jump to navigation

Is John 16:7-14 Referencing the Holy Spirit or Muhammad? December 31, 2009

Posted by theconfessors in Apologetics, Bible, Christianity, God, Islam, Muhammad, Religion, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , ,
trackback

While blogsurfing the wordpress world, we came across an interesting blog that provides arguments to a somewhat common Muslim claim that is thrown out there.  The entry claims that the Comforter in John 16:7-14 is actually a prophecy regarding Muhammad and not the Holy Spirit like Christians believe. It’s always fascinating to see Islam turn to the Bible, despite their unrelenting attacks against it, to provide “proof” for their beliefs. We attempted to start up a dialogue with its author, but after the second round of going back and fourth all the comments were deleted for unknown reasons. So keeping with the purposes of this blog in mind, we’ll present his arguments and then offer up a response.

His arguments revolve around these four points: (1) A spirit and a prophet can be the same thing (basing this off of his interpretation of 1 John 4) (2) The Holy Spirit has come prior to Jesus (Luke 1:41), rendering this a false statement if applied to the Holy Spirit (3) The Holy Spirit hasn’t guided believers like Muhammad has and (4) once the Qur’an is studied, we will see The Comforter as Muhammad because of the Qur’an’s evidence.

Before we even have to deal with his arguments the whole conclusion runs aground. In John 14:25, it specifically states that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit, contrary to what he argues: “The intention of this writing is to prove to that this prophesy is not referring to the Holy Ghost, rather it is referring to the last and final Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).” This leaves him with one of these three options, (1) conceed that John 16:7-14 is referencing the Holy Spirit, (2) provide good reasons to reject John 14:25’s claim, or (3) provide another string of arguments that can show Muhammad is specifically the Holy Spirit. Since his conclusion is false from the start, the premises are also false and thus can be rejected without even dealing with them; if the he reads this we welcome a response to this.

In Christ,

The Confessors

Advertisements

Comments»

1. shajahanahmed - December 31, 2009

The reason why I deleted the comments is: I didn’t create an account on wordpress to have debates but to present my point of view. Now if you want to refute and debate then I very simply invited you to comment me on my YouTube channel, I even gave you the link.

The four points:
1. A spirit and a prophet can be the same thing is not my interpretation, this is what the Bible tells me. We read 1st John 4:1 (the King James Version of the Bible) and we see that the words ‘spirit’ and ‘prophet’ are used synonymously in one sentence.
2. John 16:7: in this verse we learn that the Comforter (also the Spirit of truth) will not come if Jesus (pbuh) doesn’t depart. This means that the Comforter was not there at the time of Jesus (pbuh). If the Holy Ghost is what the prophesy is referring to then it doesn’t make sense. We read: “And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.” (Luke 1:41). This passage from the Bible indicates that the Holy Ghost was already present. So the Idea of the Comforter being the Holy Ghost is already thrown out the window. (If John 14:25’s claim is true then this point still needs to be answered otherwise isn’t this a contradiction?)
3. If this comforter or Spirit of truth is supposed to be the Holy Ghost, then it is logical to ask: what guidance did the Holy Ghost give in two thousand years that Jesus (pbuh) hasn’t already given? Because in John 16:12-14 Jesus (pbuh) said the Spirit of Truth shall guide us into all truth. What solutions did the Holy Ghost give in two thousand years to the problems such as: Racism and Alcohol that Jesus (pbuh) hasn’t already given? There are so many Christians who claim to have the Holy Ghost helping them, but in so many years not one has been able to provide a solution to a problem and say: the Holy Ghost gave him/her this solution.
4. If we study the life of Muhammad (pbuh) and the revelation given to him: the Holy Quran, we will come to realise that this Comforter, this Spirit of Truth (which the Bible talks about) is none other than Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Why? Because He (pbuh) provided the solutions and guidance to all the problems which humanity needed and still needs. The Qur’an is enough evidence to support this statement. Open and read the Qur’an, and we will find solutions and guidance to all our problems such as: Alcohol, Racism, Surplus of women and many more.

Without giving a logical answer to these four points you have provided you own argument based around John 14:25. Are my four points wrong? Please explain why. Then we can start talking about John 14:25.

2. theconfessors - December 31, 2009

shajahanahmed,

We don’t discredit your right to put out your personal views on things. However, since it is a public forum, you should expect flak, especially if it steps on others views.

We don’t need to discuss the four points because the author of John 16:7-14 identifies the Comforter as the Holy Spirit in John 14:25, thus your premises are false, because the conclusion is false. To make your premises true, you would need to first provide evidence as to why we shouldn’t accept John 14:25.

Heres an example of what your doing: (A) writes: “A nation called bablyon is the nation I’m talking about…. This nation will rise out of Mesopotamia and will be powerful and rule most of the known world at that time.” (B) Says this: “Obviously the nation (A) is talking about is Assyria as they came from Mesopotamia, were powerful, and ruled the known world at that time.” Well no, because (A) made it clear who he was talking about.

3. shajahanahmed - January 1, 2010

If John 14:25 is true then there is a serious contradiction between John 14:25 and John 16:7. John 16:7 explains that the comforter will not come if Jesus (pbuh) doesn’t depart, indicating that the comforter was not present during the time of Jesus (pbuh). If this Comforter is the Holy Ghost then it doesn’t make sense, evidence from the Bible shows that the Holy Ghost was already there (Luke 1:41).

Just because John 14:25 is by the same author of John 16:7-14, it doesn’t disprove my argument. My four points are still valid and should be posed to question John 14:25 since they originate from the Bible itself and by the same author. And so there should be no contradiction between John 14:25 and John 16:7 when analysed side be side. But what I am trying point out (through my four points) is that there is a contradiction.

4. theconfessors - January 1, 2010

shajahanahmed,

Your argument/conclusion is “The Comforter is Muhammad and not the Holy Spirit, because of John 16:7-12.” Since the author of John already states that The Comforter is the Holy Spirit, your premises are either wrong and don’t lead to the conclusion or the argument isn’t developed enough. As stated earlier, you have to show that John was mistaken in what he wrote in John 14. Which also means you have to prove why we then can take John 16:7-12 for what it says.

To break it down further: your premises could all be true and yet John 16:7-12 could still refer to the Holy Spirit, heres how.

1)Premise one could still be true while the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, because simply, John is specifically identifies the Comforter as the Holy Spirit and not just a spirit.

2) Your premise two could be true and Luke would just contradict John here if it is the Holy Spirit. But the debate isn’t on the consistancy of the Bible, its on John 16 being addressed to Muhammad or the Holy Spirit. John 14 shows the subject of who John was talking about; thus the most you could show using this premise is either your interpretation on John 16:7-12 is wrong or the Bible is inconsistant which the latter isn’t the topic of discussion. However, if we did accept the second option, that the Bible is inconsistant, then you have to provide ample evidence to accept John 16:7-12 while rejecting John 14:25, as it would then become suspect of being a mistake.

3) The Holy Spirit could fall short in this area; but that could either mean three things: (i) John was mistaken in his prophecy,calling the Comforter the Holy Spirit when its not,(ii) John fails in his prophecy about what the Holy Spirit will do (i.e. guide to the world), (iii) or you aren’t correctly interpreting what John is saying in John 16.
If we take points (i) and (ii) you then have to prove why you can apply John 16:7-12 to Muhammad despite it coming from a false prophet.

4) Muhammad could still be accepted as a “guide to the world” while John 16:7-12 is being addressed specifically to the Holy Spirit.

So what you need to do to make your four arguments and conclusion valid is prove why we can reject John 14:25 but maintain John 16:7-12. After this is done, your other four premises would probably work, and then I’d have to deal with them.

5. shajahanahmed - January 2, 2010

The Bible’s consistency is included in this discussion. Consistency is the core aspect of any argument and without regarding consistency as a key issue, then there is no point of a debate. Because: the Bible could be contradicting left, right and centre on the subject of the Comforter and therefore proving my point, but all you would say is “but the debate isn’t on the consistency of the Bible”. If you are going to leave consistency out of the picture then there is no point of us debating this issue as we will never come to a conclusion.

If this comforter or Spirit of truth is supposed to be the Holy Ghost, then it is logical to ask: what guidance did the Holy Ghost give in two thousand years that Jesus (pbuh) hasn’t already given? Because in John 16:12-14 Jesus (pbuh) said the Spirit of Truth shall guide us into all truth. What solutions did the Holy Ghost give in two thousand years to the problems such as: Racism and Alcohol that Jesus (pbuh) hasn’t already given? There are so many Christians who claim to have the Holy Ghost helping them, but in so many years not one has been able to provide a solution to a problem and say: the Holy Ghost gave him/her this solution.

Why can’t John 16:7-14 be applied to Muhammad (pbuh)? If he has fulfilled all that was promised in the prophesy then why not? Just because John says the comforter is the Holy Ghost it doesn’t prove him right when Luke is contradicting him. Luke says the Holy Ghost was there before Jesus (pbuh) departed (Luke 1:41), but John says the Comforter will not come until Jesus (pbuh) departs (John 16:7-14) indicating that the Holy Ghost was not there before the departing of Jesus (pbuh).

I don’t believe the Bible to be a 100% corrupted. There are portions of the Bible which is the word of God according to the Muslims. Anything from the Bible which matches with the Qur’an is the word of God.

6. theconfessors - January 2, 2010

shajahanahmed,

The problem is John identifies the Comforter as the Holy Spirit in John 14:25. You quote John 16:7-12, and claim that this is in regards to Muhammad, but then you reject John 14:25 which states something against your conclusion. This is the fallacy of cherry picking, unless you can provide good reason to reject John 14:25 while maintaing that we can accept John 16:25. Merely quoting Luke to prove the Holy Spirit has indeed come before to prove your point that it can’t be the Holy Spirit does nothing for the cause, because now you have to prove that Luke was not mistaken, since your claiming possible inconsistancy with the Scriptures and Luke is in the Scriptures. So then you have to not only prove why we should take John at 16:7-12 and reject John at 14:25, but you must also prove why we should take Luke’s narrative and any other reference from the Bible that you may want to quote; thats if consistancy is dragged into this particular debate.

7. shajahanahmed - January 3, 2010

Why do I have to prove Luke was not mistaken? Do you believe Luke was mistaken? If yes, then that just shows how poorly reliable the Bible is. I have already shown you how Luke is contradicting John. I don’t need to prove to you if Luke was mistaken or not because it is in the Bible. The same Bible which you believe to be the word of God, or don’t you? And we both know a true revelation from God cannot be false. As I said before: Just because John says the comforter is the Holy Ghost it doesn’t prove him right when Luke is contradicting him. Luke says the Holy Ghost was there before Jesus (pbuh) departed (Luke 1:41), but John says the Comforter will not come until Jesus (pbuh) departs (John 16:7-14) indicating that the Holy Ghost was not there before the departing of Jesus (pbuh).

I could ask you the same question: why should we ignore John 16:7-14 and Luke 1:41 for John 14:26. John 16:7-14 and Luke 1:41 clearly contradict each other, so we need to resolve this matter first before we can accept John 14:26. John 16:7-14 explains about the comforter and therefore gives a method to test John 14:26.

Any quotations that I give from the Bible need not to be provided with proof to be accepted. Because you already believe the Bible to be the Word of God (if you don’t then please tell me). And you should believe everything in the Bible is true because you believe it is the word of God.

8. theconfessors - January 3, 2010

The debate isn’t on our position of Biblical consistancy, its on your positive claim that John 16:7-12 is refering to Muhammad. So until you can provide good reasons to accept John 16 and reject John 14 under your philosophical view of the Bible (that its inconsistant) we have no need to deal with any of your arguments because its a fallacious position to start with.

Now in regards to our position of believing the Bible is consistant; if you grant our position of consistancy for the sake of argument, this puts you in a pickle, because now you have to accept what John 14:25 says (cause the Bible is consistant for the sake of the argument). However, if you choose to argue that you can no longer grant us consistancy in the Bible, you are back to where you’re at now; which is having to prove that Luke 1:41, John 16, and any other verse you use is not corrupted and mistaken.

(note bold isn’t for yelling, just to emphasize)

9. shajahanahmed - January 3, 2010

The reason why you should accept John 16:7-14 is because it is in your Bible. You’re basically asking me to prove your Bible which you believe to be the word of God to yourself.

I never said the Bible is consistent. I have pointed out that the Bible should be consistent but in truth it is not. If Luke 1:41 contradicts John 14:26 & John 16:7-14 then how can we say the Bible is consistent?

For the second time! Why do I have to prove to you that Luke 1:41, John 16:7-14, and any other verse that I quote are not corrupted or mistaken? Do you believe the Bible is corrupted? If you do then welcome aboard, I also believe the Bible is corrupted. The reason why I quote you from the Bible is because you believe in the Bible to be the word of God (or don’t you?), and therefore you cannot argue that my quotations are false.

I have already shown how Luke 1:41 contradicts John 14:26 & John 16:7-14. In addition, even John contradicts himself regarding the Comforter being the Holy Ghost.
1. John says the Comforter is the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).
2. John then says the Comforter (which is supposed to be the Holy Ghost) will not come until Jesus (pbuh) departs (John 16:7) indicating that the Holy Ghost was not there before the departing of Jesus (pbuh).
3. John then contradicts what he wrote in John 16:7 by writing: “Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” (John 20:21-22) this indicates that the Comforter (which is supposed to be the Holy Ghost) was there during the time of Jesus (pbuh).
We need to resolve the contradiction between John 16:7 and John 20:21-22 before we can accept John 14:26. If John is saying one thing in John 14:26 & 16:7 and the opposite in John 20:21-22 (which contradicts John 14:26 & 16:7), then how can we be so sure that John 14:26 is right?

10. theconfessors - January 4, 2010

You have to prove this because your making the case in this debate. The debate isn’t on our view of Biblical consistency or any other theological position that we may hold. Forcing us to debate the consistency of the Bible would become a red herring fallacy, because its not the topic of the debate. Thus you have two options for your positive position (i) grant that the Bible is consistent for the sake of argument, which then means you have to accept what John 14 states, and that means your entire argument fails because its not Muhammad but the Holy Spirit; or (ii) assume that the Bible is inconsistent like Islam holds theologically. This means you have to then prove on top of your original four arguments stated above, why we can accept Luke, John 16, 1 John 4, or any other Scripture you use. Until you do this, your entire case is fallacious logically, and thus does not need to be argued against. Once again, we don’t need to resolve the “inconsistencies” because that isn’t the debate.

11. shajahanahmed - January 4, 2010

My first option:

• The argument is regarding the comforter. And regarding the comforter there are verses in the Bible which contradict each other. Now how can I grant the Bible to be consistent when I have just pointed out some contradictions in the Book (which haven’t been answered yet)?

• If the Bible is consistent for argument’s sake, then please resound to this:
John contradicts himself regarding the Comforter being the Holy Ghost.
1. John says the Comforter is the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).
2. John then says the Comforter (which is supposed to be the Holy Ghost) will not come until Jesus (pbuh) departs (John 16:7) indicating that the Holy Ghost was not there before the departing of Jesus (pbuh).
3. John then contradicts what he wrote in John 16:7 by writing: “Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” (John 20:21-22) this indicates that the Comforter (which is supposed to be the Holy Ghost) was there during the time of Jesus (pbuh).
We need to resolve the contradiction between John 16:7 and John 20:21-22 before we can accept John 14:26. If John is saying one thing in John 14:26 & 16:7 and the opposite in John 20:21-22 (which contradicts John 14:26 & 16:7), then how can we be so sure that John 14:26 is right?

My second option:

• Even if I believe the Bible is inconsistent (which I do), you still consider the Bible is consistent, you consider the Bible is the word of God also. If so, why should I waste my time to prove something to you which you already believe in? (Luke 1:41, John 16:7-4, John 20:21-22…etc)

The Bible’s consistency (the ability to maintain a particular standard) is included in this discussion. Consistency is the core aspect of any argument and without regarding consistency as a key issue; there is no point of a debate. Because: the Bible could be contradicting left, right and centre on the subject of the Comforter and therefore proving my point, but all you would say is “but the debate isn’t on the consistency of the Bible”. If you are going to leave consistency out of the picture then there is no point of us debating this issue as we will never come to a conclusion.

12. theconfessors - January 4, 2010

My friend, your creating an argument from a presumption of the Bible that can only be (i) it’s consistent or (ii) it’s inconsistent. It sounds like your taking option (ii), and asking us to prove why we should take John 14:25. The problem is you haven’t proven why you can even take John 16:7-12 when your presuming the Bible is inconsistent! Your argument is fallacious from the start because you accept the verses you quote without proving their truthfulness to us while demanding us to prove the verses we quote! You have the burden of proof in this! Until you give good reasons to accept John 16 and reject John 14 without just merely saying “well the Bible is inconsistent!” We have no reason to even touch your overall argument because its fallacious from the start and thus we have no good reasons to accept Muhammad as the Comforter in John 16.

13. shajahanahmed - January 4, 2010

(I’m just repeating myself because I have answered this already)

Even if I believe the Bible is inconsistent (which I do), you still consider the Bible is consistent, you consider the Bible is the word of God also. If so, why should I waste my time to prove something to you which you already believe in? (Luke 1:41, John 16:7-4, John 20:21-22…etc) Any quotations that I give from the Bible need not to be provided with proof to be accepted. Because you already believe the Bible to be the Word of God (if you don’t then please tell me).

We need to resolve the contradiction between John 16:7 and John 20:21-22 before we can accept John 14:26. If John is saying one thing in John 14:26 & 16:7 and the opposite in John 20:21-22 (which contradicts John 14:26 & 16:7), then how can we be so sure that John 14:26 is right?

I don’t believe the Bible to be a 100% corrupted. There are portions of the Bible which is the word of God according to the Muslims. Anything from the Bible which matches with the Qur’an is the word of God.

14. theconfessors - January 4, 2010

We don’t have to prove the Bible to be consistent because that isn’t the debate and would be a red herring. You need to first prove why you can take John 16 in a position that believes the book of John to be inconsistent. If you can’t do this your argument is completely meaningless, regardless if the Bible is truly consistent or truly inconsistent. If you can establish that we can take John 16 in your position, then you have to prove John 14 to be a false statement. Not sure why your invoking John 20 as an inconsistency because the more verses you point to show the Bible’s inconsistency actually works against you, as it shows your argument based upon John 16 to be even more unattainable.

If your willing to concede that John 16:7-12 cannot be Muhammad, then we can indeed look at what you believe to be inconsistencies.

15. shajahanahmed - January 5, 2010

The reason why I take John 16:7 in a position that believes the book of John to be inconsistent is because: if I do believe that John 16:7 is referring to the Holy Ghost (which you would like me to believe) then the verse contradicts with John 20:21-22.

If John 14:26 is a true statement then we must take John 20:21-22 as a false statement. This is because John 20:21-22 says the Holy Ghost was at hand during the time of Jesus (pbuh), and this is contradicting with what John 16:7 says which is: that the Comforter (which is the Holy Ghost according to John 14:26) wasn’t around during the time of Jesus (pbuh).

If John 16:7 and John 20:21-22 contradict each other then that is not my problem. Because I don’t believe the Bible to be 100% true, it is you who believes the Bible is 100% true and I’m just using that against you.

Why can’t John 16:7-14 be about Muhammad (pbuh)? Muhammad (pbuh) has already fulfilled everything that was promised in John 16:7-14 (and I have already shown you how). Just because John 14:26 says the comforter is the Holy Ghost is doesn’t mean we cannot use John 16:7-14 as a method to measure whether John 14:26 is true or not. In truth if we do this we will see that John 16:7-14 cannot be referring to the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost has not fulfilled anything promised in the Prophesy (which my four main points have shown).

Notice that the topic was originally based on John 16:7-14, but you would like to base it on John 14:26. By doing this you are asking me to prove John 14:26 wrong. Since the topic was originally based on John 16:7-14, it is more appropriate for you to prove John 16:7-14 wrong. What I mean is: prove to me that John 16: 7-14 is referring to the Holy Ghost. And yes I know John 14:26 says the comforter is the Holy Ghost, but that is not proof rather it is a statement in favour of John 16:7-14. The way to prove John 16:7-14 is referring to the Holy Ghost, is by answering the following questions:
1. Has the Holy Ghost fulfilled what was promised in John 16:7-14?
2. If yes then how?

16. theconfessors - January 5, 2010

So if we take your position, that John 16:7-12 is referring to Muhammad, is John now a consistent source?

17. shajahanahmed - January 6, 2010

John is inconsistent in regards to the topic of the comforter; I have made that very clear in my previous reply.

If John 16:7 and John 20:21-22 contradict each other then that is not my problem. Because I don’t believe the Bible to be 100% true, it is you who believes the Bible is 100% true and I’m just using that against you.

You prove to me that John 16: 7-14 is referring to the Holy Ghost. And yes I know John 14:26 says the comforter is the Holy Ghost, but that is not proof rather it is a statement in favour of John 16:7-14. The way to prove John 16:7-14 is referring to the Holy Ghost, is by answering the following questions:
1. Has the Holy Ghost fulfilled what was promised in John 16:7-14?
2. If yes then how?

I have already proven and shown how John 16:7-14 is referring to Muhammad (pbuh).

18. theconfessors - January 6, 2010

If John is inconsistent on matters of the “Comforter”, how can you take an instance where John speaks of the “Comforter” as evidence for Muhammad? Wouldn’t the very verse you use be suspect to inconsistency or falsehood because it deals with the “Comforter”?

In order for you to use the verse as evidence for Muhammad, you’ll have to show us, on your view, why we should take John to be consistent. If you don’t think John is consistent, why use the verse?

You’re essentially saying that you know John is inconsistent on matters of the Comforter and that you know Muhammad is the Comforter because of what John says about the Comforter. So, whether or not the Bible is consistent, you believe it’s not and since you believe it’s not it can’t support your view that it supports Muhammad as the Comforter.

19. shajahanahmed - January 6, 2010

John is inconsistent but that is not my problem. Because I don’t believe the Bible to be 100% true, it is you who believes the Bible is 100% true and I’m just using that against you.

And like I said before, I believe anything in the Bible which matches with the Qur’an and what it preaches is the word of God.

20. theconfessors - January 6, 2010

Is Muhammad identified as the Comforter in the Qur’an?

21. shajahanahmed - January 6, 2010

My purpose is to convince you (not me) that John16:7-14 is referring to Muhammad (pbuh). The Any evidence from the Bible might not be enough to convince me because I don’t believe the Bible to be 100% true. But even a single evidence from the Bible is enough to convince a Christian, because the Christian believes the Bible to be 100% true.

We can come to the Qur’an later. First you need to prove to me that John 16:7-14 is not referring to Muhammad (pbuh) but the Holy Ghost (since this argument was originally base on John 16:7-14). And yes I know John 14:26 says the comforter is the Holy Ghost, but that is not proof rather it is a statement in favour of John 16:7-14. The way to prove John 16:7-14 is referring to the Holy Ghost, is by answering the following questions:
1. Has the Holy Ghost fulfilled what was promised in John 16:7-14?
2. If yes then how?

22. theconfessors - January 6, 2010

Your goal: “My purpose is to convince you (not me) that John16:7-14 is referring to Muhammad (pbuh).”

You don’t buy your own argument, you’re just trying to convince us using possibly false evidence (on your own view): “The Any evidence from the Bible might not be enough to convince me because I don’t believe the Bible to be 100% true.”

The main assumption of your argument: “But even a single evidence from the Bible is enough to convince a Christian, because the Christian believes the Bible to be 100% true.”

So, premise (1): The Bible is 100% true.

Given this assumption, however, Muhammad can’t be the Comforter at all. It’s explained by John to be the Holy Spirit, and the Christian can’t take it to be Muhammad because of your first premise (for the Christian): The Bible is 100% true.

You say: “First you need to prove to me that John 16:7-14 is not referring to Muhammad (pbuh) but the Holy Ghost (since this argument was originally base on John 16:7-14).”

If we take the Bible to be 100% true, then we don’t have to answer question 1 or 2; it is as it says it is: the Holy Spirit.

If we then let your whole argument break down and assume that the Bible isn’t 100% true, there is little to no reason to believe that Muhammad is the Holy Spirit based on any reference to the Bible. You’re the one making the positive claim here. And, yes, if we didn’t believe the Bible to be 100% true, we would have to consider your questions.

23. shajahanahmed - January 6, 2010

Just because I don’t believe the Bible to be 100% true, that doesn’t restrict me to question you about your own Bible. For example: you don’t have to be an atheist to debate an atheist. You don’t have to believe there is no god to ask such a question: if there is no God then how did the universe take place at start? In the same way, it is not compulsory for me to believe the Bible is 100% true to make an argument against it.

John is inconsistent but that is not my problem. Because I don’t believe the Bible to be 100% true. It is you who believes the Bible is 100% true and I’m just using that against you.

If you believe the Bible is 100% true then please answer the following three points:

1) You still haven’t proven to me that John 16:7-14 is not referring to Muhammad (pbuh) but the Holy Ghost. I know John 14:26 says the comforter is the Holy Ghost, but that is not proof rather it is a statement in favour of John 16:7-14. The way to prove John 16:7-14 is referring to the Holy Ghost, is by answering the following questions:
a) Has the Holy Ghost fulfilled what was promised in John 16:7-14?
b) If yes then how?

2) Why can’t John 16:7-14 be about Muhammad (pbuh)? Muhammad (pbuh) has already fulfilled everything that was promised in John 16:7-14 (and I have already shown you how). Just because John 14:26 says the comforter is the Holy Ghost is doesn’t mean we cannot use John 16:7-14 as a method to measure whether John 14:26 is true or not. In truth if we do this we will see that John 16:7-14 cannot be referring to the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost has not fulfilled anything promised in the Prophesy (which my four main points have shown).

3) If John 14:26 is a true statement then you must take John 20:21-22 as a false statement. This is because John 20:21-22 says the Holy Ghost was at hand during the time of Jesus (pbuh), and this is contradicting with what John 16:7 says which is: that the Comforter (which is the Holy Ghost according to John 14:26) wasn’t around during the time of Jesus (pbuh).

theconfessors - January 7, 2010

We really hope you understand this, because its getting old repeating ourselves; just as your probably tired of it too. You cannot make a positive claim about John 16:7-14 that contradicts the subject of the entire section, the Holy Spirit. If you do so, the predicate has no clear subject, thus the sentence becomes meaningless. The only way you could use it for your argument is to prove that without a doubt John still received an honest prophecy, just messed up on who its addressing; which seems to follow up with two questions, is John really a prophet and can any truth be taken out of what he is saying? You’d then have to provide without a doubt evidence that Muhammad is the true subject of the sentence. Which means you’d have to prove that Muhammad was really what you believe he was, rather than just stating this. In other words Simply stating,”well… I believe Muhammad fits this because he taught morality and gave guidance on morality,” is not proof, its begging the question. On top of this, whats stopping anyone who has taught about being moral, coming after Jesus, and projecting it to the world, from being inserted into John 16:7-14 by your standard? We could say,”well if its not the Holy Spirit its gotta be Billy Graham (or insert any other person who has taught a moral code with a world wide agenda), because he was world known, he met with world leaders, and through his teachings many came to believe in God and in Godly living.” This is why you first have to prove that this is specifically addressing Muhammad, and not any other religious leader who came after Jesus, which you simply just assume this because of your background.

24. shajahanahmed - January 7, 2010

If you believe the Bible is 100% true and John 16:7-14 is referring to the Holy Ghost true then please answer the following three points:

1) You still haven’t proven to me that John 16:7-14 is not referring to Muhammad (pbuh) but the Holy Ghost. I know John 14:26 says the comforter is the Holy Ghost, but that is not proof rather it is a statement in favour of John 16:7-14. The way to prove John 16:7-14 is referring to the Holy Ghost, is by answering the following questions:
a) Has the Holy Ghost fulfilled what was promised in John 16:7-14?
b) If yes then how?

2) Why can’t John 16:7-14 be about Muhammad (pbuh)? Muhammad (pbuh) has already fulfilled everything that was promised in John 16:7-14 (and I have already shown you how). Just because John 14:26 says the comforter is the Holy Ghost is doesn’t mean we cannot use John 16:7-14 as a method to measure whether John 14:26 is true or not. In truth if we do this we will see that John 16:7-14 cannot be referring to the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost has not fulfilled anything promised in the Prophesy (which my four main points have shown).

3) If John 14:26 is a true statement then you must take John 20:21-22 as a false statement. This is because John 20:21-22 says the Holy Ghost was at hand during the time of Jesus (pbuh), and this is contradicting with what John 16:7 says which is: that the Comforter (which is the Holy Ghost according to John 14:26) wasn’t around during the time of Jesus (pbuh).

Why do I have to prove to you something that you already believe in? Do you doubt John receiving an honest prophecy? If yes, then how can you be so sure the Holy Ghost is the Comforter (according to John 14:26)? If you do believe that John still received an honest prophesy then there is no reason for me to prove this to you and it gives you reason to answer the three points given above.

Even if I did believe that John received an honest prophesy (which I don’t) my three points given above still need to be answered.

The four points which show that John 16:7-14 cannot fit anyone better than Muhammad (pbuh):

1. A spirit and a prophet can be the same thing is not my interpretation, this is what the Bible tells me. We read 1st John 4:1 (the King James Version of the Bible) and we see that the words ‘spirit’ and ‘prophet’ are used synonymously in one sentence.

2. John 16:7: in this verse we learn that the Comforter (also the Spirit of truth) will not come if Jesus (pbuh) doesn’t depart. This means that the Comforter was not there at the time of Jesus (pbuh). If the Holy Ghost is what the prophesy is referring to then it doesn’t make sense. We read: “And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.” (Luke 1:41). This passage from the Bible indicates that the Holy Ghost was already present. So the Idea of the Comforter being the Holy Ghost is already thrown out the window. (If John 14:25’s claim is true then this point still needs to be answered otherwise isn’t this a contradiction?)

3. If this comforter or Spirit of truth is supposed to be the Holy Ghost, then it is logical to ask: what guidance did the Holy Ghost give in two thousand years that Jesus (pbuh) hasn’t already given? Because in John 16:12-14 Jesus (pbuh) said the Spirit of Truth shall guide us into ALL truth. What solutions did the Holy Ghost give in two thousand years to the problems such as: Racism and Alcohol that Jesus (pbuh) hasn’t already given? There are so many Christians who claim to have the Holy Ghost helping them, but in so many years not one has been able to provide a solution to a problem and say: the Holy Ghost gave him/her this solution.

4. If we study the life of Muhammad (pbuh) and the revelation given to him: the Holy Quran, we will come to realise that this Comforter, this Spirit of Truth (which the Bible talks about) is none other than Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Why? Because He (pbuh) provided the solutions and guidance to all the problems which humanity needed and still needs. The Qur’an is enough evidence to support this statement. Open and read the Qur’an, and we will find solutions and guidance to all our problems such as: Alcohol, Racism, Surplus of women and many more.

I never said: “I believe Muhammad fits this because he taught morality and gave guidance on morality”. What I said was? Muhammad (pbuh) guided mankind into ALL truth (the holy Qur’an is a testimony to this fact). And therefore Muhammad (pbuh) is the only person/spirit that could fit the prophesy of John 16:7-14 which says: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into ALL truth”. In history Muhammad (pbuh) was the only man/spirit after Jesus (pbuh) to do such a miracle. Not Billy Graham, not even the Holy Ghost.

25. theconfessors - January 8, 2010

To move this discussion along, we’re going to respond to your questions. Keep in mind this does not mean your argument from the start is solid, its still fallacious. However, if what we think will happen as a result begins to happen, we won’t continue.

We are going to deal with the Holy Spirit’s actions prior to Jesus’ statements, hopefully this will help clear things up. John 14:15-18 states “If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray to the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.”

Two things to notice (1) he already dwells with the disciples and (2) (a) the world cannot receive or see Him and (b) He will dwell in them. If the Spirit of Truth dwells with the disciples already, your understanding of Luke 1:41 and John 20 is no longer a meaningful to your argument. (2)(a) If the world cannot receive Him nor see Him, its obviously something that is not physical, nor is it something those who are not believers could understand. (b) This Comforter will dwell in them; thus a difference in the relationship prior to Jesus’ statements. Also another indication this is not a physical entity like a person. Even the author of Luke reveals the day the disciples received the Holy Spirit’s indwelling presence rather than the surrounding presence like that prior to Jesus. This can be seen in Acts 2 (Acts is written by the same author of Luke). From there on out, the Holy Spirit is referenced quite differently then before Jesus left the earth and even in the Old Testament.

So we can see that John has not contradicted himself nor Luke, as he acknowledges the Holy Spirit was at hand prior to Jesus. The difference is in understanding the Holy Spirits presence after Jesus.

26. shajahanahmed - January 10, 2010

John 16:7: in this verse we learn that the Comforter (also the Spirit of truth) will not come if Jesus (pbuh) doesn’t depart. This means that the Comforter was not there at the time of Jesus (pbuh). Jesus (pbuh) said according to the Bible: “but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” Why does Jesus (pbuh) need to depart and send the Holy Ghost if it was already present at the time (regardless of if it was spiritually or physically present)?

In response to what you said: “Even the author of Luke reveals the day the disciples received the Holy Spirit’s indwelling presence rather than the surrounding presence like that prior to Jesus.” But in Luke 1:41 we read that Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost; this is not surrounding presence but indwelling presence and this happening took place before Jesus’ (pbuh) departure. And so we come to know, according to the Bible the Holy Ghost’s presence was the same before and after Jesus’ (pbuh) departure, but still in contradiction with John 16:7.

We read in John 14:16: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.”
a) If the Comforter (which is supposed the Holy Ghost) was already present (according to Luke 1:41, John 20:21-22 & John 14:17), then why does Jesus (pbuh) need to pray to the Father so that the Comforter may come?
b) John 14:16 says: “and he shall give you ANOTHER Comforter”. ‘Another’ means ‘one more’ or ‘a new’. ‘Another’ doesn’t mean ‘the same’. Now the catch is, if the Holy Ghost is the Comforter, then Christianity must believe in at least two Holy Ghosts (according to John 14:16).

If John 14:16 be applied to Muhammad (pbuh), we will come to know that the verse fits Muhammad (pbuh) completely.

27. theconfessors - January 13, 2010

If one looks prior to Acts and the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit did not indwell in the believer permanently, it was clearly a temporary filling, where as the understanding after Jesus was radically different. Now the Holy Spirit indwells a believer as long as one is a believer; rather than at key spiritual moments found with Elizabeth in Luke 1 or Sampson in the book of Judges. This is the new understanding of the Holy Spirit. There is still a concept of “filling” post-Acts as well, which indicates that “filling” and “indwelling” are different. One can also see that the Holy Spirit is more defined as a person than in the Old Testament. The point in all of this is that one needs to take into account all the verses in the Bible dealing with the Holy Spirit, if this is not done, how could one even pretend to perform an accurate exegesis of the Scripture found in John?

“a) If the Comforter (which is supposed the Holy Ghost) was already present (according to Luke 1:41, John 20:21-22 & John 14:17), then why does Jesus (pbuh) need to pray to the Father so that the Comforter may come?”
(a) As pointed above, there is a difference in how the Holy Spirit interacts with the believer on the Pentecost and post-Pentecost than prior to this. Taking this understanding, one needs to apply it to what John quotes Jesus as saying; which indicates a difference in “mission” and “indwelling” of the Holy Spirit, post-Pentecost and prior to the Pentecost. Prior, as stated above, the Holy Spirit filled the saints at key spiritual moments; post-Pentecost the Holy Spirit always indwells regardless if the person is “filled” (an example of the “filling” is seen in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost). Indwelling has to do with being sealed as a result of one’s salvation. So in the Scriptures when you come across sealing, indwelling, or something similar, it is indwelling. Verses dealing with indwelling: 2 Cor. 1:22, Eph. 4:30, Romans 8:9, Galatians 3:2, and the list could go on. Filling can be seen by these verses: Ephesians 5:18, Acts 4:31, 9:17, and Gal. 5:16. It is conditional based and can be quenched 1 Thess. 5:19 (and some verses indicate above that one must “walk” in the Spirit). The point in all this is simple, indwelling is not filling; indwelling is being sealed as a believer, filling is a conditional experience and thus temporal.
Jesus praying to the Father has to deal with the doctrine of the Incarnation. The Son while in the incarnation must remain in communication with the Father through prayer. However, this isn’t a discussion on the Incarnation or the Trinity and thus it should not go any further than this in that regards.

“b) John 14:16 says: “and he shall give you ANOTHER Comforter”. ‘Another’ means ‘one more’ or ‘a new’. ‘Another’ doesn’t mean ‘the same’. Now the catch is, if the Holy Ghost is the Comforter, then Christianity must believe in at least two Holy Ghosts (according to John 14:16). ”
(b) If you notice, Jesus is the subject prior to that (John 14:1-15); in which He is discussing His commands, guidance, and how He must leave to prepare a place in heaven for them. He explains that as a result of His going, He will send this “other” Comforter. It doesn’t take much to realize Jesus is the first Comforter as He is the original subject, states He is going, and then states He’ll send another.

“If John 14:16 be applied to Muhammad (pbuh), we will come to know that the verse fits Muhammad (pbuh) completely.”
This begs the question; Muhammad was seen, did not live during the time of the disciples, and did not dwell inside them.

28. shajahanahmed - January 13, 2010

All you have told me is in what type the presence of the Holy Ghost was before and after Jesus’ (pbuh) departure. I am not going to discuss this issue because we could go on all day contradicting each other and not reaching a conclusion. It is of no use to the debate. If anything, it proves that you are contradicting John 16:7. Whatever presence you say the Holy Ghost was before and after Jesus’ (pbuh) departure, I will accept for now.

The Holy Ghost was at hand before Jesus’ (pbuh) departure regardless of if it was in indwelling or surrounding presence (according to Luke 1:41, John 20:21-22 & John 14:17). If you agree with this then you are contradicting John 16:7 which indicates that the Comforter (which is supposed the Holy Ghost) was not present before the departure of Jesus (pbuh). If you the think that you are not contradicting John 16:7, then you must explain: why did Jesus (pbuh) need to depart in order to send the Comforter (which is supposed the Holy Ghost) if it was already present at the time?

We read in John 14:16: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.”
a) Jesus (pbuh) said in the verse above that he will pray that God shall give another comforter which is meaning to be the Holy Ghost according to you. He didn’t say that he shall pray for God to change the way the Holy Spirit interacts with the believer. The verse says ‘God shall GIVE’, this tells us ‘NON-RECEIVED’ it is in future tense. If the comforter is already received, then why the need to pray for it to come?
b) As you said: “It doesn’t take much to realize Jesus is the first Comforter as He is the original subject, states He is going, and then states He’ll send another”. If Jesus (pbuh) was the first Comforter and after him came another Comforter which you say is the Holy Ghost. Then what about the Holy Ghost which you say was present before Jesus’ (pbuh) departure? You are still stuck with same problem: two Holy Ghosts. One which was present before Jesus’ (pbuh) departure and another after Jesus’ (pbuh) departure. Let me tell you before hand that these two Holy Ghosts are not actually one Holy Ghost. This is because John 16:7 indicates that there was no Comforter (which you say is the Holy Ghost) before Jesus’ (pbuh) departure. The supposed Holy Ghost before Jesus’ (pbuh) departure needs to be explained.
I am saying Muhammad (pbuh) is the only candidate for the ‘another Comforter’. Because he has fulfilled everything promised in John 16:7-14 and which the Holy Ghost has not. As regards to indwelling: the word ‘indwell’ is a tricky word to use because I could say (metaphorically) through his own teachings, Muhammad (pbuh) dwells within us (the Bible is not short of metaphorical statements). And please tell me where it is mentioned in the Bible, that the Comforter was meant to be received during the times of the Disciples.

29. theconfessors - January 13, 2010

It is about proper exegesis of the Scripture. One cannot make theological claims without taking in all the facts. Unless you’ve read every verse in the Bible about the Holy Spirit, what He does, what His mission is and so on and so fourth, you cannot make a claim that this seems contradictory. Its contradictory to you, because you have no read everything in context.

The bottom line is simple, Muhammad as the second Comforter is awkward and begs the question amongst who knows how many other logical fallacies. On top of this, we already know who John believes the Comforter is when he quotes Jesus as saying: the Comforter is the Holy Spirit. This is why we hesitated about going in depth about this, because, not only is your argument based on an inconsistent interpretation on your part, but we also knew you would remain unconvinced because of the lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine and interpretation of the Scriptures.

Muhammad fulfills the requirements for you because you believe it; but Christian doctrine has another way of looking at it, and because it is a Christian book, we probably should stick with that. Well, you could say it is metaphorical, that Muhammad dwells within us, but as stated numerous times context context context of the Scriptures. Read all the instances of the Holy Spirit in the Bible. Its evident in John 14-16 that the disciples will be first to receive it, furthermore in John 20:21-22 when Jesus explicitly tells them to receive it, and finally in Acts 2 when they actually receive the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is talked about frequently in the New Testament as something that indwells a believer, among other things. As we stated, context is important here. We could literally take any verse of the Bible and make it say almost whatever we wanted or support almost any doctrine a man could create, but if its applied in context it can only mean one thing. We shall leave you with this, as we see that this current discussion is fruitless, unless your willing to really talk about the issues from a Christian perspective instead of trying to interpret a thoroughly Christian text from an Islamic standpoint.

30. shajahanahmed - January 16, 2010

Brother, all you have told me is to look at your Bible from a Christian point of view which I strongly disagree on. In order to know if any book is true, we are to look at it from a logical and scientific point of view. Just because Christianity says the Bible is true (even though it contains many scientific and logical contradictions), it is not enough evidence.

I agree that maybe I haven’t read all the verses in the Bible regarding the Holy Ghost, but that doesn’t give you an excuse to disregard my arguments. Here are my main arguments that I put forward in my last reply which you have NOT yet answered (if I am wrong then prove me wrong, don’t just tell me I am not reading properly):
(1) The Holy Ghost was at hand before Jesus’ (pbuh) departure regardless of if it was in indwelling or surrounding presence (according to Luke 1:41, John 20:21-22 & John 14:17). If you agree with this then you are contradicting John 16:7 which indicates that the Comforter (which is supposed the Holy Ghost) was not present before the departure of Jesus (pbuh). If you the think that you are not contradicting John 16:7, then you must explain: why did Jesus (pbuh) need to depart in order to send the Comforter (which is supposed the Holy Ghost) if it was already present at the time?
(2) We read in John 14:16: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.”
a) Jesus (pbuh) said in the verse above that he will pray that God shall give another comforter which is meaning to be the Holy Ghost according to you. He didn’t say that he shall pray for God to change the way the Holy Spirit interacts with the believer. The verse says ‘God shall GIVE’, this tells us ‘NON-RECEIVED’ it is in future tense. If the comforter is already received, then why the need to pray for it to come?
b) As you said: “It doesn’t take much to realize Jesus is the first Comforter as He is the original subject, states He is going, and then states He’ll send another”. If Jesus (pbuh) was the first Comforter and after him came another Comforter which you say is the Holy Ghost. Then what about the Holy Ghost which you say was present before Jesus’ (pbuh) departure? You are still stuck with same problem: two Holy Ghosts. One which was present before Jesus’ (pbuh) departure and another after Jesus’ (pbuh) departure. Let me tell you before hand that these two Holy Ghosts are not actually one Holy Ghost. This is because John 16:7 indicates that there was no Comforter (which you say is the Holy Ghost) before Jesus’ (pbuh) departure. The supposed Holy Ghost before Jesus’ (pbuh) departure needs to be explained.

You still haven’t proven that John 16:7-14 is not referring to Muhammad (pbuh) but the Holy Ghost. I know John says the comforter is the Holy Ghost, but that is not proof rather it is a statement in favour of John 16:7-14. We should use John 16:7-14 as a method to measure whether John’s claim that the Comforter is the Holy Ghost is true or not. The way to prove John 16:7-14 is referring to the Holy Ghost, is by answering the following questions:
a) Has the Holy Ghost fulfilled what was promised in John 16:7-14?
b) If yes then how?

Why can’t John 16:7-14 be about Muhammad (pbuh)? Muhammad (pbuh) has already fulfilled everything that was promised in John 16:7-14 and I have already shown you how. And may I add: the fulfillment of John 16:7-14 by Muhammad (pbuh) is true because the Qur’an is a living testament to this fact.

31. theconfessors - January 16, 2010

“Brother, all you have told me is to look at your Bible from a Christian point of view which I strongly disagree on:”

When one is doing hermeneutics and exegesis of the Scriptures (or any book for that matter) my friend, that is Biblical Interpretation and Application of the Scripture; one needs to take into context the language, the culture, the audience its being addressed to, the author and his use of words, and many other things. You are doing exegesis; therefore you need to take these things into consideration. For example, if we were to use the term: “Ultimate Reality,” depending on who the person is that is writing this term, depending on who it’s directed to, depending on the time frame it is being written in, it would change what is being defined by this term . For example, a Christian would consider “Ultimate Reality” the Triune God of the Bible, where as Plato would have considered this a giant divine mind with no personality, and Muslims would consider this Allah as seen in the Qur’an. Context is important, if you cannot see this, then how could you even have an honest discussion about the meaning of the Qur’an within Islamic circles, let alone those outside of Islam who try and interpret the Qur’an for their motives?

“In order to know if any book is true, we are to look at it from a logical and scientific point of view. Just because Christianity says the Bible is true (even though it contains many scientific and logical contradictions), it is not enough evidence.”

We are not looking at whether the book is true or not… That is not the original conclusion of your argument. The original conclusion is you using the Bible to interpret and apply a specific verse in the Bible to Muhammad. This is why we were not budging when we were first discussing the issue, you need to prove why we can take the verses you have thrown out there, yet reject the verses we have. All you’ve done is move from one logical fallacy to another…

“ I agree that maybe I haven’t read all the verses in the Bible regarding the Holy Ghost, but that doesn’t give you an excuse to disregard my arguments.”

It does if the arguments you’re presenting are based on ideas not supported by a proper Biblical interpretation and application.

(1) Once again, it’s a difference in how the Holy Spirit will interact with the believer. John already admits that the Holy Spirit is present, but this time He’ll live in them verses “around them.” We’ve already shown there is a difference between indwelling and filling. Filling is temporary; indwelling is permanent to the believer. Indwelling did not happen before, filling has always happened, and only happens in key spiritual moments, like prophecy or in the case of Sampson, being given his strength. Thus argument (1) fails because it is not accurate to the text of the Bible in its entirety.

(a) Obviously the author is meaning this in another sense that is revealed in the rest of the text…. John 14:17: “You know him for he lives with you and will live in you.”

(b) We do not understand how you got two Holy Ghost’s out of this? In other words, the conclusion that’s being drawn, does not make sense.

“You still haven’t proven that John 16:7-14 is not referring to Muhammad (pbuh) but the Holy Ghost. I know John says the comforter is the Holy Ghost, but that is not proof rather it is a statement in favour of John 16:7-14….
a) Has the Holy Ghost fulfilled what was promised in John 16:7-14?
b) If yes then how?”

That is proof, it’s the author identifying to us what he means by “Comforter.” If you reject John 14, then we’re back to the very beginning, prove John 14 cannot be accepted, John 16, 20 and 1 John 4, can be accepted. This is exactly why we shouldn’t allowed this to continue…

We’re curious, what is your educational background and experience? This may help us understand certain aspects of your approach, or help us try and phrase something differently.

32. shajahanahmed - January 20, 2010

I am 18 and have studied courses on IT and Business. I have been researching comparative religion as of interest since early 2008.

“It does if the arguments you’re presenting are based on ideas not supported by a proper Biblical interpretation and application.”

Reply: I have given accurate reference to all my quotes from my Bible. Please show where I have gone wrong. I am only presenting what is in the Bible. If you think I am wrong then you need to show me how I am wrong.

“Once again, it’s a difference in how the Holy Spirit will interact with the believer. John already admits that the Holy Spirit is present, but this time He’ll live in them verses “around them.” We’ve already shown there is a difference between indwelling and filling. Filling is temporary; indwelling is permanent to the believer. Indwelling did not happen before, filling has always happened, and only happens in key spiritual moments, like prophecy or in the case of Sampson, being given his strength. Thus argument (1) fails because it is not accurate to the text of the Bible in its entirety.”

Reply: (John 14:16) Jesus (pbuh) said that he will pray that God shall GIVE another comforter which is meaning to be the Holy Ghost according to you. He didn’t say that he shall pray for God to CHANGE the way the Holy Spirit interacts with the believer. The verse says ‘God shall GIVE’, this tells us ‘NON-RECEIVED’ it is in future tense. If the comforter is already received, then why the need to pray for it to come?

The Holy Ghost was at hand before Jesus’ (pbuh) departure regardless of if it was in indwelling or surrounding presence (according to Luke 1:41, John 20:21-22 & John 14:17). If you agree with this then you are contradicting John 16:7 which indicates that the Comforter (which is supposed the Holy Ghost) was not present before the departure of Jesus (pbuh). If you the think that you are not contradicting John 16:7, then you must explain: why did Jesus (pbuh) need to depart in order to send the Comforter (which is supposed the Holy Ghost) if it was already present at the time?

“We do not understand how you got two Holy Ghost’s out of this? In other words, the conclusion that’s being drawn, does not make sense.”

Reply: If Jesus (pbuh) was the FIRST Comforter and AFTER him came the SECOND Comforter which you say is the Holy Ghost. Then what about the Holy Ghost which you say was present BERFORE Jesus’ (pbuh) departure?

You are still stuck with same problem: two Holy Ghosts. One which was present BERFORE Jesus’ (pbuh) departure and another AFTER Jesus’ (pbuh) departure.

“That is proof, it’s the author identifying to us what he means by “Comforter.” If you reject John 14, then we’re back to the very beginning, prove John 14 cannot be accepted, John 16, 20 and 1 John 4, can be accepted.”

Reply: You have not proven to me that John 16: 7-14 is referring to the Holy Ghost. And yes I KNOW John 14:26 says the comforter is the Holy Ghost, but that is not proof rather it is a statement in favour of John 16:7-14. The way to prove John 16:7-14 is referring to the Holy Ghost, is by answering the following questions (please answer these two questions rather than JUST quoting John 14:26):
1. Has the Holy Ghost fulfilled what was promised in John 16:7-14?
2. If yes then how?

33. theconfessors - January 20, 2010

“I am 18 and have studied courses on IT and Business. I have been researching comparative religion as of interest since early 2008.”

This is why the breakdown in communication is happening. The members of The Confessors are “professional” students pursuing degrees that revolve around History, Philosophy, Theology, and Biblical Studies. What we mean by this is that we study religion (among other subjects like History or Philosophy) “professionally;” we’re not implying we’re university professors or scholars in these fields (yet anyways, one could dream:-)), but that our studies in the university literally focus around these fields and not just the general ed. levels. While it’s admirable to study comparative religion as a hobby, as members of The Confessors do as well, it’s another thing to study the principles of logical argumentation. We’re not meaning this in an insulting manner, but from a logical constructive point of view, the argument from the start is flawed for a simple reason; the reason listed way above about 500 times. You cannot grant that the Bible is, for the sake of the argument, perfect and then reverse this position, while still maintaining your original conclusion. Nor can you start off assuming the Bible is flawed in some way and then take for granted that the verses you pick out to support your conclusion is the correct and true verse found in John. What we mean by this is simple, if you’re assuming for the sake of the argument that the Bible is “perfect,” quote it to prove Muhammad is the Comforter, and then come to discover that John says otherwise…you’re left with two options (1) abandon your original conclusion (that Muhammad is the Comforter), declaring that the Bible is contradictory and we therefore cannot make any claims from within the Bible,(2) or prove that the verses you have used to support your position are true and original; while the others that dispel your position are truly flawed and mistaken. If you take point (1), your conclusion that was originally proposed, cannot be taken. To reemphasis, if you take point (2) you must proved evidence to accept John 16, Luke 1, 1 John 4, and any other verse you quote.

If from the start you’re assuming the Bible to be flawed in your argumentation, then you need to prove why we can take anything you quote in regards to the Bible, is a trustworthy Scripture piece. The Christian view of Scriptures does not matter in this; it’s the view of Scriptures you’re granting for your argumentation. What we mean by this is simple, you can either come at it from your personal point of view, that some of the Scripture is flawed (then you’d have to offer up reasons as to why we can take John 16), or you can come at it from a point of view of granting for the sake of the argument, that the Bible isn’t flawed (this isn’t requiring you to abandon Islam, it’s simply going about this as logical as possible). We’ll have more to follow in regards to the other content in your response.

Finally, we do want to say that your premises are strong, but the argument is being held down by how we should proceed with accepting Scripture. We propose that your argument looks as so (if we are to take it from the view point you come at this from, that the Scripture is partially flawed): (1) John 16 states _____ and we can take this to be true because of this evidence________ (2) your original point 1 (3) your original point 2 (4) your original point 3 (5) your original point 4 (6) therefore Muhammad is the Comforter. This would be a good starting point…however it doesn’t deal with the obvious rebuttal that comes up: John 14, which means in premise (1) you will either need to provide evidence that the Bible is flawed, we can take John 16 because this evidence_____, but we cannot accept John 14 because of this evidence ________. Or you will need to deal with John 14 in a response that doesn’t revolve around: ” well Luke says this” because the most we can conclude from that is, the Bible is contradictory; but it does not show us that John did not intend the Comforter to be the Holy Spirit. What we’re getting at, is that this argument as presented by yourself, in light of what John does say, is a logical nightmare. However, we will look at your arguments as well to sort of show you Christian ideas in all of this. Just bare in mind that the argument as you present would need work before it could, from the start, be accepted in an honest logical discussion at the academic level.

34. shajahanahmed - January 21, 2010

It can be said that you are more educated than me regarding the Bible, but you seem to be struggling to answer my questions that I have raised regarding the Comforter.

I may believe that the Bible is flawed but you most certainly don’t, so why are you asking me to prove something that you already believe in? Please answer this question: do you believe that the Bible is flawed? If you do, then there is no reason for this debate. If you don’t believe that the Bible is flawed, then why are you asking me to prove that to you?

As I have said before, I don’t believe the Bible to be a 100% corrupted. There are portions of the Bible which is the word of God according to the Muslims. Anything from the Bible which matches with the Qur’an is the word of God.

For the argument’s sake (as you say) I will agree for now, that the Bible isn’t flawed (corrupted). Now all that that is left for you to prove is that John 16:7-14 is referring to the Holy Ghost. The way to prove this is by answering the following questions:

(Please answer the questions rather than JUST quoting John 14:26)

1) Why did Jesus (pbuh) pray for the Comforter (Holy Ghost) to come (John 14:16) if it was already present at the time (as we find evidence in Luke 1:41, John 20:21-22 & John 14:17)?
2) The Comforter (Holy Ghost) was at hand before Jesus’ (pbuh) departure regardless of if it was in indwelling or surrounding presence (according to Luke 1:41, John 20:21-22 & John 14:17). If you agree with this then you are contradicting John 16:7 which indicates that the Comforter was not present before the departure of Jesus (pbuh). If you think that you are not contradicting John 16:7, then you must explain: why did Jesus (pbuh) need to depart in order to send the Comforter if it was already present at the time (according to Luke 1:41, John 20:21-22 & John 14:17)?
3) If Jesus (pbuh) was the FIRST Comforter and AFTER him came the SECOND Comforter (as prophesised in John 14:16) which you say is the Holy Ghost. Then what about the Holy Ghost which you say was present BERFORE Jesus’ (pbuh) departure?
4) Has the Comforter (Holy Ghost) fulfilled what was promised in John 16:7-14? If yes then how?

Now that I have agreed with you (for arguments sake) that the Bible isn’t corrupted, you have no excuse not to answer the above questions. You as “professional students” must be able to provide a logical answer to these questions.

As we both know, debating online is not very effective. I would like us to meet and have a face to face debate on this topic, this way it would be easier to come to a conclusion. Please let me know if you approve of this idea.

35. theconfessors - January 21, 2010

Sure, here’s our email theconfessors@live.com so we could discuss the details.

36. Is John 16:7-14 Referencing the Holy Spirit or Muhammad Part Two? « The Confessors - January 23, 2010

[…] trackback Anyone who’s been on the page in the last few weeks has probably read the ongoing debate between Shajahan and us. Shajahan has written a new post that sort of counters our position in this […]


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: