Get the Tekton site on CD. Click here for details

I suppose it's inevitable that I'll get junk mail from weirdos, and one such came today, from someone apparently of Muslim persuasion who sent me a bit claiming, "Muhammad was predicted to come in the Gospel of John." My friend Jochen Katz has something to say about this here and here and here, but I'll also give some of my own input on this subject.

Since this is short enough we'll engage our recent method of leaving the arguments intact and commenting in green.

Just a quick note, the Arabic word "Muhammad" is an expression which means "The honorable one" or "The glorified one" or "The admirable". Prophet Muhammad was the first in the Middle East to be named "Muhammad". Below, you will see how Jesus in today's Gospel of John had called this human Prophet which he predicted his comming "The honorable one".

Jesus in the Greek Bible used the Greek word "Periklytos" which means the admirable or glorified one. He called that predicted human prophet "Periklytos". This word corresponds exactly to the Arabic word "Muhammad" which also means the "admired one" or "glorified one." In other words, "Periklytos" is "Muhammad" in Greek. Since I write this just before Super Bowl Sunday I'll put it this way: False start, offense. Strong's tells us it is: 3875. parakletos, par-ak'-lay-tos; an intercessor, consoler:--advocate, comforter. No "admirable or glorified one" in sight, but note the spelling mismatch. Witherington [John commentary, 250] notes that the word is used of one who is "someone's agent in a judicial situation" -- which fits in with 1 John 2:1: "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous..." "Admired one" doesn't make much sense here. So where does he get this nonsense? We'll see farther below. Our Muslim apologist (we will call him "Zack" from here on) quotes the four passages from John's gospel that use the word, then admits:

In these four verses, the word "comforter" is translated from the word "Paraclete" ("Ho Parakletos" in Greek). Parakletos in Greek is interpreted as "an advocate", one who pleads the cause of another, one who councils or advises another from deep concern for the other's welfare (Beacon Bible commentary volume VII, p.168). In these verses we are told that once Jesus (peace be upon him) departs, a Paraclete will come. He will glorify Jesus (peace be upon him), and he will guide mankind into all truth. This "Paraclete" is identified in John 14:26 as the Holy Ghost. Oh ho. Then what's all that about it meaning "admirable or glorified one"? Zack contradicts himself in the space of only a few paragraphs. Note that no source was given on his first definition.

It must be pointed out that the original Greek manuscripts speak of a "Holy pneuma." The word pneuma {pnyoo'-mah} is the Greek root word for "spirit." There is no separate word for "Ghost" in the Greek manuscripts, of which there are claimed to be over 24,000 today. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible translate this word as "Ghost" to convey their own personal understanding of the text. However, a more accurate translation is "Holy Spirit." More faithful and recent translations of the Bible, such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), do indeed now translate it as "Holy Spirit." This is significant, and will be expounded upon shortly. This should be good. None of this is actually untrue, other than that I can't say about what he thinks the KJV people were trying to do.

All Bibles in existence today are compiled from "ancient manuscripts," the most ancient of which being those of the fourth century C.E. False. Second century. Any scholar of the Bible will tell us that no two ancient manuscripts are exactly identical. All Bibles in our possession today are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference. Typical sound bite overplay of the sort we answer here.

What the translators of the Bible have done when presented with such discrepancies is to do their best to choose the correct version. In other words, since they can not know which "ancient manuscript" is the correct one, they must do a little detective work on the text in order to decide which "version" of a given verse to accept. John 14:26 is just such an example of such selection techniques. Zack isn't clear on what he knows about the textual critical process, but as it stands this is a generally devoid of sense, sound-bite statement, as noted in the link above. Let's see how the specifics work out.

John 14:26 is the only verse of the Bible which associates the Parakletos with the Holy Spirit. But if we were to go back to the "ancient manuscripts" themselves, we would find that they are not all in agreement that the "Parakletos" is the Holy Spirit. For instance, in the famous the Codex Syriacus, written around the fifth century C.E., and discovered in 1812 on Mount Sinai by Mrs.Agnes S. Lewis (and Mrs. Bensley), the text of 14:26 reads; "Paraclete, the Spirit"; and not "Paraclete, the Holy Spirit.". The fifth century, is it? And just one mss.? By the principles of textual criticism this one is a bonehead loser. We have copies of John from quite earlier than that, by a hundred years or more, as Katz notes in one of the links above. It also happens to be in Syriac, not in Greek. But now get this bonehead statement as well:

Very Important Point: A "Spirit" in the New Testament is a human Prophet. Therefore, Jesus had predicted the comming of a human Prophet (spirit) after him and not the Holy Spirit. Jesus would not have used the word "he" for the Holy Spirit. He would have used "it" instead in John 14:26 above. What nonsense. So when 2 Tim. 1:7 speaks of the "spirit of fear" is that a human? Is the spirit of divination (Acts 16:16) human? The spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:4)? Add to that Zack's profound ignorance of the Greek behind John 14:26. Jesus used neither "it" nor "he" but "that one" or ekeinos. This word is used to refer to God (5:19, 6:29, 8:42), the Paraclete (14:26, 15:26, 16:8, 13, 14), and Jesus himself (1:18, 2:21, 3:28-30, 9:37) - and by the Pythagoreans to refer to their own dead master, and to Jesus again (disparagingly!) in later Judaism. Read 1 John 4:1-3 below:

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world," (1 John 4:1-3)

(also see 1 John 4:6), or an inspired human, for example read 1 Corinthians 2:10, 2 Thessalonians 2:2, ...etc. In all cases what we see here is a "spirit" that inspires a human -- as in the spirit of divination. It does not refer to the human itself. 1 Cor. 2:10 says, "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." 2 Thess. 2:2 says, "That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." None of this makes the word pneuma mean "a human prophet" or "an inspired human" and neither Zack nor any Muslim apologist will find a Greek lexicon that supports such a nonsensical definition.

There had been many cases of deliberate modification of the Biblical text by members of the Christian clergy themselves, as well as deliberate large scale projects to "correct" the Bible, and the writings of "the early fathers," (such as the deliberate insertion of the verse of 1 John 5:7 which is now universally discarded) See link above for refutation of this simple-minded notion. It is, therefore, possible that either:

1) The word "Holy" could have been dropped by a careless copyist., or

2) Someone could have inserted the word "Holy" to convey his personal understanding of the text.

Which was it? Given the evidence -- one late mss., in a different language than the original, versus much earlier mss. in the original language -- what do you think? Zack can't play the textual criticism card for this one, so he'll resort to obfuscation of another sort. In order to arrive at the answer we must follow the same path of detective work the Biblical scholars themselves do. We must study the characteristics of the "Paraclete" and compare them to both the "Holy Spirit" and to a "Spirit." Sorry, but that's not what a textual critic would do, which is why Zack avoids it. Muslims believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the one intended and not the Holy Ghost. In the Christian's own "Gospel of Barnabas" Muhammad is mentioned by name here. The Trinitarian church, however, has done its utmost to obliterate all existing copies of "The Gospel of Barnabas," and to hide it from the masses or to label it a forgery (see chapter 7). On this see here. Ouch. For this reason, it becomes necessary to show that even the Gospels adopted by Paul's church also originally spoke of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

1) Christian scholars see evidence of tampering, especailly with the word "Spirit":

In the famous "Anchor Bible" we find the following quote: "The word parakletos is peculiar in the NT to the Johnannine literature. In John ii Jesus is a parakletos (not a title), serving as a heavenly intercessor with the Father ... Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Windisch, Sasse, Bultmann, and Betz have doubted whether this identification is true to the original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit." (The Anchor Bible, Doubleday & Company, Inc, Garden City, N.Y. 1970, Volume 29A, p. 1135) Hold the phone on this one. To begin, none of this shows "tampering" of the sort that is of any use to Zack or his case. For another thing, the takes by Bultmann, et al. are seriously out of date. No surprise that Zack uses a 1970 edition. But we'll be having a closer look at that quote before too long. Meanwhile this may come in handy. Update: We now have this book in hand; it is Brown's commentary of John for the Anchor series. Zack should be pilloried for lying here, because he quotes only the beginning of Brown's analysis -- which goes on to strongly disagree with and disprove the stated position. Brown merely reported the position in order to refute it!

We are about to see some of the evidence that goes to prove this position.

2) Does the Holy Spirit "speak" or "inspire":

Important Note: The Greek word translated as "hear" in the Biblical verses ("whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak") is the Greek word "akouo" {ak-oo'-o} meaning to perceive sounds. It has, for instance, given us the word "acoustics," the science of sounds. Similarly the verb "to speak" is the Greek verb "laleo" {lal-eh'-o} which has the general meaning "to emit sounds" and the specific meaning "to speak." This verb occurs very frequently in the Greek text of the Gospels. It designates a solemn declaration by Jesus (peace be upon him) during his preachings (For example Matthew 9:18). Obviously these verbs require hearing and speech organs in order to facilitate them. There is a distinct difference between someone "inspiring" something and him "speaking" something. So the Paraclete will "hear" and "speak," not "inspire." Gosh, hello? Does God have hearing and speech organs? Would Zack say Allah does? I know these guys aren't Mormons, but I also know they think Allah and God hear and speak, and inspires in their speaking. We recommend also a look here.

Muhammad (peace be upon him), as seen above, did indeed fulfill this prophesy. Whatsoever he "HEARD" from Gabriel (The Qur'an), the same did he physically "SPEAK" to his followers. In the Qur'an we read: By now it's not clear what "prophesy" Zack means but if he means John 14:26, it says the Paraclete "shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." The claimed fulfillment is "(God swears) By the star when it falls!: Your comrade (Muhammad) errs not, nor is he deceived; Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is naught save a revelation that is revealed (unto him)." (The noble Qur'an, Al-Najm(53):1-4) So now how did Mohammed bring to remembrance the things that Jesus said? I would guess we'll be told that Jesus said stuff that Mohammed said later, but that the evil Christian church wiped out all that stuff. In other words the big vicious circle. Am I right? And while we are at it, if this is true then Jesus told people that their memory would be supplemented by someone who lived hundreds of years after they died.

3) The Holy Ghost was already with them:

In the above verses we read "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." The comforter can not be the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost (according to the Bible) was "with" them already (and even quite active) long before the coming of Jesus (peace be upon him) himself and then throughout his ministry. Read for example. Zack quotes Genesis 1:2 and OT passages where the spirit is said to act, but, uh, excuse me -- who is Jesus speaking to in John 16:7? He is speaking to his disciples. Were they there when God made the world (Gen. 1:2)? When Saul was around (1 Sam. 11:6)? Are they the same people as John the Baptist (Luke 1:15) or Mary or Elizabeth or Simeon? The one verse that even comes close to overlap is this one:

"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)

Did they or did they not already receive the Holy Ghost? No. Was Jesus (peace be upon him) not still with them when they received the Holy Ghost? No. Was the Holy Ghost not with Simeon, Mary, Elisabeth and Zacharias before the birth of Jesus (peace be upon him)? Was the Holy Ghost not with Moses (peace be upon him) when he parted the seas? Yes and yes. But none of them were the people Jesus was speaking to. There are many more similar verses to be found in the Bible. In the above verses, we are told that if Jesus (peace be upon him) does not depart then the "parakletos" will not come. To whom? To those Jesus was speaking to. Hello? Thus, the "Holy Ghost" cannot be the one originally intended since it was already with them. The contradiction is quite obvious. Zack's inability to get out of a dimensional rut is far more obvious to me. If Mohammed said to a group of people, "I will come see you" does this mean he's going to go see someone else?

4) Selective translation: Jesus (peace be upon him) too is a Paraclete:

The word "Paraclete" is applied to Jesus (peace be upon him) himself in 1 John 2:1

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate(parakletos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." (1 John 2:1)

Notice how the translators have managed to translate this exact same word one way (advocate) in reference to Jesus (peace be upon him) and another (comforter) with regard to the coming "parakletos." Why would they want to do such a thing? Who knows? Either way "advocate" is correct; it has judicial connotations of one who stands alongside as a sort of defense attorney. "Comforter" may not sound right at this time because it has modern connotations of a person who puts a pillow behind your head or something. But we know it is applied to Jesus -- what of it? The reason is that the translators did not want the Christians, after reading

"we have an advocate(parakletos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous"

to then read

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another advocate(parakletos)."

Can we see why this would make them nervous?

Well, what was Jesus (peace be upon him)? He was a prophet! Read:

"...This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." (Matthew 21:11) and "..Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people" (Luke 24:19:). We know he was a prophet. He was also an advocate, a healer, a teacher...any problem with having more than one job?/P>

Muhammad (peace be upon him) was also a prophet of God. We have already demonstrate in chapter one how the verses of the Bible themselves prove quite conclusively that Jesus (peace be upon him) was neither a god nor part of God Almighty, but an elect messenger of God. The concept of his divinity was concocted by Paul and his ministry during the first three centuries after the departure of Jesus (peace be upon him) and is explicitly refuted by the Bible itself and Jesus' apostles. Baloney sandwiches. I gave Zack a link to my essay on the Trinity and we'll see if he does anything about it. If he plays nice I'll also give him some stuff about the claims of Jesus.

5) "Another" Paraclete:

Now go back to John 14:16 and notice the words "another Paraclete." If the comforter is the Holy Ghost then how many Holy Ghost's are there? Gee, Zack is dumb. There are two paracletes: Jesus is one, the Spirit is another. It's not like anyone things the Spirit has exclusive title to the word. The word "another" is significant. We have already seen how this term is applied to Jesus (peace be upon him) himself. In English, "another" may mean "One more of the same kind" or "one more of a different kind." If the latter were the one intended then the current Christian interpretation might bear some merit. However, if "One more of the same kind" was what was intended then this is positive proof that the coming Paraclete would be just like Jesus (peace be upon him), a human being and a prophet, not a ghost. How does this follow? Zack arbitrarily declares that the "same" must mean the same in the sense of a certain set of arbitrarily-chosen chacteristics: in this case, he decides it must be "same" in the sense of "being a human prophet". Why not the same kind in the sense of, "one who is an advocate for you as I am"? Why not in action and deed rather than personal and ontological quality? Heck, even if it is, why not, "another who is also a hypostatic attribute of the Father"? Note how Zack slips in the premisses and closes the door as fast as he can. As an aside, when was Mohammed "with" the people Jesus spoke to? When was Mohammed "in" them? Was that erased from the text by chance? The actual Greek word used was the word "allon" which is the masculine accusative form of "allos" {al'-los}: "Another of the SAME kind." The Greek word for "another of a different kind" is "heteros" {het'-er-os}. As noted, that's fine -- now let's see Zack explain the arbitrary critera of humanity and prophethood as needing to be what's in view. Would humanity or propethood have been of interest and been a differentiating factor?

Prof. Abdul-Ahad Dawud (formerly Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, Bishop of Uramia) says:

"The adjective 'another' preceding a foreign noun for the first time announced seems very strange and totally superfluous. There is no doubt that the text has been tampered with and distorted." (Muhammad in the Bible, Prof. Abdul-`Ahad Dawud, p. 211) That sure followed logically. Now which is it? Does Zack want the text as is (which is where textual criticism leads? Or does he wants to follow some unqualified authority's arbitrary declaration with no specifics? So HOW exactly has it been tampered with and distorted? The quote does not say. And how is paraclete a "foreign noun" in this context? That's not explained either. This whole explanation reeks of superficiality.

"The Paraclete is a parallel figure to Jesus himself; and this conclusion is confirmed in the fact that the title is suitable for both. It is clear from 14:16 that the source thought there were sendings of two Paracletes, Jesus and his successor, the one following the other" (The Gospel of John a Commentary, Rudolf Bultmann, p. 567) Yes -- we agree here. So what's the point?

6) "Parakletos" or "Periklytos"?: Ah. Now we'll see where Zack pulls off this "admired one" nonsense:

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: Some scholars "Some scholars" -- actually, none. Zack names none. believe that what Jesus (peace be upon him) said in his own Aramaic tongue in these verses represents more closely the Greek word "Periklytos" which means the admirable or glorified one. This word corresponds exactly to the Arabic word "Muhammad" which also means the "admired one" or "glorified one." In other words, "Periklytos" is "Muhammad" in Greek. Very imaginative. Also completely without justification. There are several similar documented cases of similar word substitution in the Bible. Unfortunately such cases have bene verified by textual criticism. This one isn't. It is also quite possible that both words were contained in the original text but were dropped by a copyist because of the ancient custom of writing words closely packed, with no spaces in-between them. In such a case the original reading would have been: "and He will give you another comforter(Parakletos), the admirable one(Periklytos)" (See examples of many similar cases in the Biblical text in "The Emphatic Diaglott"). Still an exercise in imagination. I can just as well say that the words "and it won't be a guy named Mohammed" were dropped.

In his book "Muhammed in the Bible", Professor `Abdul-Ahad Dawud, formerly Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, Roman Catholic Bishop of Uramiah, submits a much more eloquent and scholarly presentation in defense of these assertions, far beyond the limited abilities of this humble author. For those who which to read a truly scholarly study of this matter, you may obtain a copy of that book. You can try unsuccessfully. OCLC shows no copies anywhere in the US or in the UK. The only such title listed is credited to a certain Jamal Badawi, and it can be found in less than a dozen libraries. The following is a very brief quotation from that book: Given that this appears not in a peer-reviewed journal or commentary, but in an obscure work by someone of uncertain qualification, and is completely contradicted by Johnanine scholarship (including those that Zack has already quoted!) I rate this worth about two cents:

"The 'Paraclete' does not signify either 'consoler' or 'advocate'; in truth, it is not a classical word at all. Not according to all Johnanine scholarship. The Greek orthography of the word is Paraklytos which in ecclesiastical literature is made to mean 'one called to aid, advocate, intercessor' (Dict. Grec.-Francais, by Alexandre). One need not profess to be a Greek scholar to know that the Greek word for 'comforter or consoler' is not 'Paraclytos' but 'Paracalon'. Hum. So he's not a Greek scholar...? I have no Greek version of the Septuagint with me, Oh, great! Shades of Paine's "I have no Scriptures at hand, but..." This is as good as they guy who uses as a source a magazine article he read while in the dental waiting room. but I remember perfectly well that the Hebrew word for 'comforter' (mnahem) in the Lamentations of Jeremiah (I. 2, 9, 16, 17, 21, etc.) is translated into Parakaloon, from the verb Parakaloo, which means to call to, invite, exhort, console, pray, invoke. It should be noticed that there is a long alpha vowel after the consonant kappa in the 'Paracalon' which does not exist in the 'Paraclytos.' In the phrase (He who consoles us in all our afflictions) 'paracalon' and not 'Paraclytos' is used. (I exhort, or invite, thee to work). Many other examples can be cited here. There is another Greek word for comforter or consoler, i.e. "Parygorytys' from 'I console'.....The proper Greek term for 'advocate' is Sunegorus and for 'intercessor' or 'mediator' Meditea" (Muhammad in the Bible, Prof. Abdul-`Ahad Dawud, pp. 208-209) I have Witherington's work with me now and his disagreement could not be farther. Zack quotes some Qur'an where he thinks Mohammed fulfills a role like this, but if he was a human, he had to at some time be this way. It's worth asking, though:

God Almighty describes His final prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the noble Qur'an with the following words:

"And We (God) have not sent you (O Muhammad) but as a mercy to all creation" (The noble Qur'an, Al-Anbiya(21):107)

"Verily, there has come unto you a messenger (Muhammad) from among yourselves. It grieves him that you should endure hardship. [He is] fearful for you. For the believers [he is] full of pity, merciful." (The noble Qur'an, Al-Tawba(9):128) That's nice. So Mohammed was merciful now and then. What of it? That's not advocating, or comfortinhg, or acting as an intercessor. Too vague to be useful here.

7) "He" not "It":

Notice the use of "he" when referring to the Paraclete and not "it." If we read John 16:13, we will find no less than SEVEN occurrences of the masculine pronoun "He" and "Himself." There is not another verse in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible or the seventy three books of the Catholic Bible which contains seven masculine pronouns, or seven feminine pronouns, or even seven neuter genders. So many masculine pronouns ill befits a ghost, holy or otherwise. The word "Spirit" (Greek, pneu'ma), is of a neutral gender and is always referred to by the pronoun "it." Hmm. God is a spirit (John 4:24) and so is Allah, but I have never heard Muslims refer to either as an "it"...and 16:13-14 both use "that one" which as noted above is used to refer to persons. Zack still needs more homework.

Mr. Ahmed Deedat says:

"When this point of seven masculine pronouns was mooted by Muslims in India in their debates with the Christian missionaries, the Urdu (Indian) version of the Bible had the pronouns presently changed to SHE, SHE, SHE! so that the Muslims could not claim that this prophecy referred to Muhammad (peace be upon him) - a man! This Christian deception I have seen in the Bible myself. This is a common trickery by the missionaries, more specially in the vernacular. The very latest ruse I have stumbled across in the Afrikaans Bible, on the very verse under discussion; they have changed the word "Trooster" (Comforter), to "Voorspraak" (Mediator), and interpolated the phrase - "die Heilige Gees" - meaning THE HOLY GHOST, which phrase no Bible scholar has ever dared to interpolate into any of the multifarious English Versions. No, not even the Jehovah's witnesses. This is how the Christians manufacture God's word."

"Muhammad, the natural successor to Christ," Ahmed Deedat, p. 51 Anecdotal evidence, which even if true, proves what? The events described happened, when? 1200 AD? 1700? What does this have to do with the 1st, 3rd, 20th century in entirely different locales? How did changing it to "she" make it more a referent to the Spirit? What did it accomplish? If Parakletos is an advocate or intercessor, isn't that change in the Afrikaans Bible one that makes it MORE accurate? Doesn't the last complaint beg the whole identity question we have been discussing? I regard this anecdote as about as useful as the Pope Leo X quote bandied about by Skeptics.

8) He will guide you into all truth:

In the above verses Jesus (peace be upon him) is quoted as saying "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." What does Jesus (peace be upon him) mean by "ye cannot bear them now"? If we were to read the Bible, we would find many verses throughout the Bible wherein Jesus (peace be upon him) bemoans the lack of understanding he was constantly greeted with from his disciples throughout his ministry: Zack gives examples, then adds:

Notice that these are not common Jews who he is saying these words to, but his own elect disciples. The Bible vividly illustrates how he is constantly going out of his way to simplify matters for them and to speak to them as one speaks to little children. However, even at that, they still misunderstand. He is finally driven to frustration and made to say:

"And Jesus said, Are ye even yet without understanding?" (Matthew 15:16)

and "And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you?" (Luke 9:41) And -- that's it. Now what was that all about? Zack goes on (next point) to argue that Mohammed led people into "all truth" but we're still wondering how and when he did that to the particular people Jesus was talking to, 500 years earlier.

9) We are even told that his own people did not accept him:

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not." (John 1:11)

Jesus (peace be upon him) had "all truth," but he could not give it to them because they were not fit to receive it. Therefore, he told them that another would come after him who shall guide them into "all truth" which they could not receive from him. He tells us that the one who will come will "teach you all things." This one who will guide them into "all truth" is described as "The spirit of truth." We have already seen how the word "spirit" in the Bible is synonymous with the word "Prophet." And we have shown how Zack mangles the word to get there. Muhammad (peace be upon him), even before he became the prophet of Islam was known among his people as "Al-sadik Al-amin," which means "The truthful, the trustworthy." Thus, it becomes apparent that Muhammad was indeed "the spirit of truth." Uh, yeah, but sorry -- that's 500 years too late to be of any use to Jesus' disciples. Since the departure of Jesus (peace be upon him) and to this day, the "Holy Ghost" has not taught mankind a single new truth not revealed by Jesus (peace be upon him) himself. He hasn't? What about the inspired writings of Paul and of the NT writers like James and Peter? What about the various prophecies and teachings in the early church? Zack ignores this. He offers Mohammed as a sub.

10) Sin, righteousness, and error:

The coming Paraclete, we are told, will demonstrate the error of the world regarding sin, righteousness, and judgment "he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." This is indeed what Muhammad (peace be upon him) did. It's also what the Spirit did, and does: see here. He came to the world to show them how they had been misguided in "sin" by believing that mankind can inherit sin (see last quarter of chapter one, and Ezekiel 18:19-20) and that someone's sin can be forgiven by the sacrifice of others. Wow, the smell of the begged question here is enormous! He also showed them how they had been misguided in "righteousness" by believing that a righteous person is one who has "faith" in the crucifixion and does nothing else (Romans 3:28), Oh? I'll bet Mohammed had no idea what faith really was. or who believes that another man's death will make him a righteous person (Romans 5:19). And they were misguided in "judgment" by believing that they will be judged by "faith" and other people's deeds and not their own deeds (Mark 16:16), Zack should know better than to use that verse. or that God's "judgment" was to punish all mankind for the sin of one man (Romans 5:16, 5:18). So in other words, here's how Zack chases his tail: 1) The Spirit did not teach any truths to Paul or the NT writers. 2) Mohammed taught the real deal. It's just one big fat circle that assumes that Islam has the goods. And on what authority? Someone standing on the same circle line:/P>

Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught that the unscrupulous had altered the words of Jesus (peace be upon him). Unfortunately textual criticism hasn't borne him out on that one, as noted above. We have no textual variations that support an Islamic agenda. See our guest writer's piece here. He taught that no one will be held accountable by God for anyone else's sin. He emphasized that God has made this a life of work and the next life one of reward and no work. He also revealed that mankind will be judged individually according to their own individual faith and actions and no one else's. And Zack just begs the question that this is in the line of truth. Next?

11) That he may abide with you for ever:

In these verses, Jesus (peace be upon him) is quoted as saying that the coming Paraclete will "abide with you forever." What does he mean by this? He sure didn't mean Mohammed, who showed up 500 years later and not to the people Jesus spoke to, and also died after a normal human lifespan. Let's watch Zack spin his wheels for a bit: In order to understand this statement, let us read

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying." (John 8:51-55)

and also

"And I (Jesus) give unto them (the believers) eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (John 10:28)

and "and my servant David [shall be] their prince forever." (Ezekiel 37:25).

and "The king shall joy in thy strength, O LORD ... He asked life of thee, [and] thou gavest [it] him, [even] length of days for ever and ever." (Psalm 21:1-4)

Jesus (peace be upon him) is quoted many times in the Bible as telling his followers that they will never taste death. However, there is not a single one of them alive to this day. Was he lying? Of course not! As seen above, Jesus' (peace be upon him) was not telling mankind that his followers would never grow old nor die, rather he was speaking about their second life in the hereafter. He was telling them that the life that we hold so dear and spend so much time fretting over and striving to improve is all but insignificant if compared to the true life, the afterlife. So much so that life and death on this earth is unworthy of consideration. Everything in his estimation revolved around an eternal striving for the reward of the afterlife and this was the yardstick by which all matters were to be measured. This much is true as far as it goes. Zack knows about the literal and figurative use of "death" that the three monotheistic faiths share. But:

In a similar manner, when king David is described as being a prince forever, this did not mean that he would never die but remain immortal for ever and ever as a prince to Israel. Rather, his teachings, name, and guidance shall remain as a shining beacon to mankind even after his death. In this manner, Jesus (peace be upon him) lives among us through his faith and teachings, prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) lives on among them and us through his faith and teachings, and so too, the coming Paraclete will live eternally with us through his faith and teachings. Uh, whoops, he just lost his integrity again. Only of the Paraclete is it said, he will "abide with you forever." Aside from that little problem that neither Mohammed nor his teachings were able to abide with anyone for at least 500 years, the word here has very strong connotations of actual presence: "And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence." "And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs." You can find a teaching aspect, to be sure: "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." That's IN, not WITH, and even there the abiding is done not just with Jesus' teachings, but with loyalty to him as well. Zack goes in again to apply it to Mohammed and gives us an advertisement from Islam as the last message to mankind (don't tell the Bahai's that); we'll skip that and go to:

12) He shall not speak of himself:

"For he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak:" This too is an interesting statement. It reminds us of the verses of Deuteronomy 18:18-19 which shall be discussed soon, specifically:

" I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require [it] of him." (Deuteronomy 18:18-19) Zack of course like many Muslims asserts that these verses apply to Mohammed -- not to the Spirit and to Jesus. As it stands this is merely a begged question of Islamic authenticity.

13) He shall bring all things into your remembrance:

The prophesy of this coming Paraclete requires that he shall remind mankind of the words of Jesus. Jesus is speaking here not to those who disbelieved, but to his own followers. He is telling his followers that the Paraclete shall "remind" them of the message of Jesus. However, if the followers of Jesus already know and remember all that Jesus taught then how shall the Paraclete "remind" them of something which they already remember? Gee, hello? How good is Zack's memory? Ancient memory was excellent, but it could only go so far in remembering teachings in a specific format. One time speeches (like much of what is in John) wouldn't be as easily remembered. It's also not necessary to assume forgetfulness is part of the package. The same word is used here: "And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." It can just mean, "bring to mind". Obviously, the coming Paraclete shall come in a time when the teachings of Jesus have been forgotten and require one to "remind" Jesus' followers of them. This of course assumes that they have been forgotten and/or distorted, which we're still waiting for evidence of beyond that tight circle Zack keeps chasing himself in. Meanwhile what use or relevance was this promise to the people Jesus was speaking to?

14) He will show you things to come: Here Zack of course claims Mohammed had a spirit of prophecy and made accurate predicitions. Our view of course is that the Spirit did the same for the Church -- Agabus being a minor example. Zack goes in to write of the amazing growth of the Islamic movement -- not so amazing, actually, so as to require divine intervention. We point the reader here and to the supplement on Islam.

15) The most knowledgeable Christians recognize the Paraclete as Muhammad: Um, yah -- and this according to who? 1) The Qur'an itself. 2) One particular no-name Christian from ages past, who Zack reproduces a long testimony from. So it amounts to that people like Ben Witherington, Raymond Brown, etc. are dumb because they don't recognize Mohammed as the Paraclete. Well, that's all for now, folks. When it comes to Mohammed being the Paraclete, the only way to accomplish that is to find the lowest common denominator and then chase it in a circle around your house.