Christian theologian Ian Mevorach: John 14:16 DOES predict the coming of Muhammad



Categories: Bible, Islam

41 replies

  1. Very interesting. It is certainly much more persuasive than the Christian claims of “prophecies” about Jesus in the Tanakh. In most cases, these “prophecies” have been taken out of context by Christians.

    Liked by 1 person

    • If you find John 14-16 to be more compelling than prophecies of Jesus I just want you to know that we have never needed to allege that the OT writings are corrupted to have our outcome. We have always taken the texts as they are since we believe the OT is 100% the word of God. Islam needs to say that John 14-16 has been corrupted because thats the only way Muhammad can fit into them.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Allan,

    Even if it wasn’t corrupted, it is still much more persuasive than the alleged “prophecies” about Jesus. Every single one of those verses is taken out of context by overzealous Christians.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I firmly disagree. I must say though, if you think its still okay if its not corrupted then try to make your case from the text as it is.

      I should also point out that when the Christian prophecies from the OT were fulfilled, they recognized them as being filled immediately there and then. Isaiah 53 was pointed out by the Ethiopian Eunich early on in Acts 8. Deuteronomy 18 was pointed out in Acts 3. This is almost immediately after the resurrection.

      When was it pointed out that John 14-16 was the fulfilled in Muhammad? Also, that it had been corrupted to not include John 14:26 which is found in the modern text and refutes the muslim position.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Good points, Allan!
    You are correct.

    Like

    • Allan, you have appealed to Acts before and I have shown you that it is an unreliable source. Your response amounts to nothing more than a circular argument. It doesn’t take much effort to look at the alleged “prophecies” and see that they are either not prophecies at all or are prophecies about other events (many of which were failed to come true). See my article “The Gospel of Matthew and the Tanakh: An Analysis of Alleged Prophecies About Jesus”: http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-gospel-of-matthew-and-tanakhic.html

      You never responded to the evidence I showed of the unreliability of the Book of Acts. Since you brought it up here again, let me just paste what I wrote previously:

      And as for the book of Acts, it is quite possible that the author simply got it wrong. The Book of Acts is well known for some basic mistakes. For example, in the description of Stephen’s trial, the author makes historical and scriptural mistakes that severely damage his credibility. I discussed this in one of my blog articles:

      “Acts 7 describes the trial and stoning of Stephen by the Sanhedrin, as well as Stephen’s impassioned speech before his death. In previous articles, we have noted the Bible’s erroneous usage of the Egyptian title “Pharaoh”, which had not been used to refer to the king of Egypt before the reign of Tuthmose III, who reigned from 1504 – 1492 BCE.[12] The Bible, however, uses the word consistently to refer to the rulers of Egypt even during the time of Abraham (peace be upon him), even though it would not have been used in that sense.[13] And the author of Acts 7 has Stephen repeat the erroneous passage from the book of Genesis, obviously not realizing that it was an anachronism. Yet if the Holy Spirit is supposed to be “all-knowing”, then surely it should have been able to inspire Stephen to correct this anachronism, which it did not. Therefore, we must conclude that Stephen, if he actually did give his famous speech before the Sanhedrin,[14] was not being guided by the Holy Spirit, and thus, the prophecy from the Gospel of Mark is false. It is also possible that the entire event was made-up by the author of Acts.”

      ” However, scholars generally accept that Stephen’s speech is most likely the invention of the author of the Book of Acts (who was probably Luke) and also has other errors, in addition to the incorrect usage of the word “Pharaoh”. As Reza Aslan states:

      “The speech, which is obviously Luke’s creation, is riddled with the most basic errors: it misidentifies the burial site of the great patriarch Jacob, and it inexplicably claims that an angel gave the law to Moses when even the most uneducated Jew in Palestine would have known it was God himself who gave Moses the law” (Aslan, op. cit., p. 168).”

      http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2015/01/prophecies-in-holy-scriptures-word-of_15.html

      Like

    • “I firmly disagree. I must say though, if you think its still okay if its not corrupted then try to make your case from the text as it is.”

      Um, I don’t have to. Did you see the video above? It answers your request.

      By the way, how do you explain the fact that “Ahmad” is etymologically similar to “parakletos”, as Merovach points out?

      Like

  4. David Wood’s rebuttal to that demolished Shabir Ally’s argument.

    John 14:16 cannot be Muhammad.

    16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
    17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

    1. Because He is a spirit, not human.
    2. Because He will be with the disciples forever. (Muhammad cannot be with the disciples of Jesus forever; and cannot even be with them from 33 AD to the time Muhammad is born in 570 AD, over 500 years later, since Muhammad did not even exist.
    3. Because the Spirit dwells with the disciples of Jesus; Muhammad cannot.
    4. Because the Spirit will be in the disciples. Muhammad, a physical human born over 500 years later cannot live inside of the disciples of jesus.

    So, John 14:16-17 cannot be about Muhammad.

    Like

    • Obviously, you didn’t listen to the video which completely demolishes your appeal to Wood. LOL!

      See John 15 and 16, which Merovach refers to. It is clear that these passages are referring to a human figure who will come after Jesus (pbuh). That can only be Muhammad (pbuh).

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Hello Faiz,

    For some reason I couldn’t hit reply so I have to answer here.

    First of all, I didn’t bring up the Gospel of Matthew so I’m not going to go down that road. I’ve looked into this criticism in Acts. I don’t want to get into the lengthy refutation here but I want to say that you should chuck the Koran as well since it says Jesus wasn’t crucified. That’s a way bigger error than the supposed error you pointed out in Acts. That’s the one thing all scholars agree on with the life of Christ so you need to throw out the Quran to be consistent.

    Let’s say the author of acts made this up for the sake of argument(I don’t believe this btw). He wrote it because thats what Christians were saying at the time, that Isaiah 53 and Deuteronomy 18 referred to Jesus and they believed it to be fulfilment. Show me first reference to John 14-16 being to Muhammad in Islamic literature. Any reference will do.

    When I challenged you to make the case from the text as it is you said: “Um, I don’t have to.” No, you can’t, that’s why. Muslims can’t get any prophecy from the scriptures as they are now and and as they were at the time of Muhammad. When Christians debate Jews on OT prophecy we actually use the text. We don’t have to do this hypothetical redaction of the text, we go straight to the source. We have nothing to fear. It’s beautiful.

    “By the way, how do you explain the fact that “Ahmad” is etymologically similar to “parakletos”, as Merovach points out?”

    Can you find be a credible scholar who says this. I have never heard of this Merovach character and I am do extensive Biblical Studies. I’ve watched a ton of Shabir Ally debates and lectures and I’ve never heard him mention him. Quote someone who’s a scholar in this field.

    Surah 61:6 says:

    And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, “This is obvious magic.”

    So Jesus said: “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.”

    Show me where Jesus said this sentence. Even if you exchange the word Ahmad for Paraclete, where is the rest of the sentence. The entire sentence is nothing like anything found in John 14-16 so this argument cannot be used.

    Like

    • Allan,

      I must say that I am disappointed in your response. You didn’t even respond to the actual critique of Acts and instead attempted to divert to other issues. I am not going to discuss the issue of the crucifixion as that has been discussed before on this blog. Also, I have discussed it in one of my articles: http://www.quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-crucifixion-of-jesus-in-bible-and.html

      You said:

      “Let’s say the author of acts made this up for the sake of argument(I don’t believe this btw). He wrote it because thats what Christians were saying at the time, that Isaiah 53 and Deuteronomy 18 referred to Jesus and they believed it to be fulfilment. Show me first reference to John 14-16 being to Muhammad in Islamic literature. Any reference will do.”

      So again, you are not answering my question and avoiding it. It is very clear that the Book of Acts is at least WRONG regarding the testimony of Stephen. So either, Stephen was ignorant or the author was ignorant OR he made it up. Since you don’t think he made it up, it has to be that either Stephen or the author was wrong (or perhaps both!). Which is it? Do you at least acknowledge that it was an error?

      Moreover, just because some Christians believed that Isaiah 53 or Deuteronomy 18 were referring to Jesus doesn’t make it true. There were MANY different beliefs among the early Christians. It was an evolving tradition. And again, all of your information is coming from the Book of Acts, which has serious credibility issues which you haven’t even attempted to discuss!

      I will look into your request about John 14-16. But first, please answer my questions regarding Acts.

      You said:

      “When I challenged you to make the case from the text as it is you said: “Um, I don’t have to.” No, you can’t, that’s why. Muslims can’t get any prophecy from the scriptures as they are now and and as they were at the time of Muhammad. When Christians debate Jews on OT prophecy we actually use the text. We don’t have to do this hypothetical redaction of the text, we go straight to the source. We have nothing to fear. It’s beautiful.”

      Incorrect. I said that Merovach already explained it, so therefore, what you are asking is repetitive. It is already explained in the video.

      When Christians debate Jews, it is true that they use the text, but it is also true that they MISQUOTE the text. So, that is not very impressive at all. And again, as I have said, when scrutinized, the Christians claims fall apart, as my article on the Gospel of Matthew shows (which you also have ignored). You keep bringing Christian prophecies into the discussion and then don’t want to discuss them.

      You said:

      “Can you find be a credible scholar who says this. I have never heard of this Merovach character and I am do extensive Biblical Studies. I’ve watched a ton of Shabir Ally debates and lectures and I’ve never heard him mention him. Quote someone who’s a scholar in this field.”

      So, Mevorach is not a credible scholar? That’s new to me. His credentials speak for themselves: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-mevorach/

      This is another tactic that I have noticed among Christian apologists. When a scholar says something that they don’t like, they question his credentials instead of responding to what the scholar actually says.

      Another credible scholar who has discussed the paraclete issue is Jonathan Brown. See the post by brother Yahya Snow.

      You said:

      “Show me where Jesus said this sentence. Even if you exchange the word Ahmad for Paraclete, where is the rest of the sentence. The entire sentence is nothing like anything found in John 14-16 so this argument cannot be used.”

      So, you think that even if Ahmad is exchanged for Paraclete, it doesn’t mean anything? As I said, that would be much more persuasive and impressive than the alleged “prophecies” about Jesus! There is nothing in the Tanakh about Jesus, not even one tiny clue! And yet, you demand an explanation for “the rest of the sentence” in the Gospel of John? You are using double standards, Allan, another tactic I have noticed among Christians.

      The Gospels are the result of an oral tradition, which was often times contradictory. It is not at all surprising that the passages in John’s gospel became skewed as time passed. You still have to explain the etymological similarity between “Ahmad” and “paraclete”.

      Like

  6. Allah Ruhl

    You said;
    I don’t want to get into the lengthy refutation here but I want to say that you should chuck the Koran as well since it says Jesus wasn’t crucified. That’s a way bigger error than the supposed error you pointed out in Acts. That’s the one thing all scholars agree on with the life of Christ so you need to throw out the Quran to be consistent.

    I say;
    No. The Quran is not in error when it said Jesus was not crucified. Do you have any certified post mortem result from Coroner’s office that Jesus was crucified? No. An DNA result? No. What can conclusively be a prove that Jesus died and crucified on the cross is evidence.

    New Testament as a document can not help us because of its unknown authorship with stories of Ghost rising from their graves and walking through the street of Jerusalem during the crucifixion and many people saw them. There is not evidence for that. This important story was recorded by only one gospel.

    Snakes and poison story, shorter and longer endings in some Gospel etc. cannot qualify the current Bible to prove the Quran wrong.

    You said:
    When I challenged you to make the case from the text as it is you said: “Um, I don’t have to.” No, you can’t, that’s why. Muslims can’t get any prophecy from the scriptures as they are now and and as they were at the time of Muhammad. When Christians debate Jews on OT prophecy we actually use the text. We don’t have to do this hypothetical redaction of the text, we go straight to the source. We have nothing to fear. It’s beautiful.

    I say;
    Christians could not prove to Jews the OT said “God is 3 Persons/persons 1 God”, “Jesus is God”, “God is Trinity”, “God became man”, “God died”, “God is begotten”, “God is messiah” etc. All these are hypothetical redaction by Christians to the Jews and that is why the Jews who knew their scriptures in their language for thousand of years will not accept “God died” from the Trinitarian Christians.

    You said;
    Show me where Jesus said this sentence. Even if you exchange the word Ahmad for Paraclete, where is the rest of the sentence. The entire sentence is nothing like anything found in John 14-16 so this argument cannot be used.

    I say;
    The NT is not the only Gospels because it was CANONIZED and so other gospels and stories of Jesus was rejected by the Church Fathers. The Quran believed in all the Gospels and stories of Jesus as far as it from Jesus and it does not matter whether it can be found in the Gospel of Thomas or other gospels with the Arabs, syriac speakers, Hebrew speakers, Aramaic speakers etc. at that time.

    When the Quran says Gospel it does not mean NT or John, Mark, Mathew, Mark etc. but all the stories of Jesus and some not all can be found in the NT.

    Thanks.

    Like

  7. Intellect

    “The Quran is not in error when it said Jesus was not crucified. Do you have any certified post mortem result from Coroner’s office that Jesus was crucified? No. An DNA result? No. What can conclusively be a prove that Jesus died and crucified on the cross is evidence.”

    And you have this type of scientific evidence that jesus was teleported up to heaven? And DNA evidence – or even eyewitness accounts – that some other guy was murdered in his place? No?

    You guys are amazing. The delusion is sublime.

    Like

  8. @Allan Ruhl, FYI James White was talking about you on the DL.

    Noe: Talking about, when it involves James, often means ranting and attacking. You can decide what the case was..

    @Ken You say David Wood’s rebuttal destroyed the argument. No the case. From my understanding you’re saying Wood looked at the wider context however as we know sayings attributed to Jesus reached those who wrote the “Gospels” without any context. Scholars believe this to be so concerning the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Sermon of the Mount – even conservatives such as Richard Bauckham admit this.

    So my point is, you cannot really appeal to context as Gospel writers either guessed the context or just made it up.

    Peace

    Like

  9. Faiz wrote:
    Obviously, you didn’t listen to the video which completely demolishes your appeal to Wood. LOL!

    See John 15 and 16, which Merovach refers to. It is clear that these passages are referring to a human figure who will come after Jesus (pbuh). That can only be Muhammad (pbuh).

    I did listen to the whole thing and read the comments/portions of the artile by Merovach. He did not make any valid point whatsoever. John 15:26-27 and John 16:7-15 cannot be about a human, because the texts are still calling the Advocate / Helper (paracletos = παρακλητος ) “the Spirit of Truth” (15:26; 16:13) and that he will be with and in the disciples of Jesus, and He will glorify Jesus and He will bear witness of Jesus; and that He will convict the world concerning sin, righteousness and judgement, which Muhammad cannot do.

    Merovach accuses lots of Christians (and the world, I think) of “Islamophobia”, and the whole presentation implies that unless we grant that Muhammad is the Paraklete, we cannot live in peace. That is really wrong and implies that Muslims cannot control themselves unless we give in to their demands that we see Muhammad in John 14, 15, and 16, which we can never grant, because Muhammad is just not there at all.

    All Merovach did was seemingly to emphasize the conflicts going on now in our world (implying he is talking about Islamic terrorism and western reactions to it), connecting that to Islamophobia, and then implying that we have to see Muhammad in John 15 and 16 in order to have peace. The implication of that is that unless we agree that Muhammad is in John 15 and 16, we cannot have peace.

    I totally disagree with that. We need to be honest about our Scriptures and the Muslims need to quit trying to find Muhammad in John 14, 15, 16 and admit that he is not there. The Holy Spirit or Spirit of Truth cannot be Muhammad, because Muhammad did not exist until he was born in 570 AD; and the promise of the Holy Spirit came a few days later in Acts chapters 1-2 – the Holy Spirit came upon all believers (see John 7:37-39; 1 Corinthians 12:13) and lives in all the believers in Christ for 6 centuries (see 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Romans 5:5; Romans 8:9) and so, those verses cannot be Muhammad.

    Plus there is not textual variants at all on this issue.

    It takes the changing of 3 letters in Greek, parakletos = παρακλητος (Helper, Advocate, Lawyer, encourager) to get periklutos περικλυτος (praised one = Ahmad).

    And yet there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of this in the textual history of John.

    Why can’t we have peace and disagree respectfully with each other about our respective faiths?

    The current conflicts of Islamic terrorism (Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram, Al Shabbab, Taliban, etc.) and western responses to them have NOTHING TO DO with theological differences or John 14, 15, 16, etc.
    They are conflicts within the realms of Islam (with each other, the terrorists vs. most Muslims who disagree with them; Sunni vs. Shiite conflicts all throughout history, etc. – Al Qaeda started when inspired by Saeed Qutb and Muslim brotherhood and they wrote on the need to “take action” and work to restore the Caliphate. Ayman Zawahiri was part of the group that assassinated Anwar Sedat in Egypt – they started as trying to fight against whom they saw as compromisers within the territory of Islam.) about how to interpret their own texts on Jihad and War and when they can legitimately “take action”.

    Like

    • Ken said:

      “The current conflicts of Islamic terrorism (Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram, Al Shabbab, Taliban, etc.) and western responses to them have NOTHING TO DO with theological differences or John 14, 15, 16, etc.
      They are conflicts within the realms of Islam (with each other, the terrorists vs. most Muslims who disagree with them; Sunni vs. Shiite conflicts all throughout history, etc. – Al Qaeda started when inspired by Saeed Qutb and Muslim brotherhood and they wrote on the need to “take action” and work to restore the Caliphate. Ayman Zawahiri was part of the group that assassinated Anwar Sedat in Egypt – they started as trying to fight against whom they saw as compromisers within the territory of Islam.) about how to interpret their own texts on Jihad and War and when they can legitimately “take action”.”

      There is your idiocy and ignorance going rampant again. Maybe if you some real research, you wouldn’t be repeating this nonsense ad nauseum. There are nutjobs in Christianity too, you dingbat! And there are disagreements among Christians as well. Some will be all to happy to kill the “heretics”.

      Like

  10. Just to add to this interesting discussion. An addition which may get some thinking further, the paraclete even amongst the earliest readers of the Gospel of John was considered to be a human being:

    …Church Fathers like Papias heard of wandering prophets who drew crowds from Europe to Asia Minor, claiming to be the awaited Paraclete mentioned in John’s Gospel.. ‘Misquoting Muhammad’, Jonathan A.C Brown, Kindle p164-165

    This shows that there were people, early on in the history of Christianity, who understood the paraclete to be a Prophet who would come after Jesus (p). Christians should look into Prophet Muhammad (p) as indeed he is the Prophet who came after Prophet Jesus (p).

    Like

  11. Where does Brown get the info on Papias?

    Even so, it is a ridiculous argument, since John 14, 15, and 16 are clearly about a spirit, not a human being –
    they are about a spirit that will IN the disciples hearts spiritually. This is one of the most goofy and amazing arguments that you Muslims are making, trying to see Muhammad in John 14, 15, 16 is so kooky and nutty!!

    Like

    • Ken, it has been shown previously that the only goofball here. People in glass houses should not throw stones! It’s you Christian goofballs who try to see “prophecies” about Jesus in the Tanakh, even though there is nothing there! When will you goofballs learn? LOL!!

      Like

  12. None of the fragments of Papias mention this claim of Dr. Jonathan Brown. Just read the fragments of Papias at ccel.org
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.i.html

    Hit “next” after each reading.

    Funny that he should try and use Papias, when Papias affirms:
    The gospel of Mark as the memories and preaching of the apostle Peter.
    Matthew as author of the gospel of Matthew.
    Mention of the pericope adulterae – John 7:53-John 8:11 – ” a woman accused of many sins was brought before Jesus”.
    that Polycarp was the disciple of John.
    Philip and his daughters in Heiropolis, where Papias was an elder/bishop.

    Like

  13. Faiz,
    you don’t make any arguments; you just basically say,

    “no, you are the goofball, LOL”, etc.

    You have no argument whatsoever.

    Like

    • Yeah, sure, sure. You usually dont respond to my arguments but usually run away or change the topic. So, I don’t really take you seriously as much. 🙂

      Like

  14. John 14:16-17 cannot be Muhammad. And neither can John 15:26-27 nor 16:7-15, because they also call the paraclete, a “spirit” – ie, NOT HUMAN !!

    16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
    17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

    1. Because He is a spirit, not human.
    2. Because He will be with the disciples forever. (Muhammad cannot be with the disciples of Jesus forever; and cannot even be with them from 33 AD to the time Muhammad is born in 570 AD, over 500 years later, since Muhammad did not even exist.
    3. Because the Spirit dwells with the disciples of Jesus; Muhammad cannot.
    4. Because the Spirit will be in the disciples. Muhammad, a physical human born over 500 years later cannot live inside of the disciples of jesus.

    So, John 14:16-17 cannot be about Muhammad.

    so, John 15:26-27 and 16:7-15 cannot be about Muhammad, since they also call the Paraclete, a “Spirit” !!

    ie, NOT HUMAN.

    Like

  15. Ken Temple

    You said;
    And yet there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of this in the textual history of John.

    Why can’t we have peace and disagree respectfully with each other about our respective faiths?

    The current conflicts of Islamic terrorism (Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram, Al Shabbab, Taliban, etc.) and western responses to them have NOTHING TO DO with theological differences or John 14, 15, 16, etc.
    They are conflicts within the realms of Islam (with each other, the terrorists vs. most Muslims who disagree with them; Sunni vs. Shiite conflicts all throughout history, etc. – Al Qaeda started when inspired by Saeed Qutb and Muslim brotherhood and they wrote on the need to “take action” and work to restore the Caliphate. Ayman Zawahiri was part of the group that assassinated Anwar Sedat in Egypt – they started as trying to fight against whom they saw as compromisers within the territory of Islam.) about how to interpret their own texts on Jihad and War and when they can legitimately “take action”.

    I say;
    Well Paraclete, parakletos, periklutos in John’s gospel can refer to Ahmad and that is what Muslims are saying.

    Prophet Mohammed did spoke of Jesus and glorified Jesus name. Mohammed has spirit in him and so can be metaphorically referred to as Spirit. Jesus was called the Spirit in the Quran so it is not a big deal for a man to be metaphorically referred to as spirit.

    We Muslims believe there are some remnants of Jesus Gospels in all the Gospels including the NT, the Gospel of Thomas, the infancy gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospels in possession with the Arab Christians, Syriac Christians, Aramaic Christians and Hebrew speakers at the time of our prophet. So, Ken do not be disturbed when Muslims can accept certain things from the Bible that corresponds to the Quran.

    Doctor James White and most Christians will not preach some verses from NT in their Churches and so do not blame Muslims for not teaching some verses of NT to their followers but accepting others.

    Will you drink poison? Ken, will you dance with poisonous rattle snake and black cobra? If you cannot do these then do not blame Muslims for selecting other stories or verses from NT and rejecting others because that was how NT was formed by CANONIZATION and rejecting other Gospels and stories of Jesus.

    With regards to Christians killing each other until forced to accept freedom of religion, I promise, any time you ignore that and let Islam looks bad because of the war evangelical Christians voted to attack the Muslim world I will refer you here.

    ———————————-
    Along with the religious consequences of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation came deep and lasting political changes. Northern Europe’s new religious and political freedoms came at a great cost, with decades of rebellions, wars and bloody persecutions. The Thirty Years’ War alone may have cost Germany 40 percent of its population.
    ———————————-
    http://www.history.com/topics/reformation

    Brother Faiz has referred you to a link that prove Augustine was a terrorist Christian who used Bible to inspire Christians to commit genocide but you call it “discipline” and “going too far”. It is Christian terrorism like Jewish terrorists killing Israel Prime Ministers.

    Thanks.

    Like

  16. Well Paraclete, parakletos, periklutos in John’s gospel can refer to Ahmad and that is what Muslims are saying.

    No, it cannot, since the Paraclete/parakletos refers to the Holy Spirit, and yet Muhammad is a human who came 570 years later; and the Holy Spirit lived IN the disciples of Jesus hearts from 33 AD onward. So it is impossible. And there is no textual evidence of any change to periklutos, so it cannot be Muhammad at all.

    Like

    • “And there is no textual evidence of any change to periklutos, so it cannot be Muhammad at all.”

      LOL, that’s because we don’t even have any significant manuscripts of the Gospel of John until the 2nd century! Furthermore, all of the gospels were based on an oral tradition, so it could easily have been altered during its transmission, like a game of telephone. Had the Synoptic gospels said anything on the matter, we could at least conclude whether the statements in John’s gospel can be corroborated or not. Of course, the gospels disagree among themselves on many issues, so it would not have been surprising if they disagreed on the paraclete as well.

      Like

    • There not much of a gap between 80-96 AD and the second century. (100 AD and onward. We have the oldest manuscript of John, from around 120 AD, the John Rylands Papyri – from John 18. Face it, you have nothing on this issue, since the Spirit of truth is a spirit, not a human. A Spirit who lives in followers of Jesus – John 7:37-39

      Like

  17. Today in Church the Gospel readings were John 15 and 16 which include the Paraclete statements. This is the traditional Calendar. In the non-traditional Calendar(used in about 98% of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church) you wouldn’t hear these readings today. I just thought I’d add this in since we’re all talking about the Paraclete here.

    Like

    • Allan,

      That is very interesting, but it doesn’t really add to this particular discussion. I am still waiting for your response to the solid proof of the unreliability of the Book of Acts and the etymological similarity between “paraclete” and “Ahmad”.

      Like

  18. I just thought I’d throw that in. I did address those things further up. Go see.

    Like

    • Allan,

      I don’t see any response to my post from yesterday. I addressed your previous post which I found to be rather disappointing. You didn’t even address the problem in Acts.

      Like

  19. Okay, nvm. I just found your response – I didn’t see it before, sorry. I don’t know if I’ll write up a response to Acts here. That’s a long one so I’ll save it for my blog. Expect to see it soon. It just seemed a bit off topic since I never even brought up Stephen.

    Like

    • I brought it up since you keep referring to Acts to explain the meaning of verses from the Tanakh. The point is to show that Acts is not very reliable. Just because it says that some people interpreted some verses in a specific way does not make it authoritative.

      Like

  20. “There not much of a gap between 80-96 AD and the second century. (100 AD and onward. We have the oldest manuscript of John, from around 120 AD, the John Rylands Papyri – from John 18. Face it, you have nothing on this issue, since the Spirit of truth is a spirit, not a human. A Spirit who lives in followers of Jesus – John 7:37-39”

    LOL, nice try but I’m not some guy with no background knowledge about the NT manuscripts. You are referring to P52, which is a tiny FRAGMENT. Also, scholars don’t date manuscripts to around a specific year. That manuscript could be from as late as the end of the 2nd century. Face it, you have nothing on this issue! 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  21. I think the problem is that in order to know whether mohammed was prophesied by jesus, we have to have an accurate picture of who mohammed was – but we don’t. The hadith have almost no historical reliability whatsoever and the earliest full copy of bukhari (the most “reliable” LOL!) dates from the 11 century (not the 12th as I erroneously said elsewhere). Muslims themselves distance themselves from Ibn Ishaq (the eraliest history of mohammed) because it records the satanic verses

    So who or what did jesus actually predict? We don’t know anything about mohammed so we can’t know if it was him that was being prophesied about.

    Like

  22. There is a range for dating P-52, usually from 125-175 AD. Originally the range was 100-150, but most would say around 120-130 AD. Two scholars have recently extended the range to 175 AD.

    However, ALL other manuscripts of the gospel of John that include chapters 14, 15, and 16 all agree with my points.

    1. There is no textual basis or evidence of any change. No textual variants. No evidence whatsoever for periklutos περικλυτος as opposed to the established original of paraklaetos – παρακλητος

    2. All the other many verses around it preclude it from Muhammad, since Muhammad is a human who is born almost 600 years later, 570 AD; and the texts in John 14, 15, 16 say the paraklaetos is a spirit, not a human; and will be in the disciples, and will be with them forever, and will come a few days after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, which He did in Acts chapters 1-2, and that this holy Spirit will be with the disciples.

    Therefore, it cannot be about Muhammad at all. Not even close. It is desperation on your part to try and find him there. It is too bad that Surah 7:157 and Surah 61:6 forces you into that ridiculous position, because it is so far out and irrational. And anachronistic and against all logic, reason, and evidence.

    Like

    • LOL, the “ALL other manuscripts” are also later productions, so you haven’t proven anything and are just making yet another circular argument! Face it. You have nothing on this issue!

      Liked by 1 person

  23. Not much later.

    But you have NOTHING earlier to prove any textual corruption.

    Therefore, all the extant manuscripts of the Gospel of John stand as proving you wrong.

    Like

    • LOL, you haven’t proven anything, silly boy. Given the history of Christian forgeries and corruptions of the oral tradition, it is not at all unreasonable that the Gospel of John fell victim to the same shady dealings. In fact, the gospel itself was probably written for a Gnostic audience, so it is likely that, just as orthodox Christians destroyed the oral tradition, so did the Gnostics.

      It’s not up to me to prove that the Gospel of John has not been corrupted. Christianity’s history provides sufficient evidence. But you have NOTHING to go by anyway because you have NO early manuscripts. All you have are later fragments. Not very impressive, I’m afraid!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: