What The Bible Says About Muhammad.

[Abu Fauzi]

Assalam alaikum,
Find hereby attached some write-up on ''WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT {Prophet } MUHAMMAD'', may Allah bless him and grant him peace, by the Late Sheik Ahmad Deedat. I hope Christians seeing this will examine it with an open mind...objectively, who knows? some change of views may(?) occur.
Regards.

 

[Servetus]

Hi Abu Fauzi,

It was too long for my short attention span, but I will say that I once watched (on video) Ahmad Deedat trounce a clearly unprepared Jimmy Swaggart in a religious cat-fight which was billed, or announced, as a debate. Lately, and though I am not a Muslim, I have been rather more enjoying the articulate, learned and endearingly quirky Abdal Hakim Murad on the Islam Channel.

Welcome, at any rate, to the discussions.

Best regards,


Serv

 

[Amica]

Assalamu alaikum--

Muslims have attempted to show evidence of Muhammad pbuh in the Bible but to no avail: for centuries now majority of Christians do not understand the arguments. I do not think they ever will as long as this world exists. Why bother?

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Its a contentious issue I guess the best one can do is examine the evidence presented by both sides and see which one stands up if any.

This is one of the problems with Religious sectarianism and fundamentalism, people fight wars and kill over these issues.

 

[radarmark]

Abu Fauzi. Please typr out the link, it may be something I have not seen. Just because we Christians have a hard time with it does not mean we should not be exposed to it. My Muslim Freinds have shown me much in this area.

NCOT, right on!!!!! That is why we must reach beyond any fundamentalism (secularism ain't so bad if the groups admit mutual understanding and repect).

 

[Servetus]

Abu Fauzi. Please typr out the link, it may be something I have not seen. Just because we Christians have a hard time with it does not mean we should not be exposed to it. My Muslim Freinds have shown me much in this area.

NCOT, right on!!!!! That is why we must reach beyond any fundamentalism (secularism ain't so bad if the groups admit mutual understanding and repect).

Although it might not have been at this particular address, this, as I recall, was the original booklet, written by Ahmad Deedat, which Abu Fauzi posted.

Muhammad in the Bible

Serv

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Although it might not have been at this particular address, this, as I recall, was the original booklet, written by Ahmad Deedat, which Abu Fauzi posted.

Muhammad in the Bible

Serv

I think i have that somewhere, frankly its not worth the paper its printed.

 

[Servetus]

I think i have that somewhere, frankly its not worth the paper its printed.

It seems to me that there is a certain, though imprecise, parallelism at play here and that it is as likely that Christians will see Muhammad prophesied in the New Testament as that Jews (of Judaism) will see Christ foretold in the Old Testament, or Tanakh. A certain percentage will, but a higher percentage, it seems, will not. I consider it therefore somewhat ironic and at times amusing (because I am easily amused by such things) that Christians, in the main, do to Muslims what Jews, also in the main, do to Christians: that is to say, they go in for a good bit of prophet rejection, so to speak.

Ahmad Deedat's tracts, to my view, are not worthless (and I've read most of them), but, as I mentioned in my initial response above, I think Abdal Hakim-Murad is a better, more informed and less polemical expositor of Islamic doctrine. In my view, he has what the British call better form: he's more sportive.

I might also say that I am one of the Christians (if not in doctrine, at least in name) who by no means rejects the possibility that Muhammad is, in fact, prophesied, however obliquely, in the New Testament. A lot of the argument devolves to and hinges upon what Jesus meant by promising to send the "Paraclete" and it is upon this point that the door to Christian/Islamic dialog often either opens or slams shut. I, for my part, am still studying the matter and have reached no solid conclusions.

Serv

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

I, for my part, am still studying the matter and have reached no solid conclusions.

Serv

most of the arguments for mo in the Bible dont hold much water under scrutiny, deedat was not objective but had an agenda and was only interested in that really.

 

[Servetus]

most of the arguments for mo in the Bible dont hold much water under scrutiny ...

Hence, the tendency of Muslims to hold the Bible at a distance and to claim, in my opinion plausibly so, that it is redacted to the point of corruption. Apart from redaction, moreover, they generally hold that the injil (Evangel, or "good news") which was both brought and taught by Jesus differs from those subsequent Gospels promulgated by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and canonized by the church.

deedat was not objective but had an agenda and was only interested in that really.

Right. He was a partisan, but did give the clearly unprepared (pre-scandal) Jimmy Swaggart a run for the money. I had some popcorn and enjoyed the slugfest, but learned little from the exchange and, given the atmosphere, benefitted even less.


Serv

 

[arthra]

Over time there have been several translations of the Bible in the various languages ..

I think there was an old Syriac translation maybe mentioned by Quillaume in his translation of the LIfe of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq that had an interesting footnote at the bottom of page 104 in most editions.

THis might be available online...

This relates to the discussion about the Paraclete... in Syriac reads "Munahhemana"

But today the Bible has been overladed with so much theological interopretation people are locked in for the most part in their positions on the subject.

 

[Sandy K]

I might also say that I am one of the Christians (if not in doctrine, at least in name) who by no means rejects the possibility that Muhammad is, in fact, prophesied, however obliquely, in the New Testament. A lot of the argument devolves to and hinges upon what Jesus meant by promising to send the "Paraclete" and it is upon this point that the door to Christian/Islamic dialog often either opens or slams shut. I, for my part, am still studying the matter and have reached no solid conclusions.
Serv

In the spirit of helpfulness, I wonder if I could throw out a few thoughts.




There's nothing at all to suggest that the Paraclete could be Muhammad, and overwhelming arguments that it can't be.


Firstly, there is no indication in the New Testament, the Early Church or any other early source that any further significant human being was expected. And plenty of comments to the effect that Jesus is the last word in things. The first Christians certainly don't seem to have expected anyone else.


Secondly, “But the Counselor (paraklētos), the Holy Spirit (to pneuma), whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26) makes it pretty clear that what was meant by the Paraclete was the Holy Spirit. This is completely consistent with the NT and Early Church writings.


Thirdly, “Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you;” (John 16:7) makes little practical sense if Jesus is talking about Muhammad centuries away, but very good sense if Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit.


Finally, to repeat, there is no indication of any kind that Jesus is talking about a prophet several centuries away. None at all.

 

[Servetus]

Hi Sandy K,

In the spirit of helpfulness, I wonder if I could throw out a few thoughts.

Of course. And welcome to the discussions.

There's nothing at all to suggest that the Paraclete could be Muhammad, and overwhelming arguments that it can't be.

You sound like one of the decidedly convinced. I am thus once again reminded that there is a certain parallelism at play here and that it is as likely -or, rather, unlikely- that Christians will see Muhammad prophesied in the New Testament as that Jews (of Judaism) will see Christ foretold in the Old Testament, or Tanakh. A certain percentage will, but a higher percentage, it seems, will not.

Firstly, there is no indication in the New Testament, the Early Church or any other early source that any further significant human being was expected.

I took care to specify that, as I see it, if there are references to Muhammad in the Bible, they are oblique, by which I mean indirect and collateral at best. With that said, I wonder if you have read Ahmad Deedat's (above linked) article? He throws the light of a mosque lamp upon John 1:19-25, the discussion of John the Baptist's identity, to interesting effect. Recollect that the Jerusalem authorities approached John the Baptist and asked if he were: 1) the messiah; 2) Elijah; or 3) the prophet. He declined being all three. Now, Christians claim that Jesus is the messiah, of course. Elsewhere in the New Testament Jesus identifies John the Baptist as Elijah. As I figure, there are, at this point, two down and one to go. In the great game of Clue, that leaves the third, "the prophet." Who, then, is "the prophet" that the author of John's Gospel says the Jewish authorities were expecting at that time? This is an example of what I mean by oblique.

And plenty of comments to the effect that Jesus is the last word in things. The first Christians certainly don't seem to have expected anyone else.

Actually, as I see it, there are indications that plenty of people in the early church identified the Paraclete with the Holy Spirit (of prophecy). Montanus is a case in point. He claimed to be the Paraclete, or to be inspired by the Paraclete, and took a good portion of 2nd Century Christianity along with him on his Phrygian journey into, it turns out, heresy.

Secondly, “But the Counselor (paraklētos), the Holy Spirit (to pneuma), whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26) makes it pretty clear that what was meant by the Paraclete was the Holy Spirit. This is completely consistent with the NT and Early Church writings.

Right. But that did not prevent the followers of Montanus in accepting not only the Gospel of John, which you quote, but also Montanus (as the spokesman for the Paraclete) as authoritative. By way of parallel, as Moses Maimonides claimed Jesus was a false Messiah, so, too, do Christians claim that Montanus was a false Paraclete.

Thirdly, “Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you;” (John 16:7) makes little practical sense if Jesus is talking about Muhammad centuries away, but very good sense if Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps the Paraclete, like the wind, listeth where it will. It descends upon the disciples in the Upper Room on Pentecost and, after a century or five, when the religion of Jesus becomes corrupted (so say the Muslims, at any rate), it flies off to Arabia and beyond. Even though, at this point, I cannot accept either in toto, I will say that Muhammad and the Quran often make more sense to me than, say, Benny Hinn and others of his type who speak in so called tongues.

Finally, to repeat, there is no indication of any kind that Jesus is talking about a prophet several centuries away. None at all.

Well, I am still trying to figure out who, exactly, John the Baptist declined being. Thus, even if yours is, I've not quite finished my game of Clue. Thank you, by the way, for contributing in the spirit of helpfulness. I readily accept that and look forward to conversing with you on this and other subjects.


Best regards,


Serv

 

[Sandy K]

Hi Sandy K,

Thanks for the welcome!

You sound like one of the decidedly convinced.

It is rare for me to say this, as I regard fixed positions with suspicion, but that is so in this case.
As far as I can see, the evidence is all one way. I'm still waiting for any argument at all that could link Muhammad to the Paraclete. The term Paraclete (advocate) fits perfectly well with the Judeo-Christian law-court metaphor that occurs a lot in the NT. In effect, it's the lawyer who gets us the “Not Guilty” verdict. I can't see how that type of legal description could apply to Muhammad at all. One would also have to disregard the mountain of evidence about the central role of the Holy Spirit in early Christianity, from Pentecost onwards.

With that said, I wonder if you have read Ahmad Deedat's (above linked) article? He throws the light of a mosque lamp upon John 1:19-25, the discussion of John the Baptist's identity, to interesting effect. Recollect that ...<snip>... In the great game of Clue, that leaves the third, "the prophet." Who, then, is "the prophet" that the author of John's Gospel says the Jewish authorities were expecting at that time? This is an example of what I mean by oblique.

Deedat is quite wrong when he says the Jews weren't expecting two Messiahs. There was a wide range of messainic belief, and over at Qumran, they were expecting a kingly Messiah and a separate prophetic Messiah.


And he's also wrong when he separates “Messiah, Elijah, Prophet” sequentially. These were all seen as people who were possible candidates for inaugurating the Kingdom of God in First Century Israel. John was hence denying that his job was to inaugurate the Kingdom, but to announce it. What Deedat is doing is to pluck a couple of sentences way out of context. It is essential to read John 1 for the context, and understand that the meta-narrative of the Gospels is all about establishing the long-awaited Kingdom of God.

Actually, as I see it, there are indications that plenty of people in the early church identified the Paraclete with the Holy Spirit (of prophecy). Montanus is a case in point. He claimed to be the Paraclete, or to be inspired by the Paraclete,

What we know about Montanism is vague, but let's be clear* that he did not see himself as the Paraclete itself. He believed the Paraclete, who he believed was the Holy Spirit, spoke through him prophetically, which is in line with the role of the Holy Spirit that I have been suggesting, and in line with most Christian thinking about the role of the Holy Spirit.


In any case, I wouldn't take the beliefs of a late second century heretical cult as being any indication whatsoever about what the Early Church believed, especially since John spells out pretty clearly what he means by Paraclete. All the evidence about what the Early Church believed is clear- Jesus inaugurates the Kingdom, and the Holy Spirit maintains it. No human figure is expected.

(*The board software intercepted my Wikipedia link!!!)

I will say that Muhammad and the Quran often make more sense to me than, say, Benny Hinn and others of his type who speak in so called tongues.

I would no more defend Benny Hinn than I would defend Montanus.

 

[bananabrain]

Hence, the tendency of Muslims to hold the Bible at a distance and to claim, in my opinion plausibly so, that it is redacted to the point of corruption.

that must be why we find it such a useless text...not. of course, nobody could ever make such claims about the Qur'an, could they? islamic claims of bible corruption are ideologically motivated and self-serving, just like the christian claims before them. what can i say - typically they are not familiar with the oral tradition, which is like saying that the lecture was rubbish because you are trying to make sense of the powerpoint slides in isolation.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[radarmark]

Very well out BB. However, it can be pointed out that the NT and Qur'an are, too, like reading PP slides with no context. In the NT case, we must really dig to even get an indication of the context. At least Islam has the hadith.

 

[Aupmanyav]

'may --- bless him and grant him peace': Did these people need peace? Troubled by something? And is there anyone to grant it?

 

[Servetus]

Thanks for the welcome!

It's a pleasure.

It is rare for me to say this, as I regard fixed positions with suspicion, but that is so in this case.

I sometimes envy people with fixed conclusions, given that I am, in answer to Elijah, seemingly forever halting between two opinions. That is to say, and with a nod toward (board member) Snoopy, I waffle.

As far as I can see, the evidence is all one way. I'm still waiting for any argument at all that could link Muhammad to the Paraclete.

Unlike the writers of the New Testament, who not only claimed Jesus was the Messiah but who also, in texts such as this, went to the trouble, in case the reader missed it, of linking Jesus to the Old Testament and having him fulfill prophecy, the author of the Quran never claimed that Muhammad was the Paraclete. There might be no connection whatsoever between Muhammad and the Paraclete. Muslims simply cite St. John’s reference to the Paraclete as a possible, but by no means absolute, reference to Muhammad. In much the same way that Christianity doesn’t need Judaism (or the opinions of the Rabbis) for support, neither does Islam require Christianity as one of its five pillars.

The term Paraclete (advocate) fits perfectly well with the Judeo-Christian law-court metaphor that occurs a lot in the NT. In effect, it's the lawyer who gets us the “Not Guilty” verdict. I can't see how that type of legal description could apply to Muhammad at all.

Now that you mention it, Muhammad impresses me as rather more litigious and legally minded than the dove which descended at Jesus’ baptism and with which the “Holy Spirit,” or Paraclete, is often symbolically identified.

One would also have to disregard the mountain of evidence about the central role of the Holy Spirit in early Christianity, from Pentecost onwards.

I don’t think so. I have not disregarded that mountain of evidence and neither, for that matter, have I altogether excluded Muhammad.

Deedat is quite wrong when he says the Jews weren't expecting two Messiahs.

Could you please quote Deedat verbatim? Although it’s been awhile since I read his article in its entirety, I don’t recollect where he said any such thing.

There was a wide range of messainic belief, and over at Qumran, they were expecting a kingly Messiah and a separate prophetic Messiah.

Uh-oh. The plot thickens. My game of Clue just got more complicated.

Firstly, there is no indication in the New Testament, the Early Church or any other early source that any further significant human being was expected ...

Is the Qumran sect, in this case, an exception? If I correctly understand, we have now gone from expecting no one other than Jesus to expecting at least another Messiah.

The first Christians certainly don't seem to have expected anyone else.

Assuming, and only an assumption it is, that you accept Jesus as one of the messiahs expected by the Qumran sect, which of the two (or both) messiahs do you think he was: the kingly or prophetic messiah?

And he's also wrong when he separates “Messiah, Elijah, Prophet” sequentially.

Again, I must respectfully disagree with you. I don’t think Deedat is wrong to separate the three. As I read it, the author of St. John’s Gospel does that.

These were all seen as people who were possible candidates for inaugurating the Kingdom of God in First Century Israel.

Ok. And, I might add, they were seen as three separate people who were possible candidates. The authorities were trying to determine which of the three John the Baptist was.

John was hence denying that his job was to inaugurate the Kingdom, but to announce it.

Right. He was the forerunner, the voice in the wilderness, and all that -although why he denied being Elijah when Jesus said he was is a separate issue and quite another move on my already and increasingly cluttered Clue board.

What Deedat is doing is to pluck a couple of sentences way out of context.

I must lodge another respectful disagreement. He is reading the verse quite logically and within context.

Actually, as I see it, there are indications that plenty of people in the early church identified the Paraclete with the Holy Spirit (of prophecy). Montanus is a case in point. He claimed to be the Paraclete, or to be inspired by the Paraclete …

What we know about Montanism is vague, but let's be clear* that he did not see himself as the Paraclete itself. He believed the Paraclete, who he believed was the Holy Spirit, spoke through him prophetically, which is in line with the role of the Holy Spirit that I have been suggesting, and in line with most Christian thinking about the role of the Holy Spirit.

I think there is more evidence that Montanus claimed to be the Paraclete than that Jesus claimed to be God. I quote Jaroslav Pelikan:

“Montanus himself seems to have made the claim that the promise of Jesus concerning the Paraclete had been uniquely fulfilled in him … From our sources it seems likely that when he was caught up in ecstatic rapture, Montanus spoke of the Paraclete in the first person: “I am the Paraclete.” According to Epiphanius, Montanus said: “I am the Lord God Almighty, who have descended in a man.” (pp. 100-102)

In any case, I wouldn't take the beliefs of a late second century heretical cult as being any indication whatsoever about what the Early Church believed …

I maintain that the notion that the Paraclete would either descend upon or be identified with a person was apparently not so unusual to the early church, unless, that is, one does not consider the second century early. Montanus stands as a case in point. With that said, given that I am not one, I wouldn't try to convince you to become a Montanist.

All the evidence about what the Early Church believed is clear- Jesus inaugurates the Kingdom, and the Holy Spirit maintains it. No human figure is expected.

You are speaking as a late-model Christian, apparently. It must not have been quite so clear in the early days because even the pugnacious and persuasive Tertullian took a journey into Montanism and had a Montanist phase.

(*The board software intercepted my Wikipedia link!!!)

Splendid! Although they are sometimes informative, I despise the vanguards and wiccan pedophiles behind Wikipedia. (Just joking.)


Serv

 

[Sandy K]

I am, in answer to Elijah, seemingly forever halting between two opinions.

I'm still waiting for any positive reason to connect Muhammad to the Paraclete.

...In much the same way that Christianity doesn’t need Judaism (or the opinions of the Rabbis) for support, ...

Christianity does need Judaism, in the same way that my head needs its body. Jesus entire context is Judaism; the Jewish meta-narrative his back-story. His raison d'etre was Judaism.

Now that you mention it, Muhammad impresses me as rather more litigious and legally minded than the dove which descended at Jesus’ baptism and with which the “Holy Spirit,” or Paraclete, is often symbolically identified.

I'm referring to the Jewish law-court model, a very popular element within the OT and Early Christianity. In this model, God's people are declared “righteous” by the Judge (God); the image of the Paraclete as winning counsel is being used with the term “advocate”. (Saul saying to David “you are righteous” paraphrases as 'in God's court you win the case' etc.)

{Deedat is quite wrong when he says the Jews weren't expecting two Messiahs.}
Could you please quote Deedat verbatim?....Uh-oh. The plot thickens.

“This was only natural because there can't be two Messiahs (14) at the same time.” and note (14) “The Jews were expecting a single Messiah not two.”


There was a range of beliefs concerning the Messiah(s). There were certain core beliefs that were widely held, but basing an argument on specific beliefs about the Messiah needs a lot of care. A failure to get to grips with first century Jewish eschatology affects the arguments of a great many people, including many Christians.


And here is where I must re-emphasise what the John denying Elijah passage is about. It's eschatology. There was a general belief in first century Israel that at some point God would act decisively to bring in His kingdom. John was declaring that this process was imminent. The Jewish leaders were investigating the basis for this claim.


There was a lot of vagueness about how the Kingdom would be inaugurated, but the Messiah, Elijah and an unnamed Jewish prophet were all possibilities for that job. The idea is that John is denying his role is to do that job.


If you read on for context in John 1, you will see that the very next thing is John identifies who is going to institute the Kingdom.


There was and still is a belief among Jews that Elijah is to appear before the coming of the Kingdom. It's ambiguous whether that means he'll inaugurate it (denial from John), or whether he'll appear without that job (Jesus comment on John).

I think there is more evidence that Montanus claimed to be the Paraclete ...(pp. 100-102)

Montanus may have spoken of God in the first person, but it is generally thought he believed this was God speaking through him.

You are speaking as a late-model Christian, apparently.

I'm trying very hard to think like an early model Christian. That way I should avoid being tagged with Benny Hinn.

 

[Servetus]

I'm still waiting for any positive reason to connect Muhammad to the Paraclete.

You might have a very long wait indeed. Again, unlike the authors of the New Testament, who connect the dots for us and who claim, over the objections and protestations of Moses Maimonides and other authorities for Judaism, that Jesus was the Messiah, the author of the Quran makes no such claim that Muhammad is or was the Paraclete.

Christianity does need Judaism, in the same way that my head needs its body. Jesus entire context is Judaism; the Jewish meta-narrative his back-story. His raison d'etre was Judaism.

As I see it, Christianity dances a danse macabre with Judaism and neither seems to mind, sometimes, if the other partner is headless. At any rate, it seems to me that it is a rare Christian indeed -excepting John Hagee and the battalion of Christian Zionists watching Rabbi Moshe Laurie on the TCT- who considers the opinions of Orthodox rabbis as authoritative or in any way definitive, especially on matters of Christology. Speaking of that macabre dance, Moses Maimonides, in his Epistle to Yemen, suggests that Jesus' reason for being was, indeed, Judaism: but that it was to destroy Judaism by adulterating the Torah and by leading others astray in the process. For that reason, Maimonides says, the Jewish sages meted out fitting punishment to that rebel, Jesus, and Jesus’ disciples, worshipers and acolytes may cry all they want, but it is a fait accompli. In the memorable words of Sonny and Cher: "And the beat goes on. And the beat goes on."

I'm referring to the Jewish law-court model, a very popular element within the OT and Early Christianity. In this model, God's people are declared “righteous” by the Judge (God); the image of the Paraclete as winning counsel is being used with the term “advocate”. (Saul saying to David “you are righteous” paraphrases as 'in God's court you win the case' etc.)

Oh, that makes more sense than a dove flying down from Heaven. By the way, one can often learn a lot about a person by noting which subjects interest them, and I appreciate the time and effort you have evidently put into this topic. You might consider making an introductory post in the Introductions forum and, if you want to post Wikipedia links, post some newbie-pseudo-Haiku to prove you are not a bot, even if an articulate one at that.

“This was only natural because there can't be two Messiahs (14) at the same time.” and note (14) “The Jews were expecting a single Messiah not two.”

Thank you, again. In this case, I agree with Deedat. According to the author of St. John’s Gospel, the authorities seemed aware of only one Messiah, and asked John the Baptist if he were it (they didn’t, in other words, distinguish between Messiah ben Joseph and ben David). Moreover, even if the Qumran sect were expecting more than one messiah, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that the author of St. John’s Gospel had had any contact with those sectarians and was aware of the belief.

And here is where I must re-emphasise what the John denying Elijah passage is about. It's eschatology. There was a general belief in first century Israel that at some point God would act decisively to bring in His kingdom. John was declaring that this process was imminent. The Jewish leaders were investigating the basis for this claim.

I have agreed with you as to his function, or role, but the issue, to my mind, concerns identity and whether, according to the Gospel, the Jewish authorities were expecting not only a messiah but also a prophet. To this latter question, I continue to answer in the affirmative.

There was a lot of vagueness about how the Kingdom would be inaugurated, but the Messiah, Elijah and an unnamed Jewish prophet were all possibilities for that job. The idea is that John is denying his role is to do that job.

Spot on. Who, then, is the unnamed “Jewish” prophet, and, to compound the complexity, who says that he has to be Jewish?

If you read on for context in John 1, you will see that the very next thing is John identifies who is going to institute the Kingdom.

Would that be Jesus, the (or, if it applies, "a") Messiah? Who, then, is “the prophet?” Moreover, a new question arises: are “the prophet” and the Paraclete identical?

There was and still is a belief among Jews that Elijah is to appear before the coming of the Kingdom.

Right. I have participated in a religious ceremony -a Seder- during which a seat was left vacant for Elijah, in hopes he would appear. Even though I was probably only invited because the host appreciates my contentiousness and curiosity, I decided, out of deference to the solemnity of the occasion and in the interests of good manners, to not (try to) press the point that that prophecy has already been fulfilled, and that Elijah was here, but apparently did not know who he was.

It's ambiguous whether that means he'll inaugurate it (denial from John), or whether he'll appear without that job (Jesus comment on John).

Sorry. I didn’t understand this sentence.

Montanus may have spoken of God in the first person, but it is generally thought he believed this was God speaking through him.

To me, that is largely inconsequential. The fact is that there were plenty of early Christians who, even if a lot of them ventured off into what was later called heresy, did not consider the notion unusual that the Paraclete would be identified with, alight upon, speak through or be otherwise associated with a person, in this case Montanus; this, against the claim that the Paraclete has never been so identified.

I'm trying very hard to think like an early model Christian. That way I should avoid being tagged with Benny Hinn.

And may you succeed! I hope it’s clear that I was not so tagging you. I only mentioned Benny Hinn because he, being a Christian, can claim to be a continuation of the Paracletian (to coin a term) phenomenon by speaking in so called tongues. Again, though Muhammad did not claim to be the Paraclete, he and the Quran sometimes make more sense to me than does Benny Hinn and others of the latter’s type.