And welcome once again to a salmon focus. Today’s programming shala will be our eighth in our series Mohammed, the vast messenger of God, an eighth on this segment, Mohammed and the Abrahamic family tree. Today we will specifically discuss the continuation of Muhammad, as foretold by Jesus May peace be upon him. I’m your host Rashad munition here once again from St. Mary’s University is Dr. Jamal Badawi, I sound like him back to john.

Could we have a summary or a quick wrap up of last week’s program, please? Sure, we began to discuss more specifically the prophecies about the advent of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him which was made by his predecessor, Jesus peace be upon him, especially in the gospels, the gospel according to john in chapters 1415 and 16.

We discussed briefly why

this kind of prophecy appears only in the fourth gospel, not in the Synoptic Gospels, and give some of the possible reasons for that.

And then we started outlining In brief, the profiles, the composite, of the profile of that product lead, that Jesus spoke about him coming after him.

We indicated that Jesus peace be upon him said that this perfectly,

will play a very important role that Jesus wanted to teach them certain things, but they could not bear it at that time. But when that perfectly it comes, he would receive revelation or receive messages from God and he communicated and that he would witness in favor of Jesus. And also there are some differences that he would also ruin because he said, the prince of this world will be judged, which means setting will be judged that means he will be ruling.


we discussed the traditional explanation of that prophecy that has been used to refer to the descent of the Holy Ghost hunting ghosts, under disciples under the Pentecost, and we indicated why this cannot be a correct one. And we indicated that the Holy Spirit is the third person according to the definition of the Trinity, which is equal to the other two. But Jesus describes the Paraclete as someone who does not have authority to speak on his own.

We also indicate that his coming is only contingent on the granting of Jesus, which means that they cannot be present of the Holy Ghost was there at the time of the prison of Jesus peace be upon him.

We also indicated that the Greek verb used for hearing and saying or speaking, seem to indicate hearing and speaking through the speech, and hearing organs.

And as such, we said that Jesus in all likelihood is not really speaking about this spirit, but a person like him, Prophet, and we find no one who fits those description, except Prophet Muhammad disagreeably. Then we began to discuss the origin of the word Paraclete in English, which is, again product letters in Greek. And we indicated that the older translations of the Bible has traditionally translated the term perfectly into comforters. And we indicated that this translation, according to Biblical authorities themselves is erroneous. And theologically speaking, that the disciples did not really need a comforter. And despite the fact that some recent translations of the

Bible, like the Revised Standard Version,

corrected this use of the term comforter and used another term, but the translators still were not really fully consistent in the translation.

Would you say that these were possibly inconsistent,

even after the reviewed?

You see, the term productivity is the Greek origin and appears in five places in the New Testament, in four places in the Gospel According to john, and in one place, and the first epistle of john in chapter two verse one, and references in the Gospel According to john in chapter 14, verses 1626 chapter 15, verse 26, in chapter 16, verse seven, these are the places where the practice appear.

Now, in the gods

Still, according to john, in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, has translated para Cletus into counseling counselors.

But even though the identical term percolators is also used in the epistles of john, the first episode,

it was translated differently translated as advocates. So in my case, it’s comfortable and others advocate.

Now, in for example, the, the Catholic, new American Bible also, and the gospel of john, they just let it remain as is just throughout the English equivalency Paraclete for calculators in john, but they did not use it consistently when they translated the epistle, the first epistle. So instead of using the temporary they use the term intercessors.

Now, according to Encyclopedia Americana, in 1981, edition, volume 21, page 274 B. It says that Paraclete actually means also encourage or administer and you know, all prophets actually are admonished to be reminded people now via in Arabic.

So what I mean here by the inconsistency in the translation, two things.

One, is that the biblical scholars cannot agree on a specific and decisive meaning for the term Paraclete, which has been translated mistakingly for nearly 1900 years as comforter, which was proven to be as a dictionary of the Bible, edited by James Heston call it an impossible rendering, impossible rendering, it’s very inaccurate. So there’s one difficult to hear. They have me not agreement on specifically.

The second is that even in the very same version, even of our translation of the Bible, we find that the very same term productivity even though it appears, both in the Gospel and in the epistle, epistles of john is translated differently.

I think perhaps one of the reasons for the problem is that some scholars indicate there is no single English word


can translate the temporary Cletus in a very consistent way that fits on the five places where it occurs, both in the Gospel and the epistles of john.

But in any case, the Paraclete in ways are correct leaders cannot be a reference to the Holy Ghost as used to be believed. And as mentioned, actually, in one particular verse in the Gospel of john, which raises the issue that was raised before that the identification of the product, Cletus, with the Holy Spirit, was possibly the sorts of editorial work of a writer or copyist,

or possibly an interpretive interpretive term statement added to the original words of Jesus either on the part of the writer of the gospel, or possibly some copyist, or translator.

Dr. benway, was once the problem of translation just alluded to,

was just recognized by the biblical scholars. I think it was, for example, if you refer to the first the original edition of the dictionary of the Bible, edited by James Heston, which was published in 1900, more specifically, volume three, pages 665 to 668.

He tries to summarize the difficulties involved with this capturing of the meaning of parklet. First of all, they say is to translate productivity tools to comforters, as was the case with the King James Version of the Bible. He said that this is linguistically archaeologically, is wrong in the light of the Greek original. That’s the original word percolators. And the way it has been used, the uses of the word doesn’t allow this, as I mentioned before,

that he calls it an impossible rendering as well.

On the other hand, he said if we use the term advocate, which is used only in the Epistle of john even both have the same word on the Epistle of john. That’s chapter two, verse one. So that term also is not consistent, either

with the Greek word or with the Latin word advocators. doesn’t go with either.

And one, the term advocate may make sense, insofar as the flow of meaning in the first episode of john. He said that it’s not quite correct

to use

In the translation of the gospel, according to john, and it’s the same word that appears in both of them.

Because he says the Holy Spirit does not plead on behalf of anyone, but it is in the disciples or work through them. So the description given to it and the gospel, according to john doesn’t seem to lend itself to the term advocate, that’s not very productive.

And then he refers to a third term. He said, the term intercessor.

As an alternative might be useful, and might make sense in the understanding of the term as it occurs in the Epistle of john. However, he said that term intercessor is quite restricted in meaning, in view of the fact that there have been other descriptions of the product later or productive, which does not seem to fit within just a restricted term like intercessor. And then he concludes, and that’s interesting. So the best way is to leave it as it is just to use the term product etc. In Greek product literacy, right, just use an English term Paraclete.

That’s better to avoid any error. And he says, provided that it should not be taken as a proper name of the Holy Spirit. That was, like I said, in the 1900s edition of the dictionary, the Bible by James history. And that kind of statement seems to be quite clear, in pointing out to the problem, which result from referring to Jesus himself as a product lead in the epistles of john on one hand, and then defining the term product leads in the Gospel According to john as holy spirit. Because what that simply means that Jesus is the Holy Spirit, which doesn’t really make any sense at all.

Definitely, the statement here made by James Heston is much more candid, comparatively than some of what I consider, frankly, to be a few title attempts by some scholars to try and resolve this inconsistency in ways which doesn’t really

give a very convincing response to that problem. Or can you give us an example of such explanation is the one that you just refer to as being too tall? Okay. I’ll let you judge.

Take, for example, the encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible edited by re Hartman hcrt MPN. That was published in 1963. And the pages I’m referring to is 1700 18, through 1700 19.

In referring to the persecutors.

Reverend Hartman says, quote, this term in the New Testament should not be taken as a sort of Title of the Holy Spirit.

For in the first episode of john chapter two, verse one, it is used of Christ. That makes sense so far. And then he says, and in john, gospel of john, Chapter 14, verse 16, where do they expression, another Paraclete

that is used implies that besides the Holy Spirit, Christ also is our Paraclete. Besides the Holy Spirit, Christ also is our product.

And then the writers seem to reveal his underlying motive of going into this great land, trying to reconcile what is obviously irreconcilable. And he says, and I quote him, this is his word, quote, that evangelists, feels the need, feels the need of further identifying the Paraclete explicitly with the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, this word is not to be taken as the name or title, as a name or title, but rather as a term, specifying certain functions of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. And then he later states, quote,

The Spirit is not his successor, that is, that is the Paraclete or the Holy Spirit is not his successor, not the successor of Jesus. The Spirit does not complete the revelation. He merely helps us to understand fully the definitive revelation made by Jesus Christ that’s in page 1719. And then he goes on in great length.

Trying to explain how Jesus in the first epistle of john is pleading on behalf of the sinners.

As for the Holy Ghost and the gospel of john, it is also act like a Paraclete he says

In front of the whole world who condemned Jesus, so that it gives witness that Jesus who was killed was sent by the father. I mean, you could go on do the three the three, four times and see if you can make any, you know, solid sense of,

in this even brief summary and part of it just died a quotation from, from the encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible.

It’s quite clear why I consider this kind of attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable as a few tiles. Why, to be more specific, first of all, Mr. Hartman, acknowledges that the term product leads was used to refer to Jesus.

If this is the case, it follows that it cannot be also used to refer to the Holy Spirit, he said, even cannot be used as a title of the Holy Spirit. That’s a very logical conclusion.

Why? Because the verse that describes

the Paraclete as the Holy Spirit, that’s the only verse in the entire gospel that identifies cannot be correct, linguistically, or logically. In other words, they are different because Jesus himself was described as a pair of cleats, you can say the term practice could also mean Holy Spirit.

But instead of admitting this simple facts, like I said, the writer seemed to go in circles. And instead of presenting a cogent argument, he seemed to opt for something that may sound more like a sermon in other than a logical response to this problem. This is done by this writer and by many others, because it appears that the issue for some of the writers is not really the question of evidence or logic, or even the correct etymology, the linguistic part which is correct, but rather, some prior commitment to a certain dogma or belief, regardless of any other factors.

Indeed, the writer himself refers to this kind of method of interpretation of his when, if you remember, I’ve caught him again, say that evangelist feels the need of further identifying the productive explicitly with the Holy Spirit. Now, the idea they use here of the term, the evangelist feels the need is very important. Because what it really conveys is that they need to defend the Trinity. They need to stick to the tradition and interpretation of the product lead, that it’s something that has already taken place a long time ago, there is nobody else to come after Jesus and close the way or the door for any other continuation of his revelations through the last prophet,

for example, that this is much more important to him than any other evidence. No wonder we find that if you look at the beginning of his book,

it carries the signature of his Archbishop or last Bishop of New York, it is certified as so called Nikhil upset, which means free from any moral or doctrinal errors. Of course, when we talk about doctrinal errors, the definition of error is something that relates to the official definition of the official religious institution, the church in that

this is only one example of numerous examples which reflect this kind of, of methodology, which in all humbleness I considered to be quite deficient and unscientific, really, there is no way logically or etymologically to connect between the parent leaders and the Holy Spirit, or if latest does not refer to the Holy Spirit. And the prophecy definitely was not really fulfilled. In the day of Pentecost, 10 days after the ascension of Jesus equity to the book of Acts, definitely doesn’t seem to fit at all.

They mentioned

earlier, there was only one verse in the Gospel According to john anyway. And maybe I’d like to to elaborate on the reasons why his identification with the Holy Spirit is not accurate identification between the parakeet and the Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit. Okay, let me first refer to that verse, which seemed to define the parakeet as the Holy Spirit. We can take it from there, you can take it from there. But I always try to get first to the reference rather than just give my own words for that I actually quoted verbatim that appears in the Gospel According to john, in chapter 14, verse 26, in that Jesus speaks, and he says about the counselor or the productive, again, ticket from the Revised

Standard Version, code, but the counselors, the translation practice, the counselor, comma, the Holy Spirit, comma rules.

The Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things.

That’s the only verse and the five places where the term productive practice appears, where it identifies the counselor or the predicate as the Holy Spirit.

But this kind of connection to come to the first part of your question raises at least eight problems.


or the other verses, whether in the Gospel According to john, or in the first episode of john at the beginning of chapter two, all of these other four never identified the Paraclete

as the Holy Spirit. This verse is the only exception, which actually created the problem which many biblical scholar have tried to resolve, but in my understanding without success, why? First of all, there is no Greek scholar or scholar of Greek language, to my knowledge.

Whoever suggested that the term Heraclitus means for the spirit, linguistically,

that’s erroneous, there’s nothing like that.

Number two,

that the term practically it has been used actually by the Hellenistic Jews in the first century, of the Christian era, in a sense of intercessors, or defenders, but never in the sense of Holy Spirit. A reference to that is found, for example, in are quoted in Maurice bouquets book, which I mentioned before the Bible, and science, and his defense is a tricot tr, IC o t. And the title of the dictionary achieved dictionary, de novotest.

A third reason, of course,

that the terms used in describing the product lead in the Greek text, as we indicated in a previous program,

itself such that, that correctly, it is able to perceive sounds and emit sounds, that’s from the original words uku and Leo, that means through speaking, or hearing, organs, and this, obviously, are descriptions not of Holy Spirit, which is part of divinity according to eternity, but descriptions of a human being, teacher, a prophet who is able to perceive sound and produce sound that people can, can hear. But even if we take hearing, and speaking, symbolically, it does not fit. Because that Paraclete is described as someone who speaks only what he hears from the Father. And according to the Trinity, all three persons in Trinity, including the Holy Spirit, are equally

power. So the one who hears only and communicate only what he has been authorized to, is only a human being a prophet, like Jesus, like Muhammad, like Moses and others.

A fifth problem is that Jesus Himself, peace be upon him is referred to in the first episode of john as Paraclete. And as I indicated earlier, if correctly, it means Holy Spirit, it means that Jesus Himself is the Holy Spirit, because the center has used all of them. And obviously, that’s contrary to the notion of distinctness of the three persons of the Trinity Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And obviously, there’s a big difference between saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are united, or that they are from the same substance as it is usually defined. And between saying that the second person in Trinity Jesus, and the third person, eternity or the spirit, are identical

one and the same, no theologian, to my knowledge has ever made that. That argument,

at least in the ministry of Christianity, a six problem raised by this identification of the parent leaves with the with the Holy Spirit, is that Jesus peace be upon him describes that Paraclete as another he says, I have to go, and the Father will send you another predicate. In Greek, it is unknown, and

which means actually one like Jesus, and who was Jesus? Or right? Why would they have been difference of interpretation about the question of deification of Jesus was he God incarnate, the idea of Trinity and all of that?

But there is no difference whatsoever on the fact that Jesus was full man, even those were the five MC Jesus equipment. That’s the only part that everybody seemed to agree upon Muslims, non Muslims, Christians and others. And when Jesus speaks, that God would send them another, like him. Another productive like him, means flesh and blood

someone like him when he was talking for teacher, a prophet, and a messenger of God, a human being, who ate, drank, got tired, slept, and had everything like other human beings, then it follows that when Jesus speaks about, and on, and on, that’s another productivity speaks about a human being like, Alright, a certain problem

is that Jesus clearly said that he has to go first. Because he says, I have to go it is to your advantage that they go, because if I don’t go, the Paraclete, will not come. And we have indicated in a previous occasion, how the Bible itself shows that Jesus and the Holy Spirit did exist at the same time, the case of baptism, in the case in the Gospel, according to john when he told his disciples to receive the Holy Spirit. In fact, in addition to what you mentioned before, there are additional scripture and evidence that shows that the Holy Spirit did exist before was not contingent on the going of Jesus was inseparable, whether inseparable from Jesus, or from john the

baptist, as we find the Gospel according to Luke chapter one, verse 15, or Elizabeth in the same reference chapter one, verse 41, or Zechariah, the father of john the baptist, the same chapter again, verse 67, or Simon, in Luke also chapter two, verse 25, there is ample evidence that the Holy Spirit and his presence was not really in any way contingent on the undergoing of Jesus Peace be the eighth and final problem, I’m sorry, sticking around, we just want to put it together. That in the Greek,

original, at least the origin as far as we know, Jesus never spoke Greek but I mean, the oldest manuscripts correctly it is referred to using a masculine pronoun masculine pronoun. And that is not really an accurate pronoun. When you speak about spirited, it seems to be speaking about a male person.

Well, that’s great. I think I can fit in one more question before the show’s over. Now, I think you’ve made a very good strong argument that the parrot clip is not part of the Holy Spirit. But I’d like to maybe touch on your last point again, as it may need a bit more explanation because the masculine pronoun is used also to refer to God. Okay, to start with, that’s fair enough, because both in the Bible and the Quran, God is referred to as even though it doesn’t mean any men gender or gender, simply because of the limitation of the language. However, in the Greek language, there are pronouns for masculine, that are pronouns for feminine, but there is also an addition to that in

Greek, a masculine pronoun for the neutral or neutral pronoun. Okay, good the point. And if the product lead was in any way, a reference to the Holy Spirit’s should have used, exactly, you got the point. So it should have used actually the neutral pronoun to refer to but we find that consistently, and the gospel of john and efficent the first episode, whenever it speaks about the the product lead actually speaks about

or use a masculine pronoun.

This is not my idea. And perhaps maybe in the next program, I might give you specific reference to biblical scholars who said something very similar to that. This was not just something from a Muslim perspective, recognized, etymological or linguistic. Thank you very much Dr. weathering. Thank you all for joining us here once again, and this time and focus as always, your comments or any questions you may have would be most appreciated. Our phone number and address will be appearing on your screen. From all of us during this time and focus Assalamu alaikum See you next week.