Islam and the Virgin Birth of Jesus

[Angelos]

[/INDENT]

Now consider this scenario:

On the one hand Jesus says this:

Mark 4:10-13
10 - And when he was alone, those present along with the Twelve questioned him about the parables.

11 - He [Jesus] answered them, "The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables,

12 - so that ‘they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand, in order that they may not be converted and be forgiven.’"

13 - Jesus said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand any of the parables?

Then later Mark is telling us:

34 - Without parables he [Jesus] did not speak to them, but to his own disciples he explained everything in private.

But when:

19 The high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his doctrine.

20 Jesus answered him, "I have spoken publicly to the world. I have always taught in a synagogue or in the temple area where all the Jews gather, and in secret I have said nothing.

21 Why ask me? Ask those who heard me what I said to them. They know what I said." —John 18:19-21

But as per Mark 4:10, Jesus did teach in private when he was alone with his disciples. No? Yes, ofcourse. Now how do you reconcile these two clear seeming contradictions? This appears as a lie, no? Especially if you have found this kind of stuff in Islamic scriptures, do you think you would have tolerate it?

Thanks for sharing with us your stupid scenario and proving once more your Islamic trait by derailing this thread and evading our questions.

Your scenario illustrates your weird tendency to understand everything in the New Testament incorrectly and read every letter of the Gospels with hunger for contradictions and/or mistakes. This might be related to your cognitive skills (if any) too.

Your argument falls short of working out a contradiction in the New Testament since your reference to Mark actually confirms that Jesus taught in public and never taught the Gospel in secret (the statement in John). Now your conclusion is mistaken since teaching the Good News in secret is not the same as explaining the meaning of the parables (public teaching) in private. As what Jesus taught His apostles in private was essentially associated with the things He taught in public, it is not fair to claim that Jesus taught in secret. Thus, your scenario falls apart so easily.

Are you going to blame Jesus that he lied to the High Priest? And here an another funny thing I want you to keep in mind that it was this same office of High Priest who later “prophecised” that Jesus will die to"save" his nation, otherwise the whole nation will perish through the hands of Romans and from that day on Jews planned to kill him, otherwise Jesus had no plan to die willfully for you or me or any Japanese/Chinease. His own life was in danger why shoudl he die for you who were not even born yet? ]

I am never going to blame Jesus when the only person to blame is you! You fail to understand certain things and reach faulty conclusions only to make us blame Jesus. This is ridiculous.

Jesus knew that He was going to die. He predicted His death several times. The Gospels testify to your lies and acts of perversion.

Lastly, what your beloved Paul used to do? Paul was free in regard to all kinds of people. He makes himself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. To the Jews he wants to became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law he becames like one under the law–though he himself not under the law–to win over those under the law. To those outside the law he becames like one outside the law to win over those outside the law. To the weak he becames weak, to win over the weakand he does all this for what? Just for the sake of his own gospel. Right? Ofcourse that is what he did . This is a real issue/problem. Do you have a problem with him?

Paulophobia again! LOL Why so angry with Paul? He was a great person serving the Lord and HIS Gospel unlike a pagan jigolo whose only aim was to make himself a king and mislead people.

 

[cathopologist]

Paulophobia again! LOL Why so angry with Paul?

Probably because Paul did a better job at delegating his tasks and people admired his gentle but religious fervor, than all the Caliphs and their supporters put together.

 

[Angelos]

Probably because Paul did a better job at delegating his tasks and people admired his gentle but religious fervor, than all the Caliphs and their supporters put together.

Exactly. These Muslims are jealous of apostle Paul.

 

[Angelos]

**Especially if you have found this kind of stuff in Islamic scriptures, do you think you would have tolerate it?

**

Your prediction has come true, dear multiple face. I have just found another contradiction in your Koran, and will not tolerate it:

Surah 6:107
Had Allah willed, they had not been idolatrous. We have not set thee as a keeper over them, nor art thou responsible for them.

Surah 6:148
They who are idolaters will say: **Had Allah willed, we had not ascribed (unto Him) partners **neither had our fathers, nor had we forbidden aught. Thus did those who were before them give the lie (to Allah’s messengers) till they tasted of the fear of Us. Say: Have ye any knowledge that ye can adduce for Us ? Lo! ye follow naught but an opinion, Lo! ye do but guess.

A clear contradiction even in the same Surah! Allah supposedly confirms in the first verse what He later denies as conjecture in the second. Miraculous scripture indeed!

 

[dolphinlove]

Any answer yet?

http://www.silentskulls.com/images/2Skeleton_at_computer.gif

 

[Analyzer]

That is the most bogus excuse for lying that I have ever seen. A lie is false information passed off as true intentionally. You have lied

It was not a lie from my part. It was a kind of rhetoric statement/question to the Christains to make them think atleast once if not twice.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Your prediction has come true, dear multiple face. I have just found another contradiction in your Koran, and will not tolerate it:

Surah 6:107
Had Allah willed, they had not been idolatrous. We have not set thee as a keeper over them, nor art thou responsible for them.

Surah 6:148
They who are idolaters will say: **Had Allah willed, we had not ascribed (unto Him) partners **neither had our fathers, nor had we forbidden aught. Thus did those who were before them give the lie (to Allah’s messengers) till they tasted of the fear of Us. Say: Have ye any knowledge that ye can adduce for Us ? Lo! ye follow naught but an opinion, Lo! ye do but guess.

A clear contradiction even in the same Surah! Allah supposedly confirms in the first verse what He later denies as conjecture in the second. Miraculous scripture indeed!

N-A-S-KH

lol

 

[ralphinal]

It was not a lie from my part. It was a kind of rhetoric statement/question to the Christains to make them think atleast once if not twice.

Do you know what rhetoric is?

 

[Analyzer]

Who is Jesus’s daddy?

Same “dady” who “begot” Adam.

Why is important that he was born of a virgin?

**For those who already believe in God’s miracles there is nothing important in the unusual birth of Jesus, because for believers, their own creation/birth itself is no less miracle than the birth of Jesus. Someone rightly said: “To know God, know thyself”

The unusual birth of Jesus was a sign for those type of Jews who used to kill their own prophets who used to carry rocks in their hands to stone /kill Jesus by blaming Jesus claiming to be God, when he did not claim to be God nor Son of God in literal sense.

For Muslims that unusual birth of Jesus was proved by Mary with an another miracle form God, when Jews around her were surprised/accused her.

But since there is no mention in your whole Bible about how Mary proved it, does not mean Jews accepted Jesus’ birth without male intervention. Because there are so many things that are missing or not found and can only be known if God re-told us or somehow miraculously we found most most ancient unaltered reliable manuscripts, unlike your so-called fouth century “canonised” gospels/other books of NT.

Why? Because first of all your Catholic Scriptures are not full deposit of your faith. What proof do we have that the Catholic Bible does not contain the complete Deposit of Faith? Well there is the fact that Christ “commissioned” his apostles to “Preach and teach”, whereas no mention of “Writing” is found; furthermore, the gospel was widely spread before a single word of the New Testament was ever written.
Then what further Scriptural proof have we that Catholic Bible does not contain the complete Deposit of Catholic faith?
Well, the last words of St. John that conclude gospel attributed to him, “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written”.

Second, whatever you have in your hands in the name of Bible, it’s none of the books are direct works of any apostle of Jesus.

Third, you do not have an UNBROKEN chain/tradition of memorization of word by word preservation of your scriptures.

Fourth, the canonization took place for the first in FOURTH CENTURY.

Fifth, whatever anonymous gospels you have are altered on top of that. They did not comedown to us unaltered.

Sixth, are there in Catholic Bible any books whose inspiration was doubted by some for a time? Yes, the Second Epistle of St Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse.

Seventh, are there any books not found in Catholic Bible today which for a time were thought by some to be inspired? Yes, namely the “Gospel of St. James,” the “Gospel of St. Thomas,” the “Acts of St. Paul,” amongst many others.

Eigth, what happened to these books once thought to be inspired? They were rejected as spurious. It means that they are not part of Catholic Bible because for Chruch they were not inspired by the Holy Ghost; they are what Catholics call “Apocrypha” or “Apocryphal books.” The Protestants erroneously give the name “Apocrypha” to the Deutero-Canonical books.

Ninth, what does this attitude of the Church prove? This attitude proves, amongst other things, that the Church sifts everything before approving or rejecting by her own unexplained criteria.

But for Muslims, Mary did indeed prove and they have proof based on the Holy Quran, an another Book from same God who sent down His Revelations to the previous prophets of God (PBUT).**

What traits did he inherit from his Father?

When Adam’s UNIQUE creation nor Jesus’ unusual birth is any surprise for Muslim believers, then what traits Jesus or Adam inherited from their same common “FATHER” is not an issue nor a matter of curiosity (for Muslim believers.)

If you want a thread to call Jesus a lier, go start it.

**I will never call Jesus Christ a liar, as he was a Prophet of God (May Allah’s peace and blessing upon him).

I and even Jesus may call liars to those who attribute their own lies to Jesus and put their own misinterpretation and misunderstanding in Jesus’ mouth.
Now did you see the difference?

What you assume or read within the lines of your anonymous books of your Bible, is not necessarily Jesus’ words/teachings.

So my/Muslims objections are towards your assumptions and not towards Jesus.

Jesus Christ, a Prophet of God (May Allah’s peace and blessings upon him) is free from what you knowingly or unkowingly attribute to him.**

 

[cathopologist]

Same “dady” who “begot” Adam…I and even Jesus may call liars those who attribute their own lies to Jesus and put their own misinterpretation and misunderstanding in Jesus’ mouth. Now did you see the difference.What you assume or read within the lines of your anonymous books of your Bible, is not necessarily Jesus’ words/teachings.

So my/Muslims objections are towards your assumptions and not towards Jesus.

Jesus Christ, a Prophet of God (May Allah’s peace and blessings upon him) is free from what you knowingly or unkowingly attribute to him.

This is like arguing with a ten year old - how they perceive written ancient texts and oral tradition on one hand whilst holding cotton candy on the other hand.

Yes, yes, Jesus is your partner and He will judge us. We get it. Now scram.

 

[ralphinal]

Same “dady” who “begot” Adam.

Adam was created, not begotten. That is a huge differance. By what means was Jesus conceived?

For those who already believe in God’s miracles there is nothing important in the unusual birth of Jesus, because for believers, their own creation/birth itself is no less miracle than the birth of Jesus. Someone rightly said: “To know God, know thyself”

Nothing unusual about a virgin birth? How crazy is that?

The unusual birth of Jesus was a sign for those type of Jews who used to kill their own prophets who used to carry rocks in their hands to stone /kill Jesus by blaming Jesus claiming to be God, when he did not claim to be God nor Son of God in literal sense.

Do tell…

For Muslims that unusual birth of Jesus was proved by Mary with an another miracle form God, when Jews around her were surprised/accused her.

But since there is no mention in your whole Bible about how Mary proved it, does not mean Jews accepted Jesus’ birth without male intervention. Because there are so many things that are missing or not found and can only be known if God re-told us or somehow miraculously we found most most ancient unaltered reliable manuscripts, unlike your so-called fouth century “canonised” gospels/other books of NT.

Why? Because first of all your Catholic Scriptures are not full deposit of your faith. What proof do we have that the Catholic Bible does not contain the complete Deposit of Faith? Well there is the fact that Christ “commissioned” his apostles to “Preach and teach”, whereas no mention of “Writing” is found; furthermore, the gospel was widely spread before a single word of the New Testament was ever written.
Then what further Scriptural proof have we that Catholic Bible does not contain the complete Deposit of Catholic faith?
Well, the last words of St. John that conclude gospel attributed to him, “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written”.

Second, whatever you have in your hands in the name of Bible, it’s none of the books are direct works of any apostle of Jesus.

Third, you do not have an UNBROKEN chain/tradition of memorization of word by word preservation of your scriptures.

Fourth, the canonization took place for the first in FOURTH CENTURY.

Fifth, whatever anonymous gospels you have are altered on top of that. They did not comedown to us unaltered.

Sixth, are there in Catholic Bible any books whose inspiration was doubted by some for a time? Yes, the Second Epistle of St Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse.

Seventh, are there any books not found in Catholic Bible today which for a time were thought by some to be inspired? Yes, namely the “Gospel of St. James,” the “Gospel of St. Thomas,” the “Acts of St. Paul,” amongst many others.

Eigth, what happened to these books once thought to be inspired? They were rejected as spurious. It means that they are not part of Catholic Bible because for Chruch they were not inspired by the Holy Ghost; they are what Catholics call “Apocrypha” or “Apocryphal books.” The Protestants erroneously give the name “Apocrypha” to the Deutero-Canonical books.

Ninth, what does this attitude of the Church prove? This attitude proves, amongst other things, that the Church sifts everything before approving or rejecting by her own unexplained criteria.

But for Muslims, Mary did indeed prove and they have proof based on the Holy Quran, an another Book from same God who sent down His Revelations to the previous prophets of God (PBUT).

When Adam’s UNIQUE creation nor Jesus’ unusual birth is any surprise for Muslim believers, then what traits Jesus or Adam inherited from their same common “FATHER” is not an issue nor a matter of curiosity (for Muslim believers.)

**I will never call Jesus Christ a liar, as he was a Prophet of God (May Allah’s peace and blessing upon him).

I and even Jesus may call liars to those who attribute their own lies to Jesus and put their own misinterpretation and misunderstanding in Jesus’ mouth.
Now did you see the difference?

What you assume or read within the lines of your anonymous books of your Bible, is not necessarily Jesus’ words/teachings.

So my/Muslims objections are towards your assumptions and not towards Jesus.

Jesus Christ, a Prophet of God (May Allah’s peace and blessings upon him) is free from what you knowingly or unkowingly attribute to him.**

Now I have enough non-papal bull for my flower beds.

Look. there is no way around it. By saying that Jesus is not God, you are calling him either crazy or a lier. Either way, that is not the topic of this thread.

How many virgin births are there in the Qur’an? How many virgins? How many were still virgins after Muhammed left?

 

[Angelos]

A Muslim poster (multiple face) still cannot answer our questions without resorting to lies about our scripture. This means something significant

 

[cathopologist]

A Muslim poster (multiple face) still cannot answer our questions without resorting to lies about our scripture. This means something significant

A Muslim is not a Muslim if he diverts questions when asked. This includes employing the tactics of Taqiyyah and Kitman (as taught in the Qur’an).

I think that statement should summarize the authenticity of a true believer of God. God is not a coward and does not condone cowardice.
**
Answer questions in all honesty or yield to the statement.**

 

[ralphinal]

I am still stuck on there being nothing unusual about a virign birth.

Do things work differently over there?

 

[dolphinlove]

Same “dady” who “begot” Adam.
[/INDENT]

you know what, ive been reading your posts for the last few days, and i was hoping to see something ‘different’. But all you have managed to do is regurgitate the same old stuff. What is it, do muslims have a site they cut and paste from?
Ive come to my own personal conclusions with your posts…
and that is…
:yawn:

 

[dzheremi]

This is really bizarre to me. The Christians certainly have their answer as to why Jesus was born of a virgin, but what little I’ve heard from Muslims in this thread is that a) the virgin birth didn’t happen (which is contradicted by their own scripture), and b) if it DID happen, it was a sign from God to prove Jesus’ prophethood. Obviously, it can’t be situation (a), because the Quran itself says it happened. If it is situation (b), then how come no other prophet in Islam (that I know of, anyway) is born in this way? It really makes no sense, and I am pretty disappointed that Muslims here have resorted to asking for “our” definition of virginity (as if we as Christians have a different definition than the rest of humanity). When Mariam says in the Quran that she is has been “not unchaste”, and the Quran says elsewhere that she “guarded her chastity” it means exactly what it would seem to mean - she hasn’t slept with anyone!

So…it’s nice to know that the Quran contains this incredibly significant miracle for no reason at all. Perhaps there’s no real reason behind its verses commanding the believers to fight against those who don’t believe in Allah’s messenger. Heck, perhaps all of the Islamic religion is just one giant misunderstanding.

I know it isn’t, though. Unfortunately.

 

[ralphinal]

Planten,
If a girl who has never had sex marries and has sex only with her husband, you hold that she is a virgin, right?

Now, if that husband dies, and she does not have sex again until she remarries, is she still a virgin?

What is the cut-off of men before she is not a virgin any more?

This is a strange way to understand it. COuld a woman who has been married 100 times and only had sex with each husband after she marries be a virgin?

 

[inJESUS]

good post Dzheremi…as i wrote previously, big words do Muslims believe in, but empty when asked about them…

 

[planten]

Adam was created, not begotten. That is a huge differance. By what means was Jesus conceived?

That is wrong christian notion that Adam was created and that he was the first man and that mankind has been here on earth only for the last 7000 years. That is all wrong.

I am happy that Analyser has indeed given a good reply to the christians about the begetting of jesus. When the christians are anxious trying to prove that a Ghost made Mary pregnant, we are surprised at their liberty with such ideas.

Nothing unusual about a virgin birth? How crazy is that?

Yes if it can happen once, it can happen again too. The christians have yet to define their version of virginity of Mary. I am asking but no one is replying.

Look. there is no way around it. By saying that Jesus is not God, you are calling him either crazy or a lier. Either way, that is not the topic of this thread

.

It is the most important issue by way of Islam and Judaism that Jesus was not God. When we say that then you think that we are calling Jesus a liar. That is not so. Because we do not believe that Jesus ever said that he was god and he never told any one to worship him. That is proof enough against the church.

Moreover, we cannot undrestand a God who is praying and asking others to pray too. Then we cannot imagine a God could die also. It is all problems from your own bible. So Jesus cannot be a god. And he was a very simple truthful man of God.

How many virgin births are there in the Qur’an? How many virgins? How many were still virgins after Muhammed left?

What is the meaning of this question. First the church define the virginity of Mary. For how long had she been a virgin? And from what point she was no more a virgin? We believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.

 

[ralphinal]

That is wrong christian notion that Adam was created and that he was the first man and that mankind has been here on earth only for the last 7000 years. That is all wrong.

Who said anything about 7,000 years? Adam was not beggoten as Jesus was. Adam was created. Now, if you want to take the evolutionary approach, he was the first man infused with a soul.

I am happy that Analyser has indeed given a good reply to the christians about the begetting of jesus. When the christians are anxious trying to prove that a Ghost made Mary pregnant, we are surprised at their liberty with such ideas.

If that was a good reply, I would hate to see a bad one.

Yes if it can happen once, it can happen again too. The christians have yet to define their version of virginity of Mary. I am asking but no one is replying.

Virginity, to our understanding, means that she at no point in time prior to having Jesus ever had any form of sexual contact with anyone. How is that for an answer? I could say more, but that should be enough. Catholics and EO and many other Christians hold that she never, ever had sex with anyone ever. NO SEX EVER MEANS EVER VIRGIN

It is the most important issue by way of Islam and Judaism that Jesus was not God. When we say that then you think that we are calling Jesus a liar. That is not so. Because we do not believe that Jesus ever said that he was god and he never told any one to worship him. That is proof enough against the church.

And yet he said that he and the Father are one. He said that before Abraham was “I AM.” He said to baptise in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit

Moreover, we cannot undrestand a God who is praying and asking others to pray too. Then we cannot imagine a God could die also. It is all problems from your own bible. So Jesus cannot be a god. And he was a very simple truthful man of God

I am beginning to think that the things that Muslims cannot understand outnumber the things that they can.

What is the meaning of this question. First the church define the virginity of Mary. For how long had she been a virgin? And from what point she was no more a virgin? We believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.

A woman is a virgin when she is born. A man is, too. You lose your viriginity when you have any sort of sexual relations. We hold that she was always a virgin and is still one.