“And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O’ children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being AHMAD. But when he came to them with clear arguments, they said: This is clear enchantment.”(Qur’an 61:6)
﷽
This text of the Qur’an has either been a means where Christians have tripped themselves up; or it has been a huge eye opener, one that has led many of them to embracing Islam.
So when dealing with Christians concerning this text you will find those who fall into one of two categories.
A) Those who are insincere and think this text of the Qur’an is some how a problem for Muslims.
B) Those whom are sincerely inquiring into the matter and willing to ponder over the justifications that are given.
The first very obvious point is that this text of the Qur’an no where said that Ahmad is written in any competing number of Christian New Testament canons. The text states: “And when Jesus, son of Mary, said:
Often those Christians antagonistic to Islam read the above text of the Qur’an and think that a Muslim should reply: “Oh yes that is in Matthew chapter so and so verse so and so.”
There is nothing in Qur’an 61:6 that would indicate that the name ‘Ahmad’ would be captured in any of the competing Christian New Testament canons
This would be similar to the text of the New Testament:
“And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.” (Matthew 2:23)
The reason why Christians have not been able to find that particular prophecy is because the above text said it was: ‘spoken’ by the prophets not necessarily that it was written by the prophets.
Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom offers a possible perspective.
This Archbishop of the Latin Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox Christians offers an interesting perspective.
“We see here the cause why the angel also, putting them at ease for the future, restores them to their home. And not even this simply, but he adds to it a prophecy, That it might be fulfilled,
says he, which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Matthew 2:23.”
“And what manner of prophet said this? Be not curious, nor overbusy. For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces. The latter fact Jeremiah relates; Jeremiah 36:23 the former, he who composed the fourth book of Kings, saying, that after a long time the book of Deuteronomy was hardly found, buried somewhere and lost. But if, when there was no barbarian there, they so betrayed their books, much more when the barbarians had overrun them. For as to the fact, that the prophet had foretold it, the apostles themselves in many places call Him a Nazarene.” -Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom
Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200109.htm)
Thus, if what Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom says of ‘The Nazarene’ is true than it is likewise that this could be the case for ‘Ahmad’. Namely:
“For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces.”
This argument merely demonstrates that the absence of “Ahmad” from the New Testament does not disprove the Qur’anic claim.
Did Jesus ever write anything?
They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. (John 8:6-8)
The assumption is that Jesus (as) wrote what he spoke: “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Yet, we have no idea what he wrote the second time.
Not only this but may Allah (swt) reward brother Ammar in the comments section. He had reminded me that even the text that alleges Jesus (as) wrote something in the sands is a forgery.
This is taken from a Christian website:
https://www.gotquestions.org/John-7-53-8-11.html
The story is a clear forgery. Wasn’t found in the 4th century manuscripts.
The New Testament also mentions that Jesus said things that were not recorded.
“After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. ” (Luke 2:43-46)
Luke does not record any questions that Jesus asked! So this is clear evidence that there are indeed things that Jesus said that are not captured nor recorded by the New Testament.
Since Jesus (as) didn’t really write anything it makes sense we wouldn’t find anything written concerning “Ahmad”. And even if he did write something, we have no evidence it was preserved.
However, note the above text does state that Jesus (as) said:
“Oh children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad.” (Qur’an 61:6)
This is more than sufficient for those who believe. Allah (swt) said that Jesus (as) said it and that is enough for the Muslims.
We are not required to go beyond this. ⬆️⬆️⬆️
Though, for those Christians who are sincere we will endeavor to give them some things to reflect over.
What you are about to read is simply food for thought for those inquiring into the matter.
The New Testament teaches that Jesus never claimed to be the last Prophet.
Jesus (as) never claimed to be the last prophet. That admission in and of itself already is an argument in favour of our proposition. It does not necessarily prove it; however it is a point in favour of our proposition.
Think about this. When other Christian denominations get into debates and discussions with Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) they never shut down the Mormons with saying: “Well, Joseph Smith can’t be a Prophet because Jesus said there would be no more.” If that were so the matter would be an open and shut case.
This is a significant point in favour of the Islamic position.
If Jesus never claimed to be the last prophet, then:
There is no theological barrier to another prophet coming after him. Nothing in Jesus’s teaching rules this out.
First, Jesus himself didn’t shut down the possiblity of true prophets or even other messiahs coming!
“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
Jesus could have closed the door by stating, “there will be no Messiah after me”. He didn’t. He could have said, “There will be no prophet after me.” He didn’t.
The New Testament gives many examples of prophets who came after Jesus.
Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (Acts 13:1)
And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with many words.” (Acts 15:32)
“And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.” (Acts 21:10)
What has passed is more than sufficient to answer the objections of those who attack the Qur’an 61:6. We can see that the Qur’an says that it was something that Jesus (as) spoke and it doesn’t say it was written. We can also see that the New Testament does not have a definite statement about Jesus (as) being the last prophet.
However, for those Christians who like to reflect we will present more information to reflect upon.
Discussing the Identiy and the Prophecy of the Comforter/Advocate.
Why does the identify of the Comforter need clarification?
Now notice something about this text in John 14:26. Notice that the identity of The Comforter seems to be a matter of ambiguity. This ambiguity is followed up by the clarification: ‘Which is the Holy Spirit’
Now to be clear of the Greek manuscripts that we currently know about John 14:26 is read as: “The Comforter, Which is the Holy Spirit.” We are saying this in the interest of transparency and not to over state the case.
However, the very presence of this clarification suggests that the identity of the Paraclete was not self-evident to the original readers. If the meaning were obvious, no clarification would be needed.
What we are going to present is justification to show that this is a scribal insertion. As you can read the text on the left is quite intelligible without the addition ‘which is the Holy Spirit‘.
Some Early Church Fathers saw the possibility of the Paraclete being a reference to a human being.
The Montanists professed to be prophets and to speak under divine inspiration. Their founder, Montanus, claimed to be the Paraclete, the “Comforter,” or Helper, of John, chapter 14. Tertullian became a Montanist before he died.”
Source: (Edgar J Goodspeed How Came The Bible pg. 67.)
Eusebius explicitly states that some “boasted that Montanus was the Paraclete”
Prima Qur’an Comment: Tertullian and Monatanus were early church fathers who played a crucial role in the development of the New Testament text Christians have today. So if such learned men saw the possibility of the Paraclete referring to a human being then who are we to say?
The Christians will claim thath Montanist did not claim that Montanus himself was the Paraclete. Instead,
they believed the Holy Spirit spoke through Montanus and his prophetesses. As one can see from the comments with a Christian below there are debates on rather Montanist theology was monolithic. Sources note distinctions between Monarchian and non-Monarchian Montanist.
“The enemy of God’s Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange heresies spring up against the Church. For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, boasting that Montanus was the Paraclete, and that the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus.” Source: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History volume 5 chapter 14
Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm)
“Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Sasse, Bultmann, and Betz have doubted whether this identification is true to the original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit.”
Source: (The Anchor Bible, 1970, Volume 29A, p.1135)
“The Paraclete is a parallel figure to Jesus himself; and this conclusion is confirmed in the fact that the title is suitable for both. It is clear from 14:16 that the source thought there were sending of two Paracletes, Jesus and his successor, the one following the other”
Source: (The Gospel of John a Commentary, Rudolf Bultmann, p. 567)
The word Paraclete is used in the New Testament to refer to a human being
“My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not and if any man sin, we have an advocate (Parakleton) Παράκλητον with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous) (1st John 2:1)
Note: The first time the word Paraclete is used is in reference to a man, Jesus.
Jesus (as) mentions that the Paraklete will be like him -and not unlike him.
“If you love me, keep my commandments, and I will pray for the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter (allon Parakleton) ἄλλον Παράκλητον, that HE may abide with you forever.” (John 14:15-16)
‘Another‘- the Greek word Allon means another of the same kind.
The ‘allon Parakleton‘ means in addition to himself another messenger, not heteros, another of a different kind!
If Jesus (as) meant a comforter of a different kind he would have used the Greek word heteron meaning-another of a different kind. The Greek word heteron is where we get the word heterosexual.
An example of the Greek word heteros being used.
“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ another (heteron) ἕτερον gospel.” (Galatians 1:6-9)
(Here the Greek word another (heteron) is another of a different kind.)
A derivative of the word Paraclete is also used to reference a human being.
“Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which is translated as “son of encouragement (parakleseos)” (Acts 4:36)
This is such a very curious text that is full of obfuscation. So we have an individual named Joseph, which is being called ‘Barnabas’ by the apostles. Which in turn is being translated as: The son of encouragement [Parakleseos].
Does the Holy Spirit hear and speak?
“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (akousei) ἀκούσει that shall HE speak (lalesei) λαλήσει and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)
HEAR– The Greek verb (akousei) means to perceive audible sounds.
SPEAK-The Greek verb ; (lalesei) means to speak, to emit sounds.
So this HE has to be able to hear audibly and tell verbally.
The two Greek words Akousei and Lalesei refer to a concrete being with speech organs.
Recall the following text:
” But the Spirit itself (auto) αὐτὸ itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Romans 8:26)
Ask a Christiain does the Holy Spirit speak? Ask him (The Holy Spirit) to speak then!
Does (John 16:12-13) apply to the Holy Spirit? No!
A) Shall not speak of Himself.
B) Whatso ever He shall here is what he will speak.
This cannot be a reference to the Holy Spirit as Christians understand it.
The Qur’an is the created speech of Allah and and the Blessed Prophet (saw) is the mouthpiece of this created speech.
“By the star when it goes down your companion is neither astray nor being misled, nor does he say of his own desire. It is no less than an inspiration sent down to him: He was taught by one mighty in power.” (Qur’an 53:1-5)
Another point is if we reflect upon the above text it presents problems for Christian theology.
“For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (akousei) ἀκούσει that shall HE speak (lalesei) λαλήσει and HE will show you things to come.”
How would the speech of the Spirit be different than the speech of the Father in essence?
Why would the Holy Spirit need to be told what to say when his knowledge is the same as the knowledge of the father in essence?
Remember Christians cannot use the fully deity/full man argument like they can for Jesus. The Holy Spirit does not have two natures as the Dyophysitist (majority of Christianity) claim about Jesus.
So the text of (John 16:12-13) does not necessarily need to be about a man. However, it is equally not possible for it to be about the Holy Spirit-at least not as Christians today understand it.
Say, “Whoever is an enemy of Gabriel should know that he revealed this to your heart by Allah’s Will, confirming what came before it—a guide and good news for the believers.” (Qur’an 2:97)
Angel Gabriel hears from Allah and speaks to the prophets. This is exactly what angels do: they receive and deliver messages. Gabriel is a created being who hears the command of Allah.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has historically struggled with the subordination question. The text of John 16:13 seems to imply a subordinate figure. A figure who hears and speaks, who receives rather than originates. This fits Gabriel perfectly.
Jesus (as) constantly refers to the Paraclete as ‘He’ and not ‘It’.
When one goes back and looks at all the text Jesus consistently used the masculine pronoun ‘He’, however, Spirit in Greek is used in the neuter gender which could be he, she or simply it.
lLet us look at various translations of John 1:32.
Notice that the King James version translates the neutral gender as ‘it’ where as in the New King James version they switch it to ‘He’. The other versions also make it masculine gender as ‘He’, or ‘himself’. The New International Version is the best translation remaining non committal in the gender specification.
“Likewise the Spirit also keeps our infirmities: For we know not what we should pray for as we ought: But the Spirit itself (auto) αὐτὸ itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Romans 8:26)
The above passages show the Holy Spirit as neuter gender which means passages can translate the Holy Spirit as She, He, It. Whereas it is clear that the Paraklete is only referenced as ‘He’.
Recall the point about Jesus calling the Paraklete as (allon Parakleton) ἄλλον Παράκλητον
Another of the same kind, the same genus. The Holy Spirit can be her, him, or it. Jesus is not reference as ‘her’ or it’.
Another reason why (The Comforter, Which is the Holy Spirit) is a scribal insertion.
The New Testament claims Jesus must go away in order for the Holy Spirit to come.
Jesus (as) is reported to make the following claim:
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, The Comforter (Parakletos)Παράκλητος will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send HIM unto you.” (John 16:7)
Yet, the same New Testament clearly shows The Holy Spirit concurrent with Jesus.
So Jesus has to depart in order for this Paraklete to come. Based upon this admission the Paraklete cannot be not the Holy Spirit!
The reason why the Paraklete cannot be the Holy Spirit is because Jesus (as) was around when he was around. Ample text make this abundantly clear.
“And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him.” (Luke 3:23)
(Jesus didn’t have to go anywhere!)
“And Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.” (Luke 4:1)
(Again Jesus and Holy Spirit are present together.)
“Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, So I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit.” (John 20:21-22)
(Jesus didn’t go anywhere!)
“ For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:15)
John was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was even born, which is unlike Jesus who had to receive the Holy Spirit after baptism. The point being John (being filled with the Holy Spirit) was around Jesus.
(Jesus didn’t go anywhere!)
So all these text prove that this Paraklete cannot by the Holy Spirit as Jesus (as) has been around when the Paraklete has been around.
However, Jesus (as) mentions that he needs to go in order to come. This is also an indirect proof that Jesus (as) is dead and not like some have imagined that he is alive in the heavens.
Conclusion.
Jesus departing. These texts are explicit and have proven to be a problem for Christians. The only thing
the Christian can do is to say that the Muslims do not understand these texts. Then the Christian only offers an interpretation of what is obviously clear text.
If the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, then Jesus was wrong to say the Paraclete would only come after his departure. Either the text is inconsistent, or the identification is incorrect.
John 16:12-13 Does this refer to a Prophet to come or the Spirit of Truth?
“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)
So a Christian may object that this can be a reference to a Prophet because the word spirit is clearly used. However, that is because the word ‘spirit’ is being used as a metonymy for a Prophet. It has been used in the following verse in such a way:
“Beloved believe not every SPIRIT (pneumati) πνεύματι , but try the SPIRITS (pneumata) πνεύματα whether they are of God: Because many false PROPHETS are gone out into the world. Hereby know you the SPIRIT of God: Every SPIRIT that confessed that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God:” (1 John 4:1-6)
So you can see that Spirits/Prophets are used interchangeably. So that objection is answered.
However, Muslims can be charitable and agree that this does indeed refer to the Holy Spirit.
Al-Rūḥ Al-Amīn (Trustworthy Spirit)mentioned in the Qur’an.
“‘Which the trustworthy spirit brought down into your heart so that you may be one of the warners.” (Qur’an 26:193-194)
“Say, “The holy spirit has brought it down from your Lord with the truth to reassure the believers, and as a guide and good news for those who submit.” (Qur’an 16:102)
Jesus claims that neither he nor the Bible guide you into all truth.
“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)
This means The Bible alone does not contain all truth. It is only a partial revelation at bests and awaiting the Spirit of Truth and his guidance.
By admission Jesus is not guiding you into all truth. There is one who comes after him that does this.
This creates a problem for the Protestant: If the Spirit guides into all truth, then the Scripture can’t be the only infallible authority.
This creates a problem for Catholics/Orthodox: If the Church (tradition) is the vehicle of the Spirit’s guidance, then the Church’s authority is self-referential and circular.
This is circular because:
- The Church’s authority depends on the Bible
- The Bible’s authority depends on the Church
- Neither can independently validate the other
One thing that the Holy Spirit has never guided the Church on.
Here is a major point that the according to the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, The Roman Catholics, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Baptist that the Holy Spirit has never guided any of them on.
You see the above Christian groups will tell you that God is one being in three persons. That these three persons are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They will tell you that the name of the son is Jesus. They will tell you that the name of the Father is Yahweh. But they will never tell you what the name of the Holy Spirit is. Why is that?
Why can they give us the name of the Father and the name of the Son but not the name of the Holy Spirit?
We can put Christian claims to the test in real time.
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that ask receives; and he that seeks shall find; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.” (Matthew 7:7-8)
So to any Christian on Earth. from any denomination. ask the Holy Spirit to reveal his name to you then. There is not justifiable reason why he shouldn’t.
Christian objections to some Muslim claims.
Now given that some Muslims use (John 16:12-13) as a reference to the coming of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) we will look at some of their ojections and see what is a sound Christiain objection and what is not a sound objection.
1st Christian objection.
“The Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (John 14:17)
It cannot be said that Prophet Muhammed (saw) will live inside anyone. This is unless we use some strained metaphor about his teachings living inside of us. However, it is best not to be like the Christians who use truly strained readings of their text. So this is a sound Christiain objection.
However, the above text is contradicted by the following:
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, The Comforter (Parakletos)Παράκλητος will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send HIM unto you.” (John 16:7)
The Holy Spirit can’t both live with the disciples and be present in their midst and Jesus also needs to depart from the disciples in order to send the Holy Spirit. This is not adding up.
The New Testament does not record Jesus baptizing any of his disciples.
““I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)
Again, Jesus can’t be baptizing anyone with the Holy Spirit especially if it is expedient that he (Jesus) goes away.
The text of the Bible contradict the position of the Orthodox Church.
“In the Mystery of Chrismation (Gr. chrismatis, “anointing”), the newly baptized Orthodox Christian receives the Holy Spirit through anointing with oil by the bishop or priest. From the earliest times, the Church practiced Holy Chrismation immediately following Baptism. This same practice held, whether the newly baptized was an adult or an infant. Western churches (like Roman Catholics and Anglicans), in contrast, usually reserve Baptism and Chrismation for those who reach “the age of reason”.
Source: https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/receiving-the-holy-spirit/
“Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. (John 4:1-2)
So were these disciples unbaptized and performing baptism? If they were baptized why didn’t they receive the Holy Spirit then and there?
Not only this but why isn’t anyone asking the obvious. Where in the hell did the idea of baptism even come from? None of the Old Testament prophets were ever baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The practice is completely alien to the Tanach. Christianity is not in continuity with the Old Testament teachings at all.
2nd. Christian objection.
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all (πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα) that I have told you.” (John 14:26)
First notice the need for clarity. The Comforter, the Holy Spirit. So would we know that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit without the text giving this clarifying remark?
That being said Muhammed (saw) did not come in the name of Jesus. Why would he? So that part is problematic.
What is not problematic is that this Comforter will remind them of what Jesus told them.
This means that there would be some lapse in regard to what Jesus taught. Ironically that would include this very passages in which Jesus is supposed to clarify the role of the Comforter as well as it’s identify.
πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα
The Greek word hypomnēskō unequivocally means “to remind.” It presupposes a lapse in memory.
Source: (https://biblehub.com/greek/upomne_sei_5279.htm)
A reminder is only necessary if something has been forgotten. If the disciples perfectly remembered everything Jesus taught, the Comforter’s role of “reminding” them would be redundant. Therefore, the text logically implies that:
- Some of Jesus’s teachings were lost or forgotten.
- The Comforter would come to restore or bring back what was lost.
If the Comforter needed to “remind” the disciples, then some teachings were at risk of being lost. This undermines the idea of a perfectly preserved tradition.
The Gospel of John itself (John 21:25) states: “There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”
This is a clear admission that the Gospel accounts are selective, not comprehensive.
If the Gospel writers themselves admit that they did not record everything Jesus did or said, then the Comforter’s role of “reminding” becomes even more significant: the Comforter will restore what was not recorded, ensuring the essential teachings were not lost.
The text of John 14:26 is an admission that:
- Jesus taught more than what is recorded.
- The disciples were at risk of forgetting what he taught.
- The Comforter would bring back what was lost.
This is exactly what Allah (swt) says:
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that which they were reminded. So we caused amonghtem animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
3rd. Christian objection.
“Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)
“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (John 15:26)
The Christian objection is sound. Why would Jesus be the one to send the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw). However, as we saw from (John 14:26) it is the father who will send not Jesus. So which is it?
4th Chrisitan objection.
“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever.” (John 14:16)
The problem comes from the word ‘forever’. The Christian will object and ask if the advocate is a reference to the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) how is he with the believers forever?
This is answered by a number of ways.
“To the roots of the mountains I went down, to the land whose bars closed upon me forever. Yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.” (Jonah 2:6)
Jonah was not literally in the land of the dead forever; “forever” means for an extended, indefinite period.
“I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)
Jesus is not physically present but Christians could say they feel his presence or that his teachings live on with them. The same can be said of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw).
It seems rather strange that the other Gospel writers have no mention about this coming Paraklete. Lastly, their remains some curiosity in the retention of the word Paraclete in the Hebrew and Aramaic translations.
The Qur’an 61:6 and the use of a type of literary device to that would be akin to an enthymeme.
“And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O’ children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being AHMAD.” (Qur’an 61:6)
Do you ever wonder why the verse does not say: ”Giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being MUHAMMED?”
Muhammed comes from the triconsonantal Semitic root H-M-D.
The spelling of the word is different but the meaning is the same.
- Jesus (as) did not speak Arabic and so what ever he did say would be in Hebrew or Aramaic and not Greek nor Arabic.
- What ever prophecy Jesus (as) made would either be ‘Ahmad’ or the equivalent of it’s meaning.
- Allah (swt) by using the word ‘Ahmad’ instead of the word ‘Muhammed’ has given us a type of enthymeme by which those interested can investigate the matter. That is to say it is possible that the scribes
“But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places (yuharifuna l-kaima ‘an mawadi’ihi) and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).” (Qur’an 5:13)
What may have been the word in Hebrew or Aramaic?
In the above text we can see the word transliterated as: Mahamaddim. They have translated the word as description ‘lovely.
In the Orthodox Jewish Bible they have put the transliterated word as: Machamaddim and have translated it as: (altogether desirable)
Source for the the text below: (https://www.biblestudytools.com/ojb/shir-hashirim/5.html)
Again a different translation this time we get: “wholly desirable” and we can see that the is a masculine noun pronounced as Machmad. The word origin for this is chamad.
By the way do yourself a favour and copy those Hebrew words and put them in Google translate and listen to how they sound.
Notice that the word in Hebrew is to be desired, delighted in, to covet, to be pleased with, and than look at the Arabic equivalent that they give! With its meaning to praise to eulogize.
Look at the Arabic word that they give.
This in and of itself is not a proof, but it is an intriguing piece of evidence that may point to a preserved remnant of the original prophecy.
May Allah (swt) open the eyes and hearts of those who are sincere.
For further reading on topics in relation to Christianity you may want to read the following:
May Allah Guide the Ummah.
May Allah Forgive the Ummah.
Prima Quran 
https://www.gotquestions.org/John-7-53-8-11.html
The story is a clear forgery. Wasn’t found in the 4th century manuscripts
Is that not eye opening? The one thing said to be written by him is a forgery!
The only reason christianity has survived this far is because little kids are told from early childhood that Jesus loves them. These kids grow up to read jesus in bible the way they assumed and not read what the text says or do research abt the text. Most do not even bother to read, though.. so…
Quite true. On another note did you know that this text of the Qur’an 61:6 so bothers orientalist that they are now trying to come up with theories of how Muhammed (saw) or a latter editor incorporated this text into the Qur’an! The irony is that this endeavor in and of itself bolsters faith. It is an admission that there are such understandings in the earlier faith tradition.
The choice again is between faith or constant skepticism.
Also bless you brother. Light bulb moment! Insh’Allah I will update the article with this information and include the link. It is good that it is a Christian site as well, so that they may see for themselves.
A slight correction: According to all available historical data the Montanists did not believe that the Paraclete was an awaited singular human prophet. Rather Montanus, accompanied by Maximilla and Prisca, held that the Paraclete-Spirit possessed them to such an extent that they were made capable of announcing prophecy, being possessed by God and speaking in His Person. In this they would speak as God, exemplified by the words of Montanus as recorded in the De Trinitate by Didymus the Blind: “I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete”, “I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into to man”.
Tertullian, himself later a Montanist, he is very clear that the Paraclete allowed the ‘New Prophets’ to speak through dwelling in them, not that the Paraclete was a human prophet. This is illustrated in his ‘On the Resurrection of the Flesh’, originally written against Marcion in his denial of the final resurection of the dead, in which he states: “It is a shrewd saying which the Paraclete utters about these people through the mouth of the prophetess Prisca: ‘They are carnal, and yet they hate the flesh”(On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 11.2).
A correction that I send back to you.
I too can copy and paste from: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm
De Trinitate by Didymus the Blind.
1) Did Jerome mention this work by him?
2) Did he write his work before or after he became blind?
3) Do our opponents (especially in those times) best represent the ideas of their opponents.
4) “If you love me, keep my commandments, and I will pray for the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter (allon Parakleton) ἄλλον Παράκλητον, that HE may abide with you forever.” (John 14:15-16)
‘Another‘- the Greek word Allon means another of the same kind.
5) I have quoted scholarship on the matter. One of course is free to disagree with them.
Do you personally believe that Tertullian died as a Montanist?
Forgive me, I intended to refer to the De Trinitate as being commonly attributed to Didymus the Blind. However the text remains a valuable source of information regarding the Montanists and their perception of the role of the Paraclete. However throughout the ecclesiatical writers of the 3rd century who interacted with Montanism, particularly in Tertullian their defender, certain common characteristics can be seen.
Most prominently is a belief that there had been a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Paraclete) through the prophecies of Montanus, Priscila, and Maximilla. The Paraclete indwelt the new prophets and prophetesses, such as Maximilla and Prisca, to such an extent that they spoke in the first person. In such a state they believed themselves empowered to empart divine clarifications in order to guide the Church. Furthermore they focussed upon an ascetic life of resisting persecution, fasting, and avoiding remarriage, together with hostility to any compromise with sin. The Paraclete was not a man, but rather they were so filled/possessed by the Spirit-Paraclete that they were gifted with the ability to speak in prophecy, often in the first person. Furthermore they were seen as representing the active role of the Spirit within the Church, particularly amoungst women, often standing opposes to Episcopal hierarchy.
Such a view is corroberated in Tertullians On the Soul, 9.4, in which he describes a Montanist prophetess: “We have now among us a sister whose lot it has been to be favoured with sundry gifts of revelation, which she experiences in the Spirit by ecstatic vision amidst the sacred rites of the Lord’s day in the church: she converses with angels, and sometimes even with the Lord; she both sees and hears mysterious communications; some men’s hearts she understands, and to them who are in need she distributes remedies”.
With regard to Tertullian, i believe that whilst he was an sincere and ardent believer in the words of the New Prophets of the Paraclete, it is unlikely that he departed wholesale from the Church to join a separate Montanist sect. This is why Christine Trevett refers to him as a ‘Montanist Catholic’. The New Prophets saw themselves as faithful followers of the Living God in Christ and heirs to the Christian tradition as surely as their orthodox opponents saw themselves as the guardians of the gospel. The Montanists were not sharply different from other Roman Christians, given that they were accepted as orthodox for a time by Pope Eleutherus.
This is noted by Tertullian in his Adversus Praxeam: “For after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed his peace on the churches of Asia and Phrygia”. It is in this context that Tertullian critiques Praxeas due to his “importunately urging false accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches”, by which he is accused of persuading the Roman Pope “to recall the pacific letter which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts” of prophecy.
In this Tertullian held that “Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete” in his denial of the ‘New Prophets’, “and he crucified the Father” in his patripassianism. Nowere in this do we see any indication that the Paraclete was seen as a prophecied human figure. Indeed later in the same work Tertullian is explicit that the Paraclete is not a human being: “We who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three“(Against Praxeas, chapter 13).
So, I was looking through the article to try to find out what your initial contention was concerning.
It seems that you have taken issue with the following:
“Comment: Tertullian and Monatanus were early church fathers who played a crucial role in the development of the New Testament text Christians have today. So, if such learned men saw the possibility of the Paraclete referring to a human being, then who are we to say?”
Yet your first response you gave the following:
“In this they would speak as God, exemplified by the words of Montanus as recorded in the De Trinitate by Didymus the Blind: “I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete”, “I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into to man.”
A quote that may not even be attributed to: De Trinitate by Didymus the Blind. Thus, a quote from a book that may not even be from the author and thus may not even represent the words of the person quoted.
However, even in what you gave is the quote: “I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete.” -which shows that at least in this author’s mind there was a claim to being ‘The Paraclete’. Not ‘a’ paraclete but ‘the’ paraclete.
I think you could problematize the understanding by responding: “Yes, but also, he claimed to be The Father, and the Word as well. Fair enough.
Even your follow up statement I do not agree that the statement as being very clear.
“Tertullian, himself later a Montanist, he is very clear that the Paraclete allowed the ‘New Prophets’ to speak through dwelling in them, not that the Paraclete was a human prophet. This is illustrated in his ‘On the Resurrection of the Flesh’, originally written against Marcion in his denial of the final resurection of the dead, in which he states: “It is a shrewd saying which the Paraclete utters about these people through the mouth of the prophetess Prisca: ‘They are carnal, and yet they hate the flesh”(On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 11.2).”
Yet there is no unequivocal statement that from Tertullian that the Paraclete is not a human prophet or prophet(s) plural. Your previous quote allegedly from Didymus the Blind allegedly quoting Montanus has him explicitly claim that he is ‘The Paraclete’.
Given that many Christians believe that one being can be united in three beings (what they call persons to escape the problems of identity) it is possible that these people saw the Paraclete as being able to reside in multiple select Prophets.
Rather than the Paraclete being ‘a prophet’ The Paraclete =Prophets (plural).
It is also possible that in these muddied waters where theological positions are being fleshed out and are/were not entirely clear that Montanus is ‘The Paraclete’ that then gives authority to others to speak.
Prisca speaking is not really her speaking after all, it is Montanus who is the Paraclete.
For example, this would fit in with what you state here:
“The Paraclete was not a man, but rather they were so filled/possessed by the Spirit-Paraclete that they were gifted with the ability to speak in prophecy, often in the first person. Furthermore they were seen as representing the active role of the Spirit within the Church, particularly amoungst women, often standing opposes to Episcopal hierarchy.”
“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)
To put things in perspective
“And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.” (Luke 4:1)
“Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, So I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Ghost.” (John 20:21-22)
Montanist mirrors Jesus in the sense that he is the Paraclete the one chosen to be the Paraclete than this Paraclete empowers others to do and speak on his behalf.
Your point about women here:
“Furthermore, they were seen as representing the active role of the Spirit within the Church, particularly amoungst women, often standing opposes to Episcopal hierarchy.”
It is very interesting.
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” (1 Timothy 2:11)
Women’s salvation comes through having babies.
I wonder if the Montanist held this to be inspired scripture?
We have the deacons the presbyters and the Bishops and a Prophet is above a Bishop. This comes in huge contradistinction of what we know concerning Eastern, Oriental and Latin Roman Catholic & Assyrian Church of the East claim about the role of women in the Church.
This movement and teaching not only gives these Prophets power over the Bishops but it gives women power over the Bishops (men in general).
A Bishop has the authority of apostolic succession. Whereas the New Prophecy movement has the authority of the Holy Spirit itself.
So which one is more authoritative? I think the answer to this is obvious.
As you mentioned here:
“This is noted by Tertullian in his Adversus Praxeam: “For after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed his peace on the churches of Asia and Phrygia”. It is in this context that Tertullian critiques Praxeas due to his “importunately urging false accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches”, by which he is accused of persuading the Roman Pope “to recall the pacific letter which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts” of prophecy.”
Certainly, The Roman Pope was either ill-advised or ignorant or both concerning the true of these people.
But than we also have this text:
“He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.” (Acts 21:9)
We also have The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all of Africa has supported the decision of the Orthodox Archbishop of Zimbabwe, Metropolitan Serafim, to ordain a female deaconess for missionary needs
https://balkaninsight.com/2024/05/13/greek-orthodox-patriarchate-supports-first-woman-deacon-in-africa-mission/
It would also be interesting to see how the New Prophecy responded to text like the following:
“The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.” (1 Corinthians 14:32)
Or if the New Prophecy movement used text like the following:
“For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.” (1 Corinthians 13:9-10)
Even the Prophecy about the Paraklete states: “HE will guide you into all truth.” The indication from this text is that the current group of believers are not upon full guidance, but only partial guidance at best.
It would make sense that the New Prophecy movement would give guidance where both the scripture was silent, and the church did not seem to have a foundation for.
Like on the issue: You could re-marry after your spouse died. Montanas are saying no you cannot remarry after your spouse died.
Or the idea of women wearing veils to protect themselves from lustful angels. What is also interesting is the text is not stating that women cannot make prophecies.
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (1 Corinthians 11:4-10)
“With regard to Tertullian, i believe that whilst he was an sincere and ardent believer in the words of the New Prophets of the Paraclete, it is unlikely that he departed wholesale from the Church to join a separate Montanist sect. This is why Christine Trevett refers to him as a ‘Montanist Catholic’. The New Prophets saw themselves as faithful followers of the Living God in Christ and heirs to the Christian tradition as surely as their orthodox opponents saw themselves as the guardians of the gospel.”
I could see why Orthos or Latin Roman Catholics would struggle with the idea of Tertullian being a heretic or dying upon heresy.
For example, to me it is very clear that Tertullian did not believe in the eternality of the son based upon the following:
“Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”
Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0313.htm)
Tertullian also seems to be the first to attest to the filioque that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
“because I believe Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son.”
Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm)
I was surprised by the last paragraph you quoted because it is included in my article. The very quote is embedded from the text it is taken from: and the source for that was: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History volume 5 chapter 14
“The enemy of God’s Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange heresies spring up against the Church. For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, boasting that Monatanus was the Paraclete, and that the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus.”
So, Toby I have enjoyed our interactions on here, but I hope for the sake of integrity you will not blatantly ignore what is quoted in my articles. The sources are there.
Now you can obviously see that Eusebius is writing with the all the sting and vitriol one might expect from an opponent, but he clearly states that people believed that Montanus was the Paraclete.
Also, all the evidence are laid out in the article itself (using the primary document) the New Testament Canon.
This in and of itself shows there is more than meets the eye when discussing the coming Paraclete.
You state:
“Indeed later in the same work Tertullian is explicit that the Paraclete is not a human being: “We who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three“(Against Praxeas, chapter 13).
My response:
Indeed, it is not explicit. The statement ‘not of human teachers’ can be a slap in the face of those informed by tradition. (See the argument above concerning what has more authority) apostolic succession or the Holy Spirit?
‘Not of human teachers’ makes perfect sense considering: But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak (John 16:12-13)
“He does not speak out of his own desires. It is not but a revelation revealed (Qur’an 43:3-4)
“Do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three.”
An odd way to formulate a sentence. Yet, nothing in that sentence implicitly identifies the Paraclete with the Holy Spirit.
May Allah guide you to the truth!
Dear Sir
Thank you for your reply. Yet it is vital to note, as I said before, that the Montanist prophetic figures spoke in the first person as a result of the depth of the indwelling/possession by the Paraclete-Spirit. By such an indwelling of the Paraclete the Oracle-Prophet would often speak as the whole Trinity. Thus an idea of the activity of the “Paraclete” in the present tense and the concept of ongoing prophecy were important parts of the early Montanist self-understanding. More modern comparisons might be found amoungst the early Franciscan mystics or the French Protestant Camisard Prophets of the Cévennes.
This is illustrated in a later Montanist quotation recorded by Theodore of Heracleia, an ecclesiastical ally of Eusebius Pamphilius: “I am the Word, the Bridegroom, the Paraclete, the Omnipotent One, I am all Things.” Thus the Oracle-Prophet refered to himself or herself as the Paraclete in the divine first person due to the fact that they entered a state of ecstatic passivity in which they spoke with the voice of God. Montanus compares a man in the prophetic spiritual ecstasy with a musical instrument, on which the Holy Spirit plays his melodies. “Behold,” says he in one of his oracles, in the name of the Paraclete, “the man is as a lyre, and I sweep over him as a plectrum. The man sleeps; I wake. Behold, it is the Lord who puts the hearts of men out of themselves, and who gives hearts to men.” These oracles should be understood as introductory formulae to larger prophecies similar to the Old Testament “Thus says The LORD,” not as the prophet making his own claim to being the Paraclete.
In such a state the prophetess Maximilla claimed: “Hear not me, but hear Christ.” It was in a similar context that Prisca spoke under the infleuence of the Paraclete (identified by Tertullian as the Spirit in ‘On Modesty, chapter 21’) Interestingly it has been theorised that the oracles identified with Montanus and Maximilla can be looked upon as early examples of a proto-Trinitarianism. Thus whilst you are correct in saying that that these people saw the Paraclete as being able to reside in multiple select Prophets, it dwelled as the Spirit of God inspiring new prophecy, not as an single awaited human figure. With regard to Eusebius, it is genrally recived that he was exaggerating the heretical nature of the Montanist movement. By contrast the noted scholar Christine Trevett explains that early sources suggest Montanus wasn’t claiming to be the Paraclete, just that he was speaking as a mouthpiece for the Spirit.
It was in this context that Montanus and his charismatic followers are recorded as having spoken under the infleuence of the divine Paraclete. The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, was speaking through Montanus, Maximilla, Prisca and their followers not as a singular human figure who was awaited. Such a view is strongly reflected in the extant writings of Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus. Examples of such an unequivocal understnding of the Paraclete (or Comforter) as the Holy Spirit include numerous examples from Against Praxeas alone:
“We believe Him (Christ) to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost”(Against Praxeas, chapter 2).
Tertullian, commenting upon John 14, 15 and 16, states that the Paraclete refutes the Modalism of Praxeas: “Then there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He (Christ) promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. He is called another Comforter, indeed; but in what way He is another we have already shown, “He shall receive of mine”, says Christ, just as Christ Himself received of the Father’s. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another”(Against Praxeas, chapter 25, entitled: “The Paraclete, or Holy Ghost. He is Distinct from the Father and the Son as to Their Personal Existence. One and Inseparable from Them as to Their Divine Nature. Other Quotations Out of St. John’s Gospel”).
Tertullian furthermore is clear in the role of the Paraclete in the Trinitarian economy: “He (Christ) will come again on the clouds of heaven, just as He appeared when He ascended into heaven. Meanwhile He has received from the Father the promised gift, and has shed it forth, even the Holy Spirit—the Third Name in the Godhead, and the Third Degree of the Divine Majesty; the Declarer of the One Monarchy of God, but at the same time the Interpreter of the Economy to every one who hears and receives the words of the new prophecy; and “the Leader into all truth,” such as is in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, according to the mystery of the doctrine of Christ”(Against Praxeas, chapter 30). In this particular quotation we see the pronounced nature of Tertullians pro-montanist sentiments, as the Paraclete.
Such a view is further supported by Novatian of Rome, a later theologian strongly theologically infleuenced by Tertullian: “He (the Paraclete) is therefore one and the same Spirit who was in the prophets and apostles, except that in the former He was occasional, in the latter always. But in the former not as being always in them, in the latter as abiding always in them; and in the former distributed with reserve, in the latter all poured out; in the former given sparingly, in the latter liberally bestowed; not yet manifested before the Lord’s resurrection, but conferred after the resurrection. For, said He, “I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Advocate, that He may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth.”And, “When He, the Advocate, shall come, whom I shall send unto you from my Father, the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from my Father”(One the Trinity, chapter 29).
Lastly Origen unequivically supports the identification of the Paraclete with the Holy Spirit: “For he too is different from the Father and from the Son, as it is said of him no less in the Gospels: ‘The Father shall send you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth.’ So there is this distinction of three persons in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is recalled in the plural number of the wells. Yet of these wells there is one spring. For the substance and nature of the Trinity is one” Homily 12 on Numbers 21:16-23.
Tertullian does indeed contrast the divine revelation of the Paraclete from human tradition and leadership, particularly in the sphere of Church organisation. Yet in the context of Against Praxeas chapter 13 it is notable that the following of the Paraclete is synonymous with adherence to early Trinitarianism. In this Tertullian states that “two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God”. Putting aside the issue of Tertullians later orthodoxy, it is evident that the guidance of the Paraclete was not the guidance of an awaited prophet, but that of the Paraclete speaking through certain people.
Consequently by the guidnace of the Paraclete as opposed to human teachers Tertullian proclaims that the piritual Church may gain “that perfect knowledge which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost”. This is further supported in De Pudicitia, in which Tertullian states: “For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.(The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in “three.” This reflects the general perception that Montanism in during Tertullian’s career represents a movement within the larger church, not an
alternative to it.
God love you.
Dear Sir
Thank you for your reply. Yet it is vital to note, as I said before, that the Montanist prophetic figures spoke in the first person as a result of the depth of the indwelling/possession by the Paraclete-Spirit. By such an indwelling of the Paraclete the Oracle-Prophet would often speak as the whole Trinity. Thus an idea of the activity of the “Paraclete” in the present tense and the concept of ongoing prophecy were important parts of the early Montanist self-understanding. More modern comparisons might be found amoungst the early Franciscan mystics or the French Protestant Camisard Prophets of the Cévennes.
“By such an indwelling of the Paraclete the Oracle-Prophet would often speak as the whole Trinity.”
Correction Toby They would not speak ‘as the whole Trinity’ this doctrine was still in the process of being fleshed out. This is your commentary and your take. Tertulian was quoted denying the eternality of the Son. Tertulian was quoted can be used to bolster the Latin Roman Church against the claims of the Orthos on the Filioque.
This is illustrated in a later Montanist quotation recorded by Theodore of Heracleia, an ecclesiastical ally of Eusebius Pamphilius: “I am the Word, the Bridegroom, the Paraclete, the Omnipotent One, I am all Things.” Thus the Oracle-Prophet refered to himself or herself as the Paraclete in the divine first person due to the fact that they entered a state of ecstatic passivity in which they spoke with the voice of God. Montanus compares a man in the prophetic spiritual ecstasy with a musical instrument, on which the Holy Spirit plays his melodies. “Behold,” says he in one of his oracles, in the name of the Paraclete, “the man is as a lyre, and I sweep over him as a plectrum. The man sleeps; I wake. Behold, it is the Lord who puts the hearts of men out of themselves, and who gives hearts to men.” These oracles should be understood as introductory formulae to larger prophecies similar to the Old Testament “Thus says The LORD,” not as the prophet making his own claim to being the Paraclete.
Again, this is your take and your observation given the data. We have already quoted the sources. From Eusebius. An ally of Eusebius does not necessarily need to have the same take or share the same data that he does.
In such a state the prophetess Maximilla claimed: “Hear not me, but hear Christ.” It was in a similar context that Prisca spoke under the infleuence of the Paraclete (identified by Tertullian as the Spirit in ‘On Modesty, chapter 21′) Interestingly it has been theorised that the oracles identified with Montanus and Maximilla can be looked upon as early examples of a proto-Trinitarianism. Thus whilst you are correct in saying that that these people saw the Paraclete as being able to reside in multiple select Prophets, it dwelled as the Spirit of God inspiring new prophecy, not as an single awaited human figure. With regard to Eusebius, it is genrally recived that he was exaggerating the heretical nature of the Montanist movement. By contrast the noted scholar Christine Trevett explains that early sources suggest Montanus wasn’t claiming to be the Paraclete, just that he was speaking as a mouthpiece for the Spirit.
“ Interestingly it has been theorised that the oracles identified with Montanus and Maximilla can be looked upon as early examples of a proto-Trinitarianism.”
Which exposes your theological assertions upon the data. Because above you stated clearly:
““By such an indwelling of the Paraclete the Oracle-Prophet would often speak as the whole Trinity.”
Also, we need to be circumspect in representing what each other said.
“Thus whilst you are correct in saying that that these people saw the Paraclete as being able to reside in multiple select Prophets, it dwelled as the Spirit of God inspiring new prophecy, not as an single awaited human figure.”
This is insidious and deceptive on your behalf.
What I actually said/wrote:
“Given that many Christians believe that one being can be united in three beings (what they call persons to escape the problems of identity) it is POSSIBLE that these people saw the Paraclete as being able to reside in multiple select Prophets.”
Nor did I deny the following for them:
“it dwelled as the Spirit of God inspiring new prophecy, not as an single awaited human figure.”
We have the quote from Eusebius.
As regarding some type of trinitarian formula or conception you initially quoted in your first response a reference to ‘De Trinitate’ by Didymus the Blind.
Are you aware that is claimed that in he claimed that there were Montanist who were Monarchian and those who were not? Source: Did. Trin. 3.41.1
Which entails there was not uniformity in belief. This is one of the points I raised.
Why do Church fathers claim to interact with material from others that we can not see no do we have access to?
It was in this context that Montanus and his charismatic followers are recorded as having spoken under the infleuence of the divine Paraclete. The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, was speaking through Montanus, Maximilla, Prisca and their followers not as a singular human figure who was awaited. Such a view is strongly reflected in the extant writings of Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus. Examples of such an unequivocal understnding of the Paraclete (or Comforter) as the Holy Spirit include numerous examples from Against Praxeas alone:
I have already responded to this as the possibility of the Paraclete being identified with one man Montanus. After all this is the data Eusebius gives us. His followers identified him (Montanus) with the Paraclete. Now just as we are seeing the trinitarian doctrine slowly evolve it is possible that this doctrine itself evolves in the milieu of all the surrounding controversies. Because the ONLY source that you have been able to give us (which is contrasted with earlier claims) of
“According to all available historical data the Montanist did not believe that the Paraclete was an awaited singular human prophet.” Yet the conversation centres around Tertullian and the claims attributed to him.
Tertullian says that the Paraclete’s instructions are novelties of discipline but not of doctrine, Monog. 3.8; 9
Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0406.htm)
For example: The Paraclete could abrogate the teachings of Paul according to Tertulian.
“And here, accordingly, we will render the supplement of this (his) meaning. For if Christ abrogated what Moses enjoined, because from the beginning (it) was not so; and (if)— this being so — Christ will not therefore be reputed to have come from some other Power; why may not the Paraclete, too, have abrogated an indulgence which Paul granted — because second marriage withal was not from the beginning — without deserving on this account to be regarded with suspicion, as if he were an alien spirit, provided only that the superinduction be worthy of God and of Christ?
Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0406.htm)
“We believe Him (Christ) to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost”(Against Praxeas, chapter 2).
As stated in my article I always find that curious “, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete.” Notice we do not need identifiers for The Father, As YHWH or the Son as Christ Jesus. Yes when it comes to the Paraclete we need an identifiers “Holy Ghost” or “Holy Spirit”
Tertullian, commenting upon John 14, 15 and 16, states that the Paraclete refutes the Modalism of Praxeas: “Then there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He (Christ) promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. He is called another Comforter, indeed; but in what way He is another we have already shown, “He shall receive of mine”, says Christ, just as Christ Himself received of the Father’s. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another”(Against Praxeas, chapter 25, entitled: “The Paraclete, or Holy Ghost. He is Distinct from the Father and the Son as to Their Personal Existence. One and Inseparable from Them as to Their Divine Nature. Other Quotations Out of St. John’s Gospel”).
It would have been so amazing if these people would have had the New Testament canon as we know today.
1) Jesus did not to go anywhere.
2) The Holy Spirit was already being poured out.
3) Are we going to say that the following did not have the Holy Spirit or were not writing under the directorate of the Holy Spirit?
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Paul
James
Peter
Jude
None of the disciples nor anyone in the NT canon speaks in the way that is claimed that Montanus, Prisca, Maximilla spoke. Not even a modicum or trace of this in the New Testament canon.
In fact, they were thought to have been possessed by demons and not the Holy Spirit.
“The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.” (1 Corinthians 14:32)
Seems like we have two paths of conflicting means to derive legitimacy and authority. One path is the claim that the Church is the guide for followers of Christ. The other path is the claim that this Paraclete is the guide for the followers of Christ.
In my previous response we discussed about this.
It is interesting that Ephiphanius in his Panarion Claims them (followers of Montanus) to be given over to the doctrine of devils and seducing spirits. This means that Tertullian possibly died while being under the influence of devils, seducing spirits and demons. Which means without doubt he is in hellfire. Or the least one can do (according to us) would be to suspend judgement. Wuqoof.
Tertullian furthermore is clear in the role of the Paraclete in the Trinitarian economy: “He (Christ) will come again on the clouds of heaven, just as He appeared when He ascended into heaven. Meanwhile He has received from the Father the promised gift, and has shed it forth, even the Holy Spirit—the Third Name in the Godhead, and the Third Degree of the Divine Majesty; the Declarer of the One Monarchy of God, but at the same time the Interpreter of the Economy to every one who hears and receives the words of the new prophecy; and “the Leader into all truth,” such as is in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, according to the mystery of the doctrine of Christ”(Against Praxeas, chapter 30). In this particular quotation we see the pronounced nature of Tertullians pro-montanist sentiments, as the Paraclete.
Such a view is further supported by Novatian of Rome, a later theologian strongly theologically infleuenced by Tertullian: “He (the Paraclete) is therefore one and the same Spirit who was in the prophets and apostles, except that in the former He was occasional, in the latter always. But in the former not as being always in them, in the latter as abiding always in them; and in the former distributed with reserve, in the latter all poured out; in the former given sparingly, in the latter liberally bestowed; not yet manifested before the Lord’s resurrection, but conferred after the resurrection. For, said He, “I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Advocate, that He may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth.”And, “When He, the Advocate, shall come, whom I shall send unto you from my Father, the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from my Father”(One the Trinity, chapter 29).
Tertullian detests monarchianism (Adv. Prax. 1.1–3; 5) and attributes his essentially catholic doctrine of the Trinity to the Paraclete (Adv. Prax. 2.1; 8.5). Montanists are, however, accused of monarchianism in the Dial. Mont. Orth. (Labriolle pp. 92–98) and at Jer. Ep. 41.3; cf. Orig. Cels. 8.9; Hippol. Haer. 8.19.3. PsT 7.2 and Did. Trin. 3.41.1 distinguish between Montanists who are monarchian and those who are not.
Source: (Commentary on the Panarion of Ephiphaniusu of Salamis Books 11 and 111)
But Novation of Rome is of no consequence in this exchange. Unless you are bringing proof that he was a follower of Montanus. It is like you quoting 30 other bishops or theologians of that time that believed that the Holy Spirit =Paraclete. That is not what is contested at all.
Lastly Origen unequivically supports the identification of the Paraclete with the Holy Spirit: “For he too is different from the Father and from the Son, as it is said of him no less in the Gospels: ‘The Father shall send you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth.’ So there is this distinction of three persons in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is recalled in the plural number of the wells. Yet of these wells there is one spring. For the substance and nature of the Trinity is one” Homily 12 on Numbers 21:16-23.
Origin too is of no consequence in this exchange. Unless you are bringing proof that he was a follower of Montanus. It is like you quoting 30 other bishops or theologians of that time that believed that the Holy Spirit =Paraclete. That is not what is contested at all.
Tertullian does indeed contrast the divine revelation of the Paraclete from human tradition and leadership, particularly in the sphere of Church organisation. Yet in the context of Against Praxeas chapter 13 it is notable that the following of the Paraclete is synonymous with adherence to early Trinitarianism. In this Tertullian states that “two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God”. Putting aside the issue of Tertullians later orthodoxy, it is evident that the guidance of the Paraclete was not the guidance of an awaited prophet, but that of the Paraclete speaking through certain people.
“Yet in the context of Against Praxeas chapter 13 it is notable that the following of the Paraclete is synonymous with adherence to early Trinitarianism.”
Again, look to your statements earlier:
“ Interestingly it has been theorised that the oracles identified with Montanus and Maximilla can be looked upon as early examples of a proto-Trinitarianism.”
Consequently by the guidnace of the Paraclete as opposed to human teachers Tertullian proclaims that the piritual Church may gain “that perfect knowledge which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost”. This is further supported in De Pudicitia, in which Tertullian states: “For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.(The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in “three.” This reflects the general perception that Montanism in during Tertullian’s career represents a movement within the larger church, not an
alternative to it.
God love you.
Indeed and may God love you and guide you. The misattributions to my statements were unwarranted.
Your initial complaint was based upon not reading the article carefully. This back and forth becomes now fixated on the person of Tertullian and his claims.
Even then there are several admissions from your side that Montanus self identified as the Paraclete, as Eusebius claims for his followers.
Your have not conceded what Eusebius has said. Your contentions not center around things of which are not claims nor statements of mine.
I find that disingenuous.
I cannot do better then God. I leave you to your devices.
We pray that God loves you and grants you guidance.
Additionally Eusebius himself states that Montanus and his followers believed themselves “themselves possessed of the Holy Spirit and of a prophetic gift” under whose infleuences “they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely”. This is strikingly similar to Montanus own mystic trances, in which “in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things”. It is generally held that this refers to the trance state in which Montanus and his followers claimed to be filled by the Spirit and in which they spoke in the first person as the Paraclete.
” It is generally held that this refers to the trance state in which Montanus and his followers claimed to be filled by the Spirit and in which they spoke in the first person as the Paraclete.”
Note to the reader these are the thoughts of Toby and not Eusebius
With regard to Quran 61:6, may I ask to whom is Jesus portrayed as speking to here ? The Jews generally or his believing disciples specifically ?
The Children of Israel, as he was only sent to.them.
So.that statement is said to the Children of Israel, some believed and others did not believe.
Thank you for the clarification. Consequently, would I be correct in saying that in this Chapter Jesus is speaking to the Children of Isreal as a whole, believing and otherwise, rather than specifically to the inner circle of Disciples ?
I believe that is a correct assessment. I don’t see anything from the immediate text, context, or other verses that indicates otherwise.