What about the paraklete?

[apostoli]

Prompted by polemic in another thread I've just started a revision of Islamic history. There is a huge number of polemic sites which, imo, give a particularly one eyed view, one of which makes a very rash statement "the Bible declares that Jesus was the FINAL revelation of God to man. There have been no others". I say rash as Jesus himself refutes such an ascertion...

John 16:12-13 "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth {the paraklete vs7}, is come, he will guide you into all truth..."

For clarification: In no way am I suggesting that Mohammad or any other man in history is the promised parakletos. However, I am suggesting that in their rush to condemn, many polemicists show themselves deficient in their knowledge of scripture, which makes them prone to erroneous and emotive statements...

[barnasha]

there seems to be an assumption that it will present itself via a human - and it will be the same human for everyone - which I don't see made explicit. if i say to you 'the spirit of truth will present itself', would you think that 'the spirit of truth' could only be embodied by a (single) human?

[apostoli]

there seems to be an assumption that it will present itself via a human - and it will be the same human for everyone - which I don't see made explicit. if i say to you 'the spirit of truth will present itself', would you think that 'the spirit of truth' could only be embodied by a (single) human?

I can't perceive any assumption that the paraklete would need to be embodied by a (single) human or for that matter be human. Imu, over the centuries there have been many people who have claimed to be the paraklete, but there is, imo, one obstacle to such claims = paraklete is a technical legal term = defence attorney. Imu, we have a correspondence to a trial in the court of heaven, where Satan is the prosecutor (the accuser), the Spirit intercedes for us (cp Rom 8:26-27) and Jesus has ascended the throne and now holds the position of our judge.

Within that paradigm the paraklete definitely is an individual with personality, but a spirit entity.

Also, it is noteworthy that the Spirit [the paraklete] descended on the day of pentecost, and from that day forward the disciples gained revelation and understood much of the teachings of Jesus that had previously escaped them. Fullfilling Jesus' words that "he [the paraklete] shall not speak of himself...He shall glorify me". (Jn 16:13-14)

[Dee Dee Warren]

I keep reading "parakeet" and it is cracking me up.

[apostoli]

I keep reading "parakeet" and it is cracking me up.

Figured many would ;-)

To give you even greater amusement, from the Etymological dictionary "1620s, from Sp. perquito; earlier English form parroket (1580s) is from M.Fr. paroquet, from O.Fr. paroquet (14c.), which is said by etymologists of French to be from It. parrocchetto, lit. "little priest," from parroco "parish priest," from Church L. parochus (see parish), or parrucchetto, dim. of parrucca "peruke, periwig," in reference to the head plumage. The Spanish form, meanwhile, is sometimes said to be a dim. of Perico, familiar form of Pedro "Peter," and the O.Fr. word is likewise perhaps from or influenced by a dim. of Pierre "Peter." The relations of the Spanish and Italian forms, and the influence of folk etymology on either or both, are uncertain."
__________________

But to be serious: παράκλητος (παράκλητον) is the word used at John 14,15 & 16 and its primary meaning according to the lexicons is "one who pleads another's cause before a judge".

At 1 John 2:1 we read "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate (defense attorney=paraklete) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous". At John 14:16 Jesus promised he'd send another paraklete that would abide by us forever.

[shunyadragon]

Prompted by polemic in another thread I've just started a revision of Islamic history. There is a huge number of polemic sites which, imo, give a particularly one eyed view, one of which makes a very rash statement "the Bible declares that Jesus was the FINAL revelation of God to man. There have been no others". I say rash as Jesus himself refutes such an ascertion...

John 16:12-13 "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth {the paraklete vs7}, is come, he will guide you into all truth..."

For clarification: In no way am I suggesting that Mohammad or any other man in history is the promised parakletos. However, I am suggesting that in their rush to condemn, many polemicists show themselves deficient in their knowledge of scripture, which makes them prone to erroneous and emotive statements...

Agreed, but this line of thinking leaves open the fact that Jesus may not be a parakletos.

[apostoli]

Agreed, but this line of thinking leaves open the fact that Jesus may not be a parakletos.

At John 14:16 Jesus says ἄλλον παράκλητον (another advocate) will be sent, which implies while on earth Jesus was himself our parakletos. But consider 1 John 2:1 where Jesus Christ is described as our παράκλητον with the Father. So he definitely remains a parakletos.

[shunyadragon]

At John 14:16 Jesus says ἄλλον παράκλητον (another advocate) will be sent, which implies while on earth Jesus was himself our parakletos. But consider 1 John 2:1 where Jesus Christ is described as our παράκλητον with the Father. So he definitely remains a parakletos.

Only from the perspective of your interpretation. Biblically, from both the Old and New Testament there is more than one Manifestation of the Parakletos.

There is the Jewish perspective they would not accept this as an argument for Jesus being the parakletos, as from the Christian perspective they would not accept Muhammad as a parakletos.

[apostoli]

Only from the perspective of your interpretation. Biblically, from both the Old and New Testament there is more than one Manifestation of the Parakletos.

There is the Jewish perspective they would not accept this as an argument for Jesus being the parakletos, as from the Christian perspective they would not accept Muhammad as a parakletos.

From a Christian perspective Muhammad couldn't be their parakletos, as a parakletos is essentially one who speaks up for the accused (gives a character reference) , whereas Muhammad has a tendency to act for the prosecution.

Imu, in Jewish thought the parakletos is the second or other witnesses for the defense. In Rabbinic literature the word "sunegoros" (co-worker, helper) is possibly used as a synonym for "parakletos" - A.Paul uses this word from time to time in reference to his companion in labour.

The word "parakletos" doesn't occur In the LXX but "paraklatores" occurs at Job 16:2 in respect of Job’s 3 friends. Imu, the Jewish attestation of "parakletos" as an intercesor comes from Philo where the Jews in Alexandria looked for someone to plead their case to the Roman Emperor.

A,Paul says the Spirit (parakletos=the Spirit of truth in John's gospel) intercedes for us (Rom 8:27).

One thing for sure, Muhammad cannot be the promised parakletos, as according to Jesus " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you." (John 16:12-14) Muhammad didn't reveal anything about Jesus that the disciples wouldn't already have been aware. Also according to John 16:7-11 the parakletos causes judgement on those in the world because they do not believe in Jesus (in John's case, that is to believe Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31) - Muhammad ridiculed this teaching, and Muhammad demanded people believe in Muhammad).

[shunyadragon]

From a Christian perspective Muhammad couldn't be their parakletos, as a parakletos is essentially one who speaks up for the accused (gives a character reference) , whereas Muhammad has a tendency to act for the prosecution.

Imu, in Jewish thought the parakletos is the second or other witnesses for the defense. In Rabbinic literature the word "sunegoros" (co-worker, helper) is possibly used as a synonym for "parakletos" - A.Paul uses this word from time to time in reference to his companion in labour.

The word "parakletos" doesn't occur In the LXX but "paraklatores" occurs at Job 16:2 in respect of Job’s 3 friends. Imu, the Jewish attestation of "parakletos" as an intercesor comes from Philo where the Jews in Alexandria looked for someone to plead their case to the Roman Emperor.

A,Paul says the Spirit (parakletos=the Spirit of truth in John's gospel) intercedes for us (Rom 8:27).

One thing for sure, Muhammad cannot be the promised parakletos, as according to Jesus " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you." (John 16:12-14) Muhammad didn't reveal anything about Jesus that the disciples wouldn't already have been aware. Also according to John 16:7-11 the parakletos causes judgement on those in the world because they do not believe in Jesus (in John's case, that is to believe Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31) - Muhammad ridiculed this teaching, and Muhammad demanded people believe in Muhammad).

Simply from the perspective of the Koran, Muhammad did not speak of or for himself, he spoke for God.

It still remains that from Jewish perspective, quoting John does not carry any weight.

[apostoli]

Simply from the perspective of the Koran, Muhammad did not speak of or for himself, he spoke for God.

In Islam, it is imperitive that Moses be recognised as the prophet of God. How can this realistically be proven unless the Quran witnesses him as being so?

It still remains that from Jewish perspective,

What Jewish perspective? Please expand.

quoting John does not carry any weight.

A.John is the only source in scripture for the promise of the parakletos...

[shunyadragon]

In Islam, it is imperitive that Moses be recognized as the prophet of God. How can this realistically be proven unless the Quran witnesses him as being so?

That was not the issue that I addressed. From the perspective of the Koran Muhammad does not speak for himself, he speaks of and for God.

What Jewish perspective? Please expand.

No problem, ask any Rabbi, he will not acknowledge the book of John as a source for the promise of the parakletos.

.John is the only source in scripture for the promise of the parakletos...

To the Jews the OT is the source in scripture for the promise of the parakeltos.

[Bowman]

Simply from the perspective of the Koran, Muhammad did not speak of or for himself, he spoke for God.

False.

No one named 'Muhammad' had anything at all to do with the Koran, according to the Koran, itself.

[shunyadragon]

False.

No one named 'Muhammad' had anything at all to do with the Koran, according to the Koran, itself.

The Koran is from God, not Muhammad according to the Koran. It still remains that according to the Koran and the teachings of Islam Muhammad did not speak for himself.

[Bowman]

The Koran is from God, not Muhammad according to the Koran.

False.

There is not a single ayah in the Koran which states that the Koran was divinely inspired.

Not one.

It still remains that according to the Koran and the teachings of Islam Muhammad did not speak for himself.

The term 'Muhammad' was not even a proper name at the time that the Koran was written.