an authoritative interpretation but ignoring the context, then you are believing that the Gospels were written after very careful consideration of every word to ensure that every concept can be transmitted solely by the words alone without having the understand the context - sorry, we are not literalists here.

So, to bring it back tot the topic (before MJ starts jumping on us again for deviating), the Advocate is the Holy Spirit because the traditions from which the writer wrote the Gospel, teaches that point and the writer is merely putting down into words what was being taught by the Church at that point in time: the same teaching taught today that has been handed down from the Apostles.

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.

 

[MartinJordan]

So, to bring it back tot the topic (before MJ starts jumping on us again for deviating), the Advocate is the Holy Spirit because the traditions from which the writer wrote the Gospel, teaches that point and the writer is merely putting down into words what was being taught by the Church at that point in time: the same teaching taught today that has been handed down from the Apostles.

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.

Good job Jim.

MJ