Thursday, October 1, 2009

Was Muhammad the Comforter of John 14:16-17?



****NOTE**** There's an error in my comments in the video. I said that we have close to 6000 manuscripts of the Gospel of John. It's actually close to 6000 manuscripts of the New Testament. But since many New Testament manuscripts are fragmentary, the number of manuscripts of John's Gospel will be fewer. Just wanted to point that out.

18 comments:

mkvine said...

Pure Ownage AGAIN! I wonder what Osama Abdullah's excuse will be this time...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Our Muslim friend who phoned in on the show exclaimed that the Greek word for 'paraclete' cannot be defined or detected within the Aramaic language, and that scholars have had a problem with this.

I just wanna quote D. A. Carson on this matter to prove that even the Jews of Jesus time applied this term in both Greek and Aramaic and even utilized it in relation to the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately my computer does not contain the means to write every Aramaic term, but anyone can at least check out the source.

'Not only was the parakletos transliterated into Hebrew and Aramaic (p(e)raqlit) so also was its rough synonym synegoros and its antonym kategoros (as sanegor and qategor respectively). In later Rabbinical commentaries, the role of the advocate, the sanegor, is assigned to the Holy Spirit (Leviticus Rabbah 6: 1 on Lv. 5:1). Although the word kategoros (prosecutor, accuser) does not occur in the Fourth Gospel, the paraclete takes on this role in John 16: 8.' (D.A. Carson, The Gospel of John, Inter-Varsity Press, UK, 1991, p.509)

Fernando said...

Brother Hogan... your right, absolutelly right...

bye the way: do you know the book "The semitic bacground of the NT" by Joseph Fitzmeyer? Great reading I spent reading it...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I have not read that one Fernando, but I am trying to get through Black's book on Aramaicism in the four Gospels and Acts. That is interesting reading.

GreekAsianPanda said...

mkvine said...
"Pure Ownage AGAIN!"

GreekAsianPanda says:
True that. Shamoun did a great job.

Osama Abdallah said...

"Pure Ownage AGAIN! I wonder what Osama Abdullah's excuse will be this time..."

Mkvine,

There are a number of points that refute Sam Shamoun and David Wood:


1- Jesus never spoke Greek. He spoke Aramaic, and we have no original writings of Aramaic of him or about him.

2- "Father" in Arabic and Semetic languages means "The Head". Allah Almighty in Arabic is also called the "Rab". Your biological father is also called as such.

3- The so-called 6,000 fragments of manuscripts that were found of the NT point IS ANOTHER LIE and desperation by christians.

************* The biggest piece of those 6,000 fragments is smaller than a visa or master card credit card! ******************
The liars from many christians make it sound like it is 6,000 fully-written scrolls or books with many chapters! And many upon many of those fragments contradict each others. Dr. Bart Ehrmann schooled Dr. James White on this during their debate. They spoke in details about those fragments and their ample absurdities.

You call this ample nonsense and lies, reliability?

3- Sam Shamoun again is forcing too many interpretations into the text. Muslims are also wrong to give the bible so much legitimacy by trying to prove that it speaks about Prophet Muhammad. INSTEAD, THEY SHOULD POINT OUT PLACES WHERE THE BIBLE IS IN CONTRADICTION AND ERROR WITH ITSELF in any certain topic. So in the case of this topic, they could point out the verses that speak about the Prophet of Arabia but with the emphasis that even those verses are not original and could contain corruption in them along with the rest of the bible being fully corrupt and full of lies.

The following links will give you ample proofs to what I am talking about:

1- http://www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm to see the verses that speak about the Prophet of Arabia.

2- http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra.htm to see the countless contradictions and ample history of corruption in the bible.

3- http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_scientific_blunders.htm to see the Bible's Scientific Blunders and Absurdities, EVEN BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF.

I hope this helps.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Semper Paratus said...

Dearest Osama,

1. Who told you that because Jesus spoke Aramaic, therefore he didn't know or speak Greek? That's just plain silly, even for you.

Also, since, as you admitted, we don't have any original writing of the words of Jesus in Aramaic, i.e. we only have the inspired Greek texts of the Gospels, then who told you that He spoke Aramaic at all?

Of course I agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but then I hold this based on the same sources that ought to lead one to believe that He spoke Hebrew and Greek as well, sources that you would have to reject for that very reason. So on what basis do you believe the former, but not the latter?

2. A father might be "the head" of something, but that isn't the same as saying that that is what the word "father" means, at least in Hebrew and Greek. Nevertheless, we can still play it your way and say the word "Father" mean "the head." In that case the Qur'an rejects the claim of Jews and Christians that God is their "head." (S. 5:18)

3. I haven't seen Dr. White's debate with Ehrman, so I can't really make any specific comment about that.

4. (After 3 comes 4, just for the record) Thanks for granting that the very verses you allege to predict the coming of Muhammad in the Bible are not original and are corrupt. Of course I think the truth is that they are reliable, and the only reason you cry corruption is because you can't get Muhammad out of the text unless you do so, but then all you've accomplished is granting to us that Muhammad can't be found there without undermining the integrity of the text.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Very impressive Osama,

If the Gospel is so corrupt, why makes you think that the reference to the Paraclete is not a corruption also? Funny, that implies that the Qur'an is referring to a corrupted text to prove the prediction of Muhammad in the Bible.

mkvine said...

Osama wrote:
1- Jesus never spoke Greek. He spoke Aramaic, and we have no original writings of Aramaic of him or about him.

My response:

We don't know if he spoke Greek or not so you cannot conclusively say that he “never spoke Greek”. However, in the Gospels themselves, Jesus did speak to Roman soldiers like the Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10. Since the Romans at that time spoke Greek and since Greek was the “lingua franca” at that time in Palestine, it is very possible that Jesus did know how to speak Greek. Can you provide any evidence that he could NOT speak Greek?

Osama said:
2- "Father" in Arabic and Semetic languages means "The Head". Allah Almighty in Arabic is also called the "Rab". Your biological father is also called as such.

My response:

Show me a single verse from the Qur'an that addresses Allah as Father. Also, are you implying that “Rab” has the same meaning as “father”?

Osama wrote:
3- The so-called 6,000 fragments of manuscripts that were found of the NT point IS ANOTHER LIE and desperation by christians.

My response:

No its not a lie, its just your ignorance of scholarly fact on the manuscript tradition. Dr. Daniel Wallace in his book “Dethroning Jesus” page 51 says that there are over 5,700 Greek Manuscripts. Also, F.F. Bruce in his book “The New Testament Documents” on page 10 says that there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts. These figures are something even Bart Erhman would agree to. So it was not a “lie” that David Wood said we have “close” to 6,000 Greek Manuscripts.

Osama wrote:
************* The biggest piece of those 6,000 fragments is smaller than a visa or master card credit card! ****************** The liars from many christians make it sound like it is 6,000 fully-written scrolls or books with many chapters! And many upon many of those fragments contradict each others. Dr. Bart Ehrmann schooled Dr. James White on this during their debate. They spoke in details about those fragments and their ample absurdities.

You call this ample nonsense and lies, reliability?

My response:

Wrong. Some of the biggest Greek manuscripts we have are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The smallest one is P56, which is the one you are referring to. Even then, we have papyri dating from about 100-200AD: Chester Beatty Papyri (three codices of which contain most of the the New Testament), and the Papyrus Bodmer II are relatively early (FF Bruce, Ibid p.12). Also H.I. Bell and T.C. Skeat published some papyri dating no later than 150 AD. In addition, the evidence of the manuscript tradition makes it the best attested source of antiquity. Finally, Dr. Wallace has stated that less than 1% of the New Testament make up meaningful and viable variants. Osama, didn't you get schooled by James White on the New Testament debate?

Osama wrote:
3- Sam Shamoun again is forcing too many interpretations into the text. Muslims are also wrong to give the bible so much legitimacy by trying to prove that it speaks about Prophet Muhammad. INSTEAD, THEY SHOULD POINT OUT PLACES WHERE THE BIBLE IS IN CONTRADICTION AND ERROR WITH ITSELF in any certain topic. So in the case of this topic, they could point out the verses that speak about the Prophet of Arabia but with the emphasis that even those verses are not original and could contain corruption in them along with the rest of the bible being fully corrupt and full of lies.

My respone:

That is terrible methodology. First you say that no Muslim should give any legitimacy to the Bible, but then you essentially say “its ok if the Bible is corrupt, as long as you throw a couple of bad verses that MIGHT talk about Muhammad, that is good enough proof.” This is very different from the methodology of your Prophet Muhammad who PROMISED you that he is mentioned in the Bible. Didn't Muhammad also order the Torah to be placed on a pillow and placed his hand on it and say “I believe in thee and Him who revealed thee!” That is very different from saying, “the bible is corrupt, but Muhammad is mentioned in there SOMEWHERE...”

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

mkvine,

Everything we get from these muslims are inconsistencies, its getting boring. I am beginning to consider atheists as fairly logical by comparison.

In Hoc Signo Vinces said...

hahah your a liar osmaa whislt there are some small fragment of the NT there also some substantial collection of papayrii contianing major parts of the gospels from the 2nd and 3rd centuries

In Hoc Signo Vinces said...

hahah your a liar osama whilst there are some small fragments of the NT there also some substantial collection of papyri containing major parts of the gospels from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Like in the Chester Beatty library for example.

its is a fact the parakletos isn’t Mohammad because the parakletos is described as τό πνευμα τό άγιον literally the holy spirit in John 14:26 and this spirit which is mentioned throughout the gospel of john as τό πνευμα again is not referring to a person because it is in neuter a special form of a word in greek used for things which are not human and aren’t masculine or feminine. So its impossible for this to be about Mohammad. Especially since it also says the parakletos wont bee seen or known by the world. Was Mohammad invisible? Was he a spirit? i think not this is just taqiyyah

Blogger said...

it shows a clear SPELLING error in the Quran. The arabs who wrote the Quran confused the Greek word Periklutos with Parakletos (of John's gospel), since arabic does not have vowels, you are left with PRKLTS. Here is a summary on the research I have done on this:

The relevant verse in the Quran;
61:6"...Jesus, the son of Mary said: 'O children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Taurat (which came) before me and giving glad tidings of an apostle to come after me, whose name shall be AHMED' "

In John's gospel Parakletos means comforter and advocate. It comes from the word 'calling' kletos and 'alongside' para. "Muhammad" on the other hand, means "praised one". When the early muslims wrote the Koran, they translated the Greek into Arabic (via Old Syriac) but while Greek has vowels, Arabic doesn't. So they understood it as PRKLTS. In Greek there is another word Periklutos which means "praised one". Without the vowels it is also PRKLTS. So it is obvious that the early Muslims misread parakletos as periklutos, which means "Ahmed".

From Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...ount=1&embed=2
periklutos: heard of all round, famous, renowned, glorious Entry in LSJ or Middle Liddell
periklutos masc nom sg
For more on this see here;
http://www.truthnet.org/islam/src-chp5.htm http://www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/islam.htm

So ..............
Parakletos = Comforter-advocate
Periklutos = praised
Ahmed = praised


The Greek word Paraklesis - a different rendering of Parakletos - occurs 28 times in the NT. It is translated as "comfort" or "consolation" and other synonyms. Paul is no doubt building on the Isaiah theology of the promised "comforting" of Israel;
2Co 1:3
2Co 1:4
2Co 1:5
So, you see that there is lots of Parakletos theology, but not even a single suggestion that there will be a later prophet to come, let alone any "Ahmed"!

Conclusion.
The Parakletos is NOT Muhammad.
Muhammad is not prophesised in the Bible
It shows even further than the Koran was written by non literary humans NOT God

pure said...

To All Muslims,
The attack you put on bible proves that Allah did not preserve any other book other than Quran.Also this proves that They were no muslims before 1400 yrs ago.If you say bible is corrupted,you need to do the following.
Either get the Injeel revealed to Jesus ,or else produce all the 1024 books 343 messsanger books sent to every nation or atlease one book from thousands which are revealed before and fully compatible with Quran.I mean to say bible is written by 40 prophets of God written at different times and different places and yet in complete agreement and harmony in all the doctrine.If we need to agree islam,we have to admit that all the previous messengers and prophets are fools ,where Allah did not preserve any thing out of thousands of books?
Allah said in Quran "We have sent the Quran and we will guard it".
Thats what we are saying Allah revealed Quran alone and yahweh revealed 66 books of the bible.
Also from the beginnig there were no muslims at all.If there,then get the books you protected from the beginning,the words of moses,abraham etc..
But it is we who truly proteted the Word of God of different prophets from the begininng and it stands to the time of both prophecies and science.
Now the battle is between Quran of Allah and bible of Yahweh (the true God).

pure said...

Not only Muhammad ,even Zakir naik and Ahmnad deedat were there in the bible.Read carefully you will find them.Jesus warned about the Glad tidings of the false prophets to come,who would deviate from the Gospel of christ :).
Reg Muhammad,Zakir naik,Deedat:
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an ANGEL OF LIGHT.

Galatians 1:8-9
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.(ZAKIR NAIK,AHMAD DEEDAT)

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.(ZAKIR NAIK,AHMAD DEEDAT)

22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].

Ist epistle of John 4:1,2,3 verses

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
All the above were said 600 yrs before Quran.
Now are the above verses corrupted?As per your criteria,fulfilled prophecies were the word of God right.So all of the above fullfilled in Islam.

You decide..

Robin Hossain said...

A lot of convoluted back and forth. The bible would be revealed knowledge except that it has CLEARLY been rewritten and tampered by corrupt men. That's why mankind need the Quraan. How can I read some thing about Jesus in the bible and have confidence about it when the history of bible composition is marred with corruption, and unknown scribes and authors... that's just blind faith and a JUST and LOVING GOD would not expect people to make such an irrational conviction and damn truthful, logical people to Hell...

Anthony Rogers said...

Robin,

Thanks for adding nothing meaningful to this thread. Muslims love to string assertions together and call that rational. Just so you know: it isn't.

Laura said...

Hi,

Sorry to unearth an old post, but I wonder why nobody ever mentions this simple fact: in Hebrew and Aramaic, as opposed to Arabic, the triconsonantal root ḤMD does not mean "to praise", but "to desire". Any dictionary will tell you so. Therefore, if Jesus had announced the coming of a prophet whose name was Ahmad (or any other name containing this root), it would not have meant "the praised one" but "the desired one", and so could never have been translated "periklutos". (How to end the debate in five seconds...)