Who is the Comforter in the Gospel of John?

[GeorgeTwo]

Jesus was speaking to His disciples. He said the Comforter/Advocate would come to them in their lifetime.

John 14:16 — And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Comforter to be with you forever - the Spirit of Truth.


The Comforter will be with these disciples forever. Jesus promised the Comforter would be with these disciples forever. Muhammad could not be the Comforter because he wasn't born until over 500 years later - following the deaths of these disciples. He was born around 570 and died around 632 AD.


John 14:17 — But you know him for he lives with you and will be in you.


The Comforter lives with the disciples already now and will later be 'in' them. The Holy Spirit came to the disciples and indwelt them. Muhammad could not be the Comforter because first he wasn't around at the time when Jesus was speaking to his disciples nor second could he ever be in any of the disciples. The Greek word is 'en', and it means 'right inside'. Jesus is saying that the Comforter will be 'right inside' of the disciples.


John 14:26 — The Comforter is specifically described as the Holy Spirit. The Comforter is not a man. Muhammad could not be the Comforter because he was never the Holy Spirit.


John 14:26 — The Comforter will be sent in Jesus' name. The Holy Spirit represented the Lord on earth. No Muslim believes that Muhammad was sent by God in Jesus name. Muhammad did not come in Jesus' name, as the apostle of Jesus, rather he came in his own name with his own questionable “revelations”.


John 14:26 — But the Comforter, 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."


The Comforter will teach these disciples and remind them of what Christ said to them. As the early Christians grew the Holy Spirit taught them. Muhammad is not the Comforter because he never knew the disciples and he didn't teach these disciples, and Muhammad never reminded the disciples of what Christ said.


John 15:26 — When the Comforter 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.


The Comforter would be sent to these disciples. These disciples received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Muhammad was never sent to these disciples.


John 16:13 — But when he, the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.


The Comforter will guide these disciples into all truth. These disciples (and others) grew in the knowledge of God through the revelations from the Holy Spirit. Muhammad never guided these disciples into any truth.


John 16:13 — He will not speak on his own, he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

The Comforter will speak to these disciples. These disciples grew to know the leading of the Holy Spirit, i.e. they knew His voice. Muhammad never spoke to these disciples.


John 16:14 — He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.


The Comforter will take from Jesus and make it known to the disciples. Muhammad never knew Jesus and never took from Jesus and made it known to anyone.


The context of these passages shows clearly that Muhammad could not be the Comforter.


Source: Silas of AI

 

[GeorgeTwo]

Why are you judging Mohammed when you yourself will be judged? Do you understand what it is to be empowered by the Holy Spirit of God and be enslaved to God to whatever he chose for you to do, write or speak for Him?

Muslims say that Muhammad is the Comforter/Advocate.

I disagree. I find no evidence that Muhammad is the Comforter/Advocate.

Do you?

 

[Dave-W]

The comforter is the Holy Spirit. It is obvious from the contexts of the various verses you quote.

Who on earth said it was mohammed? That is just silly. Or desperate.

 

[GeorgeTwo]

The flesh of a man can never be a Comforter. The invisible spirit of God called Christ is the Comforter, not a visible body.

Please try to stay on topic.

I promised a Muslim on this forum that I would start a thread on this topic. Let's wait until he replies. Thanks.

 

[GeorgeTwo]

The comforter is the Holy Spirit. It is obvious from the contexts of the various verses you quote.

Who on earth said it was mohammed? That is just silly. Or desperate.

Muslims claim the Comforter is Muhammad.

 

[Dave-W]

Muslims claim the Comforter is Muhammad.

There is no way the text of the NT would ever support such a claim.

But that is not the only thing they get wrong.

 

[Arthra]

I think the verses in the sixteenth chapter of the Gospel of John that refer to the 'Spirit of Truth" are significant here...

16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

16:13 Howbeit 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 shew you things to come.

16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

(King James Bible)

Note how the verses open with Jesus saying there are yet many things He cannot share because people could not bear them "now" when this was revealed. but the Spirit of Truth will come and will not speak of Himself...

To me this foretells a future Prophet or Messenger.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think the verses in the sixteenth chapter of the Gospel of John that refer to the 'Spirit of Truth" are significant here...

16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

16:13 Howbeit 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 shew you things to come.

16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

(King James Bible)

Note how the verses open with Jesus saying there are yet many things He cannot share because people could not bear them "now" when this was revealed. but the Spirit of Truth will come and will not speak of Himself...

To me this foretells a future Prophet or Messenger.

Only if one ignores the context and the fact that Jesus is talking about the sending of the Spirit, and specifically refers to what transpired on the day of Pentecost.

It takes a massive amount of mental gymnastics and text-wrangling to get anything else other than that Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit.

That's made easier in Islam if one holds to the belief that Christian Scriptures are, in some way, fundamentally corrupted and thus all the clear context that the Holy Spirit is being referred to stems from corruptions of the original message/texts and thus one can insert one's own positions without a whole lot of trouble beyond hand waving.

Without the assertion of textual corruption or tampering and/or hand waving it's simply not possible to conclude that the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, is anything other than what it says it is: the Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

Only if one ignores the context and the fact that Jesus is talking about the sending of the Spirit, and specifically refers to what transpired on the day of Pentecost.

It takes a massive amount of mental gymnastics and text-wrangling to get anything else other than that Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit.

That's made easier in Islam if one holds to the belief that Christian Scriptures are, in some way, fundamentally corrupted and thus all the clear context that the Holy Spirit is being referred to stems from corruptions of the original message/texts and thus one can insert one's own positions without a whole lot of trouble beyond hand waving.

Without the assertion of textual corruption or tampering and/or hand waving it's simply not possible to conclude that the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, is anything other than what it says it is: the Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

What if we assume that the words of Jesus quoted in John were mostly accurate, but the author of the Gospel of John did not understand the words of Jesus fully? So the context created by the author actually reflects a misunderstanding of the words of Jesus. Therefore the words of Jesus should be disconnected from their textual context.

 

[nChrist]

The Comforter is God the Holy Spirit - the third person of the Holy Trinity - yet one with God the Father and God the Son. The Comforter has nothing to do with Muhammad or Islam. An attempt to associate the Comforter with Muhammad is blasphemy. Muhammad is a false prophet of a false religion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What if we assume that the words of Jesus quoted in John were mostly accurate, but the author of the Gospel of John did not understand the words of Jesus fully? So the context created by the author actually reflects a misunderstanding of the words of Jesus. Therefore the words of Jesus should be disconnected from their textual context.

Then we get to the point I made about regarding the texts corrupt, etc; essentially hand waving the text and context away in order to assert something else.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Arthra]

Only if one ignores the context and the fact that Jesus is talking about the sending of the Spirit, and specifically refers to what transpired on the day of Pentecost.

It takes a massive amount of mental gymnastics and text-wrangling to get anything else other than that Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit.

That's made easier in Islam if one holds to the belief that Christian Scriptures are, in some way, fundamentally corrupted and thus all the clear context that the Holy Spirit is being referred to stems from corruptions of the original message/texts and thus one can insert one's own positions without a whole lot of trouble beyond hand waving.

Without the assertion of textual corruption or tampering and/or hand waving it's simply not possible to conclude that the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, is anything other than what it says it is: the Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for your post "Crypto"!

So what do you make of:

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 shew you things to come.

16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

seems to me Jesus is referring to a "person" rather than a "spirit" as such...

Your comments regarding corruption of the text probably deserve a thread of their own... Do you agree?

- Art

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks for your post "Crypto"!

So what do you make of:

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 shew you things to come.

16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

seems to me Jesus is referring to a "person" rather than a "spirit" as such...

Your comments regarding corruption of the text probably deserve a thread of their own... Do you agree?

- Art

This would be completely in agreement with how else the New Testament speaks of the Holy Spirit. Keep in mind that in Christian teaching the Holy Spirit isn't a force, a power, or an "it"; the Holy Spirit is a Person. For example St. Paul reminds us not to "grieve the Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 4:30), and in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter accuses Ananias and Sapphira of "lying to the Holy Spirit" (Acts 5:3). In fact it is precisely this language Jesus' employs here concerning the Spirit that is one of the principle texts which Christians look to as demonstrative of the Spirit's personhood; that He isn't a power, force, or thing, He's a Someone. Which is also why Christians pray to the Holy Spirit (e.g. the Epiclesis or the Veni Sancte Spiritus).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Robban]

This would be completely in agreement with how else the New Testament speaks of the Holy Spirit. Keep in mind that in Christian teaching the Holy Spirit isn't a force, a power, or an "it"; the Holy Spirit is a Person. For example St. Paul reminds us not to "grieve the Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 4:30), and in the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter accuses Ananias and Sapphira of "lying to the Holy Spirit" (Acts 5:3). In fact it is precisely this language Jesus' employs here concerning the Spirit that is one of the principle texts which Christians look to as demonstrative of the Spirit's personhood; that He isn't a power, force, or thing, He's a Someone. Which is also why Christians pray to the Holy Spirit (e.g. the Epiclesis or the Veni Sancte Spiritus).

-CryptoLutheran

What do you make of, "The Word became flesh"?

Where is the Torah?
Does it reside in the heavens with the angels?
Or in a parchment scroll in the ark of the synagogue?
Or with the Rabbis and scholars?

It lives in the heart of each person who learns it,
in the voice of the one who discusses it,
and in the Life of the one who lives it.

That heart, that voice, that Life-
That too is God`s Word.

 

[cloudyday2]

Then we get to the point I made about regarding the texts corrupt, etc; essentially hand waving the text and context away in order to assert something else.

In my reading, one of the most common ways for religious reformers to change a religious text is to add new context. The ordinary people know the original text, so the reformers cannot remove it, but adding new text as context can change the meaning of the original text.

Originally there was only the sayings and doings of Jesus as remembered by His followers. The sequence of those sayings and doings in Mark is not chronological, so there is no way to know if Jesus meant for a particular saying to be understood in the context of a preceding doing in the gospel text.

An example that comes to mind is the prediction by Jesus that some of His listeners will still be living when the Kingdom of Heaven arrives. The gospels follow this saying with the Transfiguration to explain that the prediction came true. That probably isn't what Jesus meant by His prediction, but that is how the writer of Mark understood the prediction. That saying should be separated from the gospel's context IMO.

EDIT: I know the OP wanted everybody to stay on topic until a Muslim member gave his/her ideas, so I apologize for derailing. We should stay on topic.

 

[Robban]

Jesus was speaking to His disciples. He said the Comforter/Advocate would come to them in their lifetime.

John 14:16 — And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Comforter to be with you forever - the Spirit of Truth.


The Comforter will be with these disciples forever. Jesus promised the Comforter would be with these disciples forever. Muhammad could not be the Comforter because he wasn't born until over 500 years later - following the deaths of these disciples. He was born around 570 and died around 632 AD.


John 14:17 — But you know him for he lives with you and will be in you.


The Comforter lives with the disciples already now and will later be 'in' them. The Holy Spirit came to the disciples and indwelt them. Muhammad could not be the Comforter because first he wasn't around at the time when Jesus was speaking to his disciples nor second could he ever be in any of the disciples. The Greek word is 'en', and it means 'right inside'. Jesus is saying that the Comforter will be 'right inside' of the disciples.


John 14:26 — The Comforter is specifically described as the Holy Spirit. The Comforter is not a man. Muhammad could not be the Comforter because he was never the Holy Spirit.


John 14:26 — The Comforter will be sent in Jesus' name. The Holy Spirit represented the Lord on earth. No Muslim believes that Muhammad was sent by God in Jesus name. Muhammad did not come in Jesus' name, as the apostle of Jesus, rather he came in his own name with his own questionable “revelations”.


John 14:26 — But the Comforter, 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."


The Comforter will teach these disciples and remind them of what Christ said to them. As the early Christians grew the Holy Spirit taught them. Muhammad is not the Comforter because he never knew the disciples and he didn't teach these disciples, and Muhammad never reminded the disciples of what Christ said.


John 15:26 — When the Comforter 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.


The Comforter would be sent to these disciples. These disciples received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Muhammad was never sent to these disciples.


John 16:13 — But when he, the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.


The Comforter will guide these disciples into all truth. These disciples (and others) grew in the knowledge of God through the revelations from the Holy Spirit. Muhammad never guided these disciples into any truth.


John 16:13 — He will not speak on his own, he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

The Comforter will speak to these disciples. These disciples grew to know the leading of the Holy Spirit, i.e. they knew His voice. Muhammad never spoke to these disciples.


John 16:14 — He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.


The Comforter will take from Jesus and make it known to the disciples. Muhammad never knew Jesus and never took from Jesus and made it known to anyone.


The context of these passages shows clearly that Muhammad could not be the Comforter.


Source: Silas of AI

To be comforted cannot be achieved by empty words, not deeply at any rate.

Is it not only through Divine inspiration?

Psalms 137,
"How can we sing the song of God upon alien soil."
They were comforted by Divine inspiration.
Psalms 23,
When David was in the forest of Cheret and nearly died of starvation,
he was given a taste of the World to come, and thereby comforted,
plus many other examples
Divine inspiration.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In my reading, one of the most common ways for religious reformers to change a religious text is to add new context. The ordinary people know the original text, so the reformers cannot remove it, but adding new text as context can change the meaning of the original text.

Originally there was only the sayings and doings of Jesus as remembered by His followers. The sequence of those sayings and doings in Mark is not chronological, so there is no way to know if Jesus meant for a particular saying to be understood in the context of a preceding doing in the gospel text.

An example that comes to mind is the prediction by Jesus that some of His listeners will still be living when the Kingdom of Heaven arrives. The gospels follow this saying with the Transfiguration to explain that the prediction came true. That probably isn't what Jesus meant by His prediction, but that is how the writer of Mark understood the prediction. That saying should be separated from the gospel's context IMO.

EDIT: I know the OP wanted everybody to stay on topic until a Muslim member gave his/her ideas, so I apologize for derailing. We should stay on topic.

If we are talking about adding text to change context, then perhaps we should remember that the Gospel of John is the last gospel text, written probably ~90-100 CE, as compared to the Synoptics which date to between 60 and 90 CE. So it would seem strange that we have the statements made, for example, in Luke-Acts which predate John as something which would change to context for what's written in John.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

If we are talking about adding text to change context, then perhaps we should remember that the Gospel of John is the last gospel text, written probably ~90-100 CE, as compared to the Synoptics which date to between 60 and 90 CE. So it would seem strange that we have the statements made, for example, in Luke-Acts which predate John as something which would change to context for what's written in John.

That is a good point that the saying about the Comforter comes from John and the experience at Pentecost comes from Acts. The author of the gospel of John didn't use any of the synoptic gospels for some reason.

One mistake that Christians make (according to Bart Ehrman) is to read the four gospels as though they are telling the same story. The gospels each have a different understanding of Jesus and His mission, and that understanding is overlooked when the gospels are blended together in the minds of most Christian readers. Maybe it is a mistake to associate the saying about the Comforter with the experience at Pentecost when they come from independent texts? The only commonality in the texts is any authentic historical events - not the religious meaning of those events and possible embellishments.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is a good point that the saying about the Comforter comes from John and the experience at Pentecost comes from Acts. The author of the gospel of John didn't use any of the synoptic gospels for some reason.

One mistake that Christians make (according to Bart Ehrman) is to read the four gospels as though they are telling the same story. The gospels each have a different understanding of Jesus and His mission, and that understanding is overlooked when the gospels are blended together in the minds of most Christian readers. Maybe it is a mistake to associate the saying about the Comforter with the experience at Pentecost when they come from independent texts? The only commonality in the texts is any authentic historical events - not the religious meaning of those events and possible embellishments.

Jesus' mention of the Paraclete is John's parallel to what we see in the Synoptics. Yes, John is quite different from the Synoptics; but there are common elements in both the Synoptics and John; the promise of the Holy Spirit is one of those shared elements.

To suggest that these are entirely different things is akin to claiming that the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew) and the Sermon on the Plain (Luke) are entirely different, or that Jesus drove out the animals from the temple twice. John does do things and say things differently, but since all four of the Gospel texts are relying on a shared tradition we should expect there to be different versions or ways of talking about the same things. In Luke St. Joseph is the son of Heli, in Matthew St. Joseph is the son of Jacob; we don't have two different Josephs, we have two different accounts of the genealogy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

Jesus' mention of the Paraclete is John's parallel to what we see in the Synoptics. Yes, John is quite different from the Synoptics; but there are common elements in both the Synoptics and John; the promise of the Holy Spirit is one of those shared elements.

To suggest that these are entirely different things is akin to claiming that the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew) and the Sermon on the Plain (Luke) are entirely different, or that Jesus drove out the animals from the temple twice. John does do things and say things differently, but since all four of the Gospel texts are relying on a shared tradition we should expect there to be different versions or ways of talking about the same things. In Luke St. Joseph is the son of Heli, in Matthew St. Joseph is the son of Jacob; we don't have two different Josephs, we have two different accounts of the genealogy.

I guess the fundamental point I was trying to highlight is that there are different contexts. The original context was Jesus speaking to his confused disciples before he was crucified. The next context was the Jesus Movement preserving the saying orally and perhaps in some lost text. The final context was the author of the Gospel of John. The meaning of the saying might have changed as it moved through those different contexts. Also there are later contexts as Christian scholars wrote their understandings.

That's why I think it is misleading to suggest that somebody is taking a Bible verse out of context. There are lots of different contexts. The way the author of John understood a saying is not necessarily the way that Jesus intended for the saying to be understood. It is better to take the saying out of the gospel's context and try to recreate the context of Jesus speaking to his disciples. (Sorry if that is rambling and hard to follow. Hopefully it makes sense.)