So now you turn to Hollywood? This is why I told you I didn't want to waste our mutual time with this kind of garbage. Don't do it again. You can get replies to this trash in the links of my prior post without having to waste my time with it.
"We have exposed many more examples of this Greek sophist styled nonsense, in another forum section:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?board=33.0Or try this link:
"A Bible Commentary for Muslims"
http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/index.html"
Or do a search of this forum like - comforter - in the window in the upper right hand corner.
You effortlessly copy and pasting another person's foolishness, while I am stuck having to spend my time showing you how you've been duped.
When filmmaker Mel Gibson prepared his script for his film “The Passion of the Christ,†he must have found the Ps**tta’s82 translation of Paraclete as “Paraqlayta†problematic for obvious reasons. It would have been awkward for an Aramaic-speaking Jesus, in the midst of a discourse with his Jewish disciples, to use a recognizable Greek word with a Semitic twist. He rather opted for the translation as it occurs in the Syriac lectionaries used by the Assyrian churches in Iraq, also known as the Ancient Apostolic Church of the East. In these texts, the word for Paraclete is rendered “Munahma,†which according to author Karen Armstrong, may be equivalent to the Arabic Ahmad, ........
That is ridiculous since the Arabic language was so new to the scene it didn't even have a written form until a few centuries into the Christian era!
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2561.0...... and certainly sounds as if they are derived from a common root.
Now there's an etymological study! Like 7th century Arabic "Bakkah" "sounds as if" it has something to do with the Hebrew "Baca" of a thousand years before Arabic was invented! You've gobbled down a pile of pure hogwash, my friend.
http://petewaldo.com/baca_mecca.htmTherefore, the scene as it occurs in the film has “Jesus†say, “Do not be afraid, the Helper (Munahma) will come, who speaks the truth about God (Allah).†Nineteenth century Scottish orientalist William Muir, who once said that Islam is the “only undisguised and formidable antagonist of Christianity,†........
Indeed. This is how we can know it is of Satan, as I keep patiently explaining to you. Who is the antagonist of God?
You follow the false prophet Muhammad alone, even in thinly veneered Arabian pagan moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship rituals. "Formidable" only because of the power of the sword and a willingness of Muhammad's followers to slaughter innocents.
........ claimed in his book “The Life of Mahomet†that there were Arabic translations of the Gospel of John from the eighth and ninth centuries CE that translated Paraclete as “Ahmad,†albeit erroneously according to Muir.
Erroneously would no doubt be correct, however discussion of an Arabic translation is irrelevant.
In John 16:7, Jesus makes it clear that the coming of the Paraclete is directly contingent upon his (Jesus’) departure: “á¼á½°Î½ Î³á½°Ï Î¼á½´ ἀπέλθω ὠπαÏάκλητος οá½Îº á¼Î»Îµá½»ÏƒÎµÏ„αι Ï€Ïὸς ὑμᾶς†(For if I do not go, the Paraclete will not come unto you). This is interesting because the orthodox has consistently told us that the Paraclete and the Holy Spirit are one and the same.
Gee, I wonder why?
Jhn 14:26
But the Comforter, (paraklētos)
[which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.You can see that your whole inverted pyramid of preposterous pile-on presumption just went right out the window, through a single verse of scripture. Making it a filthy lie to suggest Muhammad is the comforter. Or any kind of comforter of anyone other than Satan!
Jesus healed the lame so they could walk.
Mohammed brought lameness to the walking. "...they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off."
Jesus brought sight to the blind.
Mohammed brought blindness to the seeing. "...he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes..."
Jesus brought the dead back to life.
Mohammed killed the living.
Besides which it is the epitome of absurdity and a conspicuously Satanic lie, to suggest that a false prophet who proclaimed the
exact opposite of the
whole subject of the Gospel, could be prophesied in that very same Gospel as anything other than a false prophet.
Mat 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Let alone the thin ice that it puts all such liars on:
Mat 12:31
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.See how Islam is always the opposite? As your article put it the "antagonist of Christianity". Who is the antagonist of God? How do you not get that it is necessarily Satan that is behind the false prophet Muhammad?
But if the Paraclete and the Holy Spirit is essentially the same person, are we then to suppose that Jesus and his disciples were completely devoid of him?
Jesus was the Apostles comforter while He was with them, who were walking in the Spirit of God. And
just like it says, it is the Holy Spirit
as sent in Jesus', name after He left them.
Jhn 14:26
But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.How could Muhammad comfort and teach the Apostles all things, and help them remember things, when he wasn't born until over 500 years later?
John 14:18
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.Not leave them comfortless for one minute, let alone 500 years!
The Holy Spirit in Jesus name! Praying in Jesus name.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
The very thing that Satan convinced you would constitute the ONLY unforgivable sin! A sin worse than mass murder or child rape. What could be more unjust than that?!! The very thing that makes you want to stay outside of the Holy Spirit and adamantly reject it.Jhn 14:16
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. Are we to believe that the world "seeth him not" perhaps because Mohammed wasn't going to be born for 500 years?
The world knoweth not Muhammad because he wasn't going to come for 500 years?
How did the apostles "know" Mohammed?
How did Mohammed "dwelleth with" the Apostles 500 years before he was born?
How was Mohammed to be IN THE APOSTLES? Let alone 500 years before He was born.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=178.msg607#msg607As if Muhammad had anything to do with truth when he proclaimed the
exact opposite of the
whole subject of the Gospel. You need to quit this foolishness, and leave the lies you have been victim of, and ask Jesus for help in overcoming like this guy did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FelW46AGu4The Gospel of Luke tells us that the Holy Spirit was with Elizabeth (1:41), John the Baptist (1:15), Zacharias (1:67), as well as with Simeon (2:25). All of these people chronologically predated Jesus Christ, yet the latter says clearly in John that the Paraclete had not yet arrived.
Not "another Comforter",
in Jesus name, because He had not yet left.
The Synod at Constantinople in 381 CE testifies to the fact that the early Christian church also found the Johannine readings about the Paraclete problematic and thus attempted to better define his nature and function. The most crucial verdict arrived at by the bishops of the Council was undoubtedly the judgment that the Holy Spirit was co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial with the Father and Son and therefore fully God, the third person of a triune deity. The old Nicene Creed hammered out over fifty years earlier was revised and the Niceo Constantinopolitan Creed was born. The bishops proposed a creative solution to the problem of the apparent incongruities between the Holy Spirit and the Paraclete of the Fourth Gospel. The Cappadocian Fathers, representing the orthodox findings, concluded that the Holy Spirit possesses the divine attribute of pre-eternality, meaning that he eternally proceeds from the Father (and scandalously from the Son as well [filioque] in the Western churches), but is also sent to the earth at certain times in history. In other words, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds but is also economically sent.
Therefore, when Jesus speaks of the Paraclete coming after his departure, he is simply referring to the coming of the Spirit to the physical world in temporal terms, and just as the Son was eternally begotten by God before the creation of time and matter, yet economically sent into the world over two thousand years ago, the Holy Spirit also pre-existed and was sent, not once, but many times into the world. This solution, however, still fails to adequately account for the presence of the Holy Spirit before and during the ministry of Christ. When Jesus made the conditional statement recorded by John in 16:7, the Paraclete was clearly not with him on earth yet apparently accompanied his cousin John the Baptist and his mother Elizabeth. This also creates a major problem when trying to reconcile the Augustinian orthodox notion that the presence of the Son necessitates the presence of the Father and Holy Spirit and that all three persons are inseparable in their actions. The intercommunion of the three persons “guarantees the involvement (of all three).â€
The theological gymnastics of the early orthodox, as well as the vastly diverse opinions regarding the nature of Christ during the first four centuries of the Common Era, demonstrate the obvious and painful truth that the deficiencies lie in the scriptures themselves. There are over 5,500 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek, from credit-card sized John Ryland’s papyrus number 52 (P52) to the vast ×01, but no two of these manuscripts are identical. John Mill’s 1707 CE attempt at an eclectic text of the Greek New Testament led him to state in his primitive apparatus that he found over 30,000 differences in the one hundred or so manuscripts that he had at this disposal. The irreconcilable Christologies of the synoptic evangelists coupled with John’s Logos simply render it impossible to arrive at a coherent and consistent profession of Christian faith. Even a theologian as early as Origen of Alexandria (d. 254 CE) once complained:
“The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please†(emphasis mine).
Consider also Origen’s Pagan opponent, Celsus, and Dionysius, the orthodox bishop of Corinth (d. circa 171 CE) who said respectively: “Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in the face of criticism.†“When my fellow-Christians invited me to write to them I did so. These the devil’s apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts.â€
John 16:13 reads: ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ á¼ÎºÎµá¿–νος τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας á½Î´Î·Î³á½µÏƒÎµÎ¹ ὑμᾶς εἰς πάσαν τῆν ἀληθείαν Î¿á½ Î³á½°Ï Î»Î±Î»á½µÏƒÎµÎ¹ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα ἂν ἀκούσῃ λαλήσει καὶ Ï„á½° á¼Ïχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν “However when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.â€
You can see how this whole pile of foolishness crashed and burned, in the light of a single verse - John 14:26. A verse regarding the paraklētos - the whole subject of the article - that they conveniently failed to mention. Laughably even suggested it's the church that doesn't understand!
"This is interesting because the orthodox has consistently told us that the Paraclete and the Holy Spirit are one and the same."
The very same subterfuge used by the famous Greek sophist styled entertainer and lying antichrist deceiver Ahmed Deedat, that duped so many, so tragically.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=335.0The same subterfuge employed by no shortage of other Muhammadans engaged in taqiyyah.
Can you see how you got duped by a liar?How do you suppose God will deal with a liar like the one that penned that? What if he should die in a car crash tomorrow, in that unrepentant state?
