Christians at the time of Papias believed the Paraclete to be a human being (a prophet) not the Holy Spirit – UPDATE!

Christians at the time of Papias believed the Paraclete to be a human being (a prophet) not the Holy Spirit:

‘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, bringing the final apocalyptic chapter of Jesus’ message. ‘

Misquoting Muhammad‘, Jonathan AC Brown p. 165

This shows that there were people, early 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 after Prophet Jesus (p).

NB Brown references Robert M. Grant, ‘Historical Criticism in the Ancient Church,’ 188-189

(Thanks to Yahya Snow for this)

UPDATE!

I have just done a Google search for Robert Grant’s article and managed to read it online here:

The Journal of Religion © 1945 The University of Chicago Press

The first thing that surprised me: the article was written in 1945! Not exactly the latest scholarship.  Then came the further surprise: no mention of Papias or ‘wandering prophets who drew crowds from Europe to Asia Minor’! See the screen prints:

Screen Shot 2016-05-11 at 22.22.39

Screen Shot 2016-05-11 at 22.22.07

FURTHER UPDATE 

Jonathan Brown sets the record straight about his ‘error’.

In this post I suggested that Jonathan Brown had made an error in his latest book Misquoting Muhammad. I contacted him about this and here is his reply. He admits that his statement was ‘ambiguous’ but he does not consider it requires correction.

Screen Shot 2016-05-12 at 13.24.22



Categories: Bible, Christianity, History, Islam

19 replies

  1. Lol, now Christians fundamentalists like Ken will claim that those Christians were heretics or mistaken. They will then point to later Christians who believed the paraclete was the Holy spirit, as if that would prove anything except that later Christians reinterpreted the text.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Can you give me the quote from Papias?

    Like

  3. That info is nowhere in the extant fragments of Papias, so where does Robert M. Grant get that info ??

    I think Brown is confusing Papias with a heretic, known as Montanus. He believed he was a prophet of God and that the Paraclete spoke through him, but he did not claim he was the paraclete. But one would have to see the full quote of Robert M. Grant, to understand where he is getting that idea.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. of course. It is a must that even the greatest of scholars have errors. That’s how Allah created man.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Allan,

      I think you are missing the point. While Dr. Brown seems to have made an error, the fact still remains that Gaius (perhaps during the writing process, Brown mistakenly thought it was Papias?) mentions the belief that the Paraclete was a human figure. So, we have confirmation that there were people who believed in a human figure to come after Jesus. They just believed in the wrong person.

      It is also interesting that Gaius condemned the Gospel of “John” as a heretical book written by Cerinthus. So, we now have the view of an early Christian who rejected the fourth gospel as a heresy. He confirms the views of many modern scholars who regard the Gospel of John to have been a Gnostic production.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. Paul Williams

    You said;
    of course. It is a must that even the greatest of scholars have errors. That’s how Allah created man.

    I say;
    You are really a Muslim. Our scripture says we should use our common sense at times and not everything that our scholars say but Trinitarians like Ken and Allan will always believe Ditto what their Church Fathers and councils of Nicea, Trent etc. and James White etc. says.

    They repeat Dr. James White “That is not what we believe” -multiple God but he Dr. James will accuse the Mormons of idol worship for believing in multi-personal Gods like him(Dr. James White).

    The Mormons will tell Dr. James White, “Dr. That is not what we believe-idol worship”

    Thanks.

    Like

  6. Paul Wrote….

    “Then came the further surprise: no mention of Papias or ‘wandering prophets who drew crowds from Europe to Asia Minor’! See the screen prints:”

    My response, So a Muslim LIED whats so surprising about that?

    Like

  7. FURTHER UPDATE

    Jonathan Brown sets the record straight about his ‘error’.

    In this post I suggested that Jonathan Brown had made an error in his latest book Misquoting Muhammad. I contacted him about this and here is his reply. He admits that his statement was ‘ambiguous’ but he does not consider it requires correction.

    https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/05/12/jonathan-brown-stets-the-record-straight-about-his-error/

    Like

  8. Even with the update, Brown is still wrong, as Montanus and his 2 women disciples, Maximillia and Pricilla, did not believe in a human Paraclete, but rather that the Paraclete was the Holy Spirit, a spirit and that He was indwelling them and speaking through them in tongues, prophesies, and ecstatic utterances. They connected this to the gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians chapters 12 and 14. They were like the first Charismatics.

    This is standard church history knowledge.

    To try and make a point out of this as somehow parallel with Muhammad as a human 600 years later, claiming to be the paraclete (Ahmad, Surah 61:6) is a big big stretch.

    There is no textual variants in the manuscript tradition; no evidence whatsoever even close to periklutos, which is what is required to be close to the meaning of the word “Ahmad” (praised one).

    Like

  9. Salam Paul,

    In the book The Johannine World:  Reflections on the Theology of the Fourth Gospel and Contemporary Society By David J. Hawkin (Head of the Department of Religious Studies at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada) he wrote,

    Many scholars believe that the traditional christian identification of the Paraclete with the holy spirit obscures the fact that originally the Paraclete was an independent salvific figure. (source: Notes p 139)

    Have you ever read his book? What do you make of this statement?

    Like

  10. “And they shall not depart from any counsel of the law to walk in all the stubbornness of their heart, but they shall be governed by the first ordinances in which the members of the community began their instruction, until the coming of the prophet and the anointed ones of Aaron and Israel”

    [Manual of discipline 9.9b-11]

    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: