…in the four gospels. As opposed to what you would typically receive from the vast majority of Christians.
It will be important to keep in mind that Jesus repeatedly emphasized the importance of His words: hearing, understanding, believing, following and finally abiding in and keeping His word. It’s a logical progression. Beyond that He even goes so far as to say things such as everyone will be judged by His word and made clean by His word.
It will be important to keep in mind that Jesus repeatedly emphasized that He spoke using figurative language.
Jesus was a great conceptual thinker. As such, more important than the words themselves are the underlying concepts that those words convey. The explanations are to provide an understanding of those underlying concepts. For example, when Jesus uses figurative language, what lies beneath the figurative language? In other words, an explanation of what Jesus had in mind when He said them.
With the above in mind, ask about whatever sayings for which you have never received satisfactory explanations. This is open to both Christians and non-Christians alike.
Yes, here is my first question: why do you refer to Jesus as He instead of just he?
LampAndNightingale
(6 Points>6 Lines>6 Triangles, Between Nile & Euphrates)
3
The NT in the Gospel of John predicts the advent of the “advocate”:
John 14:16 - “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever”
John 15:26 - “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.” [implying continuity in what the Advocate brings]
John 16:7 - “But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.”
===> Question 1: What is the koine Greek term used for “advocate”?
===> Question 2: What is its translation in Arabic?
===> Question 3: Are premises (i-iv) correct, below? If not why not?
Because:
i. Holy Ghost has been present probably since before the earth was created
ii. Holy Ghost did not do anything of note re: Christianity, after Christ ascended (you could say he inspired the early communities, the martyrs etc. but one might also say some madeup term like the “Glory of Adam”, the “Sword of Wisdom” was foretold, and indeed it did come, because look, it did this, it did that, all those things being ephemeral associations though)
iii. All angels are massively for God, “advocate” seems an odd label for one angel
iv. Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, suffices as a name for Holy Ghost
Therefore I would make this an outlier, possibly an edit:
John 14:26 - “But the Advocate, {{{{the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,}}}} will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
{{{{ = proposed insertion }}}
LampAndNightingale
(6 Points>6 Lines>6 Triangles, Between Nile & Euphrates)
4
John 8:7 - “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.”
What does Biblical scholarship say about this verse?
Seems I needed to be more specific in the OP about what this thread is about. So I added the following to the OP:
Jesus was a great conceptual thinker. As such, more important than the words themselves are the underlying concepts that those words convey. The explanations are to provide an understanding of those underlying concepts. For example, when Jesus uses figurative language, what lies beneath the figurative language? In other words, an explanation of what Jesus had in mind when He said them.
LampAndNightingale
(6 Points>6 Lines>6 Triangles, Between Nile & Euphrates)
6
While several of your questions are outside the intent of this thread, ultimately you seem to be wanting an explanation of what Jesus had in mind when referring to the Holy spirit. Sound about right? Let me know if I’m off track.
There’s a bit of context that needs to be explained, so this isn’t as simple as you might think. Please be patient.
1 Like
LampAndNightingale
(6 Points>6 Lines>6 Triangles, Between Nile & Euphrates)
8
Started in a completely different direction that would have been quite lengthy. Decided a better approach would be to give you some key concepts and my conclusions. Then have you ask whatever questions you may have.
Jesus was born to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to His voice.
Jesus was anointed to preach His gospel. There is a wide gulf between that gospel and the “gospel” of Christianity. The gospel preached by Jesus is contained in the words attributed to Him from the beginning of His ministry to the crucifixion as documented in the Four Gospels: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
Jesus calls His followers to become sons of God as He was a son of God.
Jesus calls His followers to become one with God as He was one with God.
The unrighteous are “dead”.
The righteous have “life”. The righteous do not commit sin. Only the righteous can bear “good fruit”. The righteous cannot bear bad fruit.
Jesus repeatedly emphasized the fact that He spoke using figurative language.
Jesus often used Himself as a metaphor for His words, e.g. “I am the bread of life”.
Only the righteous receive the Spirit of Truth.
The Spirit of Truth is there to remind the righteous of the gospel that He was anointed to preach.
Spirit of Truth gets to the heart of what Jesus had in mind moreso than Holy Spirit, etc.
Advisor is truer to what Jesus had in mind than Advocate, etc. There is no need to ascribe anything supernatural to it.
I’m not really satisfied with your response to the above ^^
You did not explain the word used for “Advocate” in koine Greek (which is the language of the “according to” fake Gospels, the original Aramaic would be different of course).
You did not give its Arabic equivalent.
Also, you differentiate Spirit of Truth from Holy Ghost, when they have always been considered the same thing.
Also, you seem to make the same mistake mainstream Pauline Xtianity makes: arbitrary ad hoc attribution / Texan Sharpshooter attribution, of […..] to the term “Advocate”. I’m unsatisfied with your attribution of “Spirit of Truth” to “Advocate” just as l am with attributing “Holy Spirit” to “Advocate”. The attributions are flimsy, ad hoc, non sequitur. I would easily make up a term like “Glory of Adam” and say it was fulfilled in early Christian history, by using ad hoc explanations just like those you have tendered. Similarly, l could explain “Advocate” as being fulfilled in the form of summer weather, Peter, various Popes, Mark Twain, Chairman Mao.
I think Rome converted to Xtianity because Paul knew that Christ foretold the rise of Islam and its arch-enemy the antichrist. They decided that seeing as the antichrist was a dead certainty, if you attach yourself to him (by subverting the gospels, and by worshipping a man as God) then you can do all manner of evil, and still succeed. And thus you could become quite wealthy by subverting the gospels and worshipping a man as God, thus paving the way for the antichrist. And …
so ….
here we are calling the “Advocate” instead by the name of “Holy Spirit” (which is the Holy Spirit not the Advocate, hence different names, and the Holy Spirit was always there, not a new being yet to come) or as you put it, alternatively “the Spirit of Truth”. And yes, l bet l could ad hoc explain him as the summertime, a pope, Mark Twain etc.
I contend that Christ said the Advocate would come, and this is Parakleitos in koine Greek, which is Ahmad in Arabic, written AHMD.
Muhammad (peace be upon him) is written MHMD, and this is a name nobody ever chose before. His parents weren’t part of an act. They died as pagans and we aren’t allowed to pray for them. Personally I cannot image heaven without those two, but we cannot officially pray for them. So it cannot be said that naming him “MHMD” was a deliberate play on words.
Also note that Muhammad was born 570 CE.
The Qur’an states that the “People of the Cave & The Inscription” were said to have been kept safe and alive in “suspended” animation for 300 or 309 years but only Allah knows the true extent. It’s inferred that Christianity adopted the solar calendar around that time? So, it could be counted as 300 or 309 years perhaps. Only God knows the true duration.
Google says the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus hid in the cave circa 250 CE.
Add 300 solar years to that, you get 550CE.
At the end of that time, the young men emerged from the cave and went into town and lived among the people. Doubtless they were surprised to find Christianity now in the ascendancy, and drastically altered from the original faith of Christ.
So, imagine that the men lived only a few decades after. They emerged circa 550CE, and perhaps died a few decades later.
The Prophet Muhammad was born 570 CE. This is all the more a compelling argument that MHMD was AHMD aka Parakleitos, the Advocate foretold in the NT. He was born at the time the original, true Christianity finally died. That is my argument at least.
Oh, and reL John 8:7, the story about the prostitute, and the saying let he who is without sin etc. - that was considered a later insertion into the Bible. And so you see, stuff was known to be put into the Bible. Jesus’s prophecies werre doubtless heavily censored, save a vestige which couldn’t be hushed because too many people knew of it, and besides it would be useful as leverage to give the Antichrist legitimacy, so they edited some, erased some, and with the rest, they got an established regal powerful church establishment to argue argue argue and vote vote vote so that Jesus became cast as a soon-to-return Man-God, which is in fact the Antichrist, and AHMD was, hmmm … I dunno, Holy Spirit? Just some minor thing, you don’t need to pay too much attention to that. The main thing is: we now must worship a man as God, or be put to the sword.
Well, you must not know about the gospel of Ecleesdeeznasteez. It’s a manuscript that tells the story of a hidden basket of coconuts stashed in the cave of Ephesus by a goat herder who allegedy beat Jesus at arm wrestling and was said to have the strenth of five Herculeses. The mystery surrounding the story is: where did the coconuts come from and did they arm wrestle with both hands or just the right hand.
The catholic church has been working on resolving this mystery since its inception… and due to the divine importance of resolving it, the catholic clergy are provided free room and board to sit in deep thought all day free from the drudgery of real meaningful labor.
The intent of this thread is to provide solid explanations for the sayings attributed to Jesus. In other words, explain what Jesus had in mind when He said it.
You seem to have either forgotten it or chose to ignore it.
Jesus explicitly called it the “Spirit of Truth”. Jesus explicitly stated that only those who “keep His commandments”, i.e., the righteous receive the Spirit. This is all logically consistent with the gospel that He was anointed to preach as a whole. For example, Jesus said that He was born to speak the truth, "you will know the truth and and the truth will make you free (from committing sin), etc.
Jesus explicitly stated that the role of the Spirit is to remind them of His words. Those would be the words of the gospel that He preached. As such “Advisor” is a much stronger translation than “Advocate”.
The intent of this thread is to provide solid explanations for the sayings attributed to Jesus. In other words, explain what Jesus had in mind when He said it.
/quote
Hence my questions …
Also note, as a non-subscriber to Xtianity, l am not obliged by my own POV, to follow the Bible at all.
quote=“WeSee, post:13, topic:85153”
You seem to have either forgotten it or chose to ignore it.
/quote
See above, specifically (1).
Also note:
Does not seem to be a good fit to my original questions, specifically:
If it wasn’t intended to answer these then:
Please, would you just answer these two questions above
What question were you answering, by changing “Advocate” to “Advisor”? Or what point was being made?
You then give some sayings of Christ without scriptural reference.
I shall attempt to reference them.
So, it appears, trawling through your scripture, that:
John 14:15 has Jesus telling people to keep his religion.
John 14:16 - Jesus asks God to send another Advocate / Helper / Comfrorter / Intercessor / Counseller / Strengthener. “Another” appears to be invariably the word used. This rules out the Holy Ghost being the Advocate. It implies another one, as per some prior example. The prior example would, in absence of another person being referenced, be Jesus himself. Meaning, another prophet.
This Advocate will remain. That could be inferred to mean finality - a final prophet.
John 14:17 explains that this Advocate / Helper is the Spirit of Truth. Interestingly, the word l was hoping for, popped up at me in the Berean Annotated Bible: the “Pneuma” of Truth. That is, the breath of Truth. The speaker of Truth.
John 14:17 however ends by saying this Spirit of Truth is already with them, and will be in them. This 100% seems to be an edit, a deflection, a red herring. John 14:16 clearly has the Advocate as being a new one, after the pattern of one existing. I.e. a new prophet after himself. Yet John 14:17 atomic wedgies John 14:16 and says he was always there, he’s with you now, he’s inside you, don’t worry about nothing, nothing to see here, keep calm and carry on. Don’t wait for no more prophets anyhoo!
No, sorry, whether l believe the Bible or not, John 14:17 atomic wedgies John 14:16. You know it does.
quote=“WeSee, post:13, topic:85153”
Jesus explicitly called it the “Spirit of Truth”. Jesus explicitly stated that only those who “keep His commandments”, i.e., the righteous receive the Spirit. This is all logically consistent with the gospel that He was anointed to preach as a whole. For example, Jesus said that He was born to speak the truth, "you will know the truth and and the truth will make you free (from committing sin), etc.
/quote
Sorry but this seems non sequitur, ad hoc.
Call the following “Axiom”, as we can both agree on it: [AXIOM START]Spirit of Truth means, breath of Truth, or some kind of kinetic form of Truth.
This is linked to keeping his commandments i.e. staying with his religion.
Yes, this would imply preserving the true original First-Person Gospel.[AXIOM END]
However, this does not connect with your deduction as to the identity of The Spirit of Truth, and it doesn’t make sensible the standard Christian derivation that Spirit of Truth = Holy Spirit = Advocate. Both your non-standard view and the standard Christian view are non-sequitur with regard to Axiom.
I put it to you that the original intent may have been: Breath of truth, some breather of Truth. This was then twisted, bifurcated into:
a) Holy Spirit (which makes no sense, Holy Spirit was always there, and he is not “another”)
b) or … or … a parallel being, and the Holy Spirit was first, and Spirit of Truth was second, i.e. “another” and hence you make sense of the word “another”.
But (b) just makes us reach further and further. Now we wonder: why does Holy Spirit have a twin, let alone why does Holy Spirit even come into this. And what is the purpose of this twin, the Spirit of Truth? Was the twin the Spirit of the Silver Deer? Was it the moonlight? Was the spirit the Lord? Was the spirit of Truth the demiurge of Light and the antichrist the demiurge of Darkness? Are they playing a gigantic chessgame that is finally coming to a close? Will there be other chessgames? Arrrrrgghhhhhhhhh stop
stop
stop
reset.
Ok l’m sorry, but l cannot accept this reasoning of yours that the Spirit of Truth is some twin of Holy Spirit, i.e. another such one per John 14:16, least of all because ***you’***ve not even tendered what l’ve surmised in (b), l’ve been left to infer it, but l doubt you could come up with anything better - surprise me? Make it hold up to scrutiny.
Again, my rebuttal is:
John 14:17 ends by saying this Spirit of Truth is already with them, and will be in them.
This 100% seems to be an edit, a deflection, a red herring. John 14:16 clearly has the Advocate as being a new one, after the pattern of one existing. I.e. a new prophet after himself. Yet John 14:17 atomic wedgies John 14:16 and says he was always there, he’s with you now, he’s inside you,don’t worry about nothing, nothing to see here, keep calm and carry on. Don’t wait for no more prophets anyhoo!
Sorry but it seems to me that Advisor / Advocate / breath of Truth (if that was not a post-edit) etc. could easily be Muhammad especially because John 14:16 mentions that the Advocate is specifically “another” Advocate, implying that the speaker (Christ, the Messiah) is the earlier one, and the other Advocate is another prophet and will be the lasting prophet, the final one.
Re: Muhammad being the lasting prophet - Muslims believe that when Messiah Jesus returns, he will follow the law of Muhammad i.e. Islam. The only new prophet, the only new law, will be the false prophet (Antichrist Dajjal) and whatever faith he produces, probably just a gigantic torture dungeon like the Saw movies, with 8 billion people inside.
May i aks why there isn’t so much disagreement among scientists as there is among the religious?
There’s so much consistent disagreement among the religious that one starts to wonder if any one of em know what’s going on or if they’re all just hunting snipes.
With the scientists there is none of this.
Now here’s the problemo. If you say “well, religious truth is a different kind of truth” i would aks by what means other than the natural sciences and the empirical method do you ascertain this truth?
So not only are the stock arguments for a god’s existence neither of these things but even the quests to interpret rightly who said what to whom and where are void of either as well. Or what Jesus meant if only this word is interpreted in the greek, etc. All this is so extremely weird. But you can’t really understand this without firmly believing that there may have been a historical Heyzeus but never a divine Heyzeus. If you hold firmly that no man has ever walked on water or healed the blind by touch or turned a fish into a new york style thin crust pizza or rose from the dead, any and all significance beyond him as a regular dude is dreadfully woefully horrendously mistaken.
Call the following “Axiom”, as we can both agree on it: [AXIOM START]Spirit of Truth means, breath of Truth, or some kind of kinetic, active form of Truth.
This is linked to keeping Jesus’s commandments i.e. staying with his religion.[AXIOM END]
Please tell me how you infer Spirit of Truth to be a new personage, in light of Axiom ^^^
Also please explain how standard Xtian thought would infer Holy Ghost to be a new personage, called Advocate.
John 14:16 appears to be contradicted by John 14:17, because v. 16 explains Advocate is “another”, implying Jesus is the first. v. 17 says no, Advocate is Spirit of Truth, and Spirit of Truth is already here!. Please explain how v. 17 doesn’t contradict v. 16? It seems to me that v. 17 was an after-edit, and symptomatic of a wider desire to dismiss the coming “another Advocate” as the Holy Ghost / Spirit of Truth, with a vague undefined mandate. It seems ad hoc and a way to put people to sleep and make them stop hoping for another Prophet, which appears to be what “another Advocate” really means. And so, when the final, everlasting Prophet did arrive, many Christians today reject him, and instead say Advocate was just Holy Ghost / Spirit of Truth, with a role of, well, shrugs, nothing clear, just, dunno. And that we must worship a man as God, and he will return as God to rule the world as King, which thus sets the scene for Christians to fall in line with Antichrist when he comes, because he is a man that will emerge as a tyrannical ruler, then claim to be final prophet, Messiah and then claim to be God. John 14:17 seems to be one of several edits that funnel Xtians into this damning end to Xtianity.
John 14:15 has Jesus telling people to keep his religion. [By the way, this apparently predicts the mega derailment of Christianity, into Trinitarianism, John 14:15 was clearly telling Christians to watch out for this and if you do keep faith in Jesus as only Messiah, not God, then you will be able to recognise the Advocate when he comes because Muhammad will confirm that Jesus is Messiah born of Virgin who ascended to Heaven and shall return to kill a false messiah who claims to be God - that is the only way John 14:15 makes sense to me]
John 14:16 - Jesus asks God to send another Advocate / Helper / Comfrorter / Intercessor / Counseller / Strengthener. “Another” is invariably the word used. This rules out the Holy Ghost being the Advocate. It implies another one, as per some prior example. The prior example would, in absence of another person being referenced, be Jesus himself. Meaning, another prophet.
This Advocate will remain. That could be inferred to mean finality - a final prophet.
John 14:17 explains that this Advocate / Helper is the Spirit of Truth. Interestingly, the word l was hoping for, popped up at me in the Berean Annotated Bible: the “Pneuma” of Truth. That is, the breath of Truth. The speaker of Truth.
John 14:17 however ends by saying this Spirit of Truth is already with them, and will be in them. This 100% seems to be an edit, a deflection, a red herring. John 14:16 clearly has the Advocate as being a new one, after the pattern of one existing. I.e. a new prophet after Jesus. Yet John 14:17 contradicts John 14:16 and says he was always there, he’s with you now, he’s inside you, don’t worry about nothing, nothing to see here, keep calm and carry on. Don’t wait for no more prophets anyhoo!