Quran/NT parallelism & Jesus' birth

[Joseph_Alison]

Rodrigo Bivar:

As for baby Jesus talking: it is clear that he did say he was a prophet to the people (meaning Jews). Yet not a single person believed him. So, why would Allah make him tell them he was a prophet? Didn’t Allah know that nobody would believe him until he had grown up and met Peter? Didn’t Allah know that Peter was his first follower? If so, why did Jesus waste his breath telling people things they refuse to believe?

Salaam Rodrigo;
Not a single person believed him! Where did you get the information from? Did I say that?

“O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, “Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the disciples, “We are Allah’s helpers!” then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed”.(Qur’an 061:014)

As for the two other babies – it is clear their talking didn’t mean they were the results of virgin births, so why is it the case for Jesus? That is the question you still haven’t come to grips with, I gather.

Rodrigo; dear friend, please let me tell you that your repeated intimidating tactics like “you don’t understand” “You missed my point” “you haven’t come to a grip” etc; these tactics do not work. Belittling people would not help you win a point if you are after that.
I gave enough explanation concerning the point above and I will not repeat myself.

As for the charge of adultery against Mary, please note that the baby Jesus didn’t actually defend his mother. He didn’t say, ‘hang on people, my mother is not an adulterer. I was born of a virgin birth.’

He did not defend his mother! Why did they spare her then? Was she stoned for adultery? Did he has to say textually “I was born of a virgin birth” to defend her? Why not say for example “I don’t have a father” or whatever? Whatever he said was enough for her people to be convinced she did nothing wrong. Being a single woman, having done nothing wrong -the miraculous baby speaking proved that, more proof is that she was spared from stoning- what is to be understood? It is to be understood that Jesus (PBUH) did not have a father, and that is why he is called Jesus the son of Mary. Giving birth miraculously without a father is a virgin birth. I am done with this explanation.

A side note: You confirmed to me that your user name was after the medieval Spanish Rodrigo Bivar who struggled against Muslims in medieval Spain. It tells a lot about the mind set you came with. If it is you intent to bring that struggle here to this forum, then I tell you good luck in your search to find someone to struggle with.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Joseph_Alison:

As for baby Jesus talking: it is clear that he did say he was a prophet to the people (meaning Jews). Yet not a single person believed him. So, why would Allah make him tell them he was a prophet? Didn’t Allah know that nobody would believe him until he had grown up and met Peter? Didn’t Allah know that Peter was his first follower? If so, why did Jesus waste his breath telling people things they refuse to believe?

Salaam Rodrigo;
Not a single person believed him! Where did you get the information from? Did I say that?

“O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, “Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the disciples, “We are Allah’s helpers!” then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed”.(Qur’an 061:014)

And when did the events of 61:14 happen? When Jesus was a baby or when he was an adult.

I know you didn’t say ‘not a single person believed him.’ I said it because we know that his first follower was Peter. Jesus met Peter when he was an adult, not a baby. So when baby Jesus told the people that he was a prophet, nobody believed him.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

As for the two other babies – it is clear their talking didn’t mean they were the results of virgin births, so why is it the case for Jesus? That is the question you still haven’t come to grips with, I gather.

Rodrigo; dear friend, please let me tell you that your repeated intimidating tactics like “you don’t understand” “You missed my point” “you haven’t come to a grip” etc; these tactics do not work. Belittling people would not help you win a point if you are after that.
I gave enough explanation concerning the point above and I will not repeat myself.

Was I belittling you? I’m sorry. I wasn’t trying to belittle you. Since you obviously didn’t get my point – why can’t I tell you that you didn’t get my point. See that I then proceed to re-explain my point.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo:

As for the charge of adultery against Mary, please note that the baby Jesus didn’t actually defend his mother. He didn’t say, ‘hang on people, my mother is not an adulterer. I was born of a virgin birth.’

He did not defend his mother! Why did they spare her then? Was she stoned for adultery? Did he has to say textually “I was born of a virgin birth” to defend her? Why not say for example “I don’t have a father” or whatever? Whatever he said was enough for her people to be convinced she did nothing wrong. Being a single woman, having done nothing wrong -the miraculous baby speaking proved that, more proof is that she was spared from stoning- what is to be understood? It is to be understood that Jesus (PBUH) did not have a father, and that is why he is called Jesus the son of Mary. Giving birth miraculously without a father is a virgin birth. I am done with this explanation.

Actually Mary wasn’t single when she gave birth to Jesus.

Secondly, you’d see from the Quran that baby Jesus didn’t defend his mother from the charge of adultery. All he said was, ‘I’m a servant of Allah. I’ve been given the Book. I’m a prophet.’ That’s it.

Joseph_Alison:

A side note: You confirmed to me that your user name was after the medieval Spanish Rodrigo Bivar who struggled against Muslims in medieval Spain. It tells a lot about the mind set you came with. If it is you intent to bring that struggle here to this forum, then I tell you good luck in your search to find someone to struggle with.

My mind set has nothing to do with my arguments or my evidence. You are committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem circumstantial.

I know you’re a Muslim – but do I dismiss your arguments merely because of your Muslim mindset? No.

If you read the history of Rodrigo Diaz de Bivar you’d see that he fought both Muslims and Christians at various times in his life, and he was a friend of the Muslim king of Saragossa and served al-Mu’tamin and his successor, al-Musta’in II, loyally for almost a decade.

Joseph_Alison:

Salaam.
Joseph.

Felicidades,
Rodrigo.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Reuben J:

This becomes significant when Jesus applies the title to himself. In the attestation demanded by the high priest, Jesus accepts the title, and adds a prediction of His second coming in order to remove all doubt of its meaning (Mt 26:63, Mk 14:61). This obviously signifies a unique and supernatural sonship.

Salaam Brother Reuben;
Please allow me to go back to the verses you cited, namely Mt 26:63 and Mk 14:61 and ask you some questions.

**Mt 26:63 **But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

**Mt 26:64 **Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mk 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

** Mk 14:62** And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

In Mt we read that Jesus was asked if he was the son of God, to which he answered that it is thou (the requester) who had said.

In Mk we read that Jesus was asked if he was son of the Blessed, to which he answered “I am”

Are the verses in Mark and Matthew relating the same event? and if so, who is the Blessed ?
Many Thanks.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam Rodrigo;
Rodrigo Bivar:

So when baby Jesus told the people that he was a prophet, nobody believed him

How do you know nobody believed what he said?

Actually Mary wasn’t single when she gave birth to Jesus.

Sure, if not the whole genealogy theory tracing the lineage of Jesus to King David falls on its face.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Joseph_Alison:

Salaam Rodrigo;

Hola Joseph

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo Bivar:

So when baby Jesus told the people that he was a prophet, nobody believed him

How do you know nobody believed what he said?

Because his FIRST follower was Peter. If people believed baby Jesus they would have accepted his claim of prophethood – hence he would have followers before Peter.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo Bivar:

Actually Mary wasn’t single when she gave birth to Jesus.

Sure, if not the whole genealogy theory tracing the lineage of Jesus to King David falls on its face.

I meant she was ‘married’ to Joseph when she gave birth to Jesus.

Joseph_Alison:

Salaam.
Joseph.

Nos vemos después
Rodrigo

 

[Reuben_J]

Joseph_Alison:

Salaam Brother Reuben;
Please allow me to go back to the verses you cited, namely Mt 26:63 and Mk 14:61 and ask you some questions.

**Mt 26:63 **But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

**Mt 26:64 **Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mk 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

** Mk 14:62** And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

In Mt we read that Jesus was asked if he was the son of God, to which he answered that it is thou (the requester) who had said.

In Mk we read that Jesus was asked if he was son of the Blessed, to which he answered “I am”

Are the verses in Mark and Matthew relating the same event? and if so, who is the Blessed ?
Many Thanks.

Salaam.
Joseph.

Peace bro Joseph.

My short answer to your question is yes, they are relating to the same event.

Son of God (in Mt) and Son of the Blessed (in Mk) is one and the same thing, that is, God. In Mk in some translations, it is the Son of the Blessed God (or the Blessed One). Most Bible translations spell son in that verse with a capital ’S’, denoting the specific application to Jesus.

A little longer explanation for your perusal, if you like to:-

Mt 26:63. adjure you: Mathew introduces the high priest’s question with an oath formula. 64. *Thou hast said (you have said so): * This puzzling formula probably gives a half-affirmative answer, as is easier to see in 26:25. Thus, it would agree with the “I am” of Mk 14:62. Jesus then points to his future exaltation. This part of his answer conflates parts of Dan 7:13 and Ps 110:1.

Just for more info, I go further down to 65. he has blasphemed: Mathews adds this statement to explain the high priest’s gesture of tearing his robes. 66. deserves death: Blasphemy was punishable by death (Lev 24:16). So the reason for the death sentence on Jesus.

As for Mk 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing (he was silent and answered nothing): The silence of Jesus fulfilled Isa 53:7 and Ps 38:13-15. The high priest’s question whether Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Blessed One combines identifications already made in Mk 8:29, 1:11 and 9:7. 62 * I am he, and you will see the Son of Man*: In the context of self-disclosure and theophany, this phrase allude to the OT revelation formula (see Exod 3:14, Deut 32:39, Isa 41:4, Isa 43:10) applied to Yahweh, thus contributing to the implicit Christological message of the whole text.

Bro Joesph, your questions most probably reflect your curiosity regarding the different texts or words rather, for the same event. This is exactly the very reason why the 4 Gospels are canonized in the NT. They do not constitute error in reporting events. For one, the writers were addressing different audiences who were already ingrained with their unique mentality and knowledge, for examples, the Jews and the gentiles. The different gospels thus designed likewise for better understanding.

God bless.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Because his FIRST follower was Peter. If people believed baby Jesus they would have accepted his claim of prophethood – hence he would have followers before Peter

Salaam Rodrigo;
There is a difference between believe and follow. I take the word follow to mean follow the commandments brought by the prophet, not follow to mean walking after as it seems to be the case in the Biblical account with Peter. In that account Peter followed (walked after) Jesus, but there is no evidence he believed in him at that very moment. In the Biblical account (Mt 2:1) it was the wise men that came from the east of Jerusalem (not Peter) who believed in Jesus first, he was still a young child.

People believed in the prophethood of Jesus (PBUH) but could not follow him until he starts dictating to them the commandments of God; that could obviously not happen in his childhood.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Reuben J:

Bro Joesph, your questions most probably reflect your curiosity regarding the different texts or words rather, for the same event.

Salaam Brother Reuben;
Thank you for the extended explanation.
Yes, you are right, the term Blessed raised my curiosity and I wanted to know if it was used as an attribute for God and not someone else. For example I know that Mary is called the Blessed virgin, so it struck me that God would be called Blessed also.
To my Muslim thinking the question came: If that term was about God, then who Blessed Him? Probably because I am not familiar with the use of words in Christianity, that’s why I found it unusual that God would be called such.
Thank you again.
Respectfully.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Neverland]

Dear Rodrigo,

Just add one thing that:

I meant she was ‘married’ to Joseph when she gave birth to Jesus.

Actually both of them are descendants from King David FROM DIFFERENT LINE. I read it somewhere, I will find the source.

Neverland

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Joseph_Alison:

There is a difference between believe and follow. I take the word follow to mean follow the commandments brought by the prophet, not follow to mean walking after as it seems to be the case in the Biblical account with Peter. In that account Peter followed (walked after) Jesus, but there is no evidence he believed in him at that very moment.

I used the word follower to mean believer.

Joseph_Alison:

In the Biblical account (Mt 2:1) it was the wise men that came from the east of Jerusalem (not Peter) who believed in Jesus first, he was still a young child.

Firstly, the three wise men were not Jews but Magi – thus not ‘the people’.

Secondly, they believed in the prophesy about Jesus before he was born – that’s why they made the long journey to Bethlehem. Thus your argument is not valid.

Joseph_Alison:

People believed in the prophethood of Jesus (PBUH) but could not follow him until he starts dictating to them the commandments of God; that could obviously not happen in his childhood.

There really is no evidence that anyone believed the baby Jesus was a prophet, despite the Quranic claim of Jesus’s speech. In the Quran it only says Jesus said he was a prophet. I didn’t say people believed him. To determine whether they did or not, we have to look elsewhere.

And the evidence is that Jesus had no believers or followers or disciples before Peter. Now, we can play semantics or we can look at the evidence.

Hasta Luego,
Cid

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Rodrigo Bivar:

I used the word follower to mean believer.

Any evidence that Peter believed in Jesus from the first meeting? Unless of course he already knew him or heard about him and knew that the man was not a common character.

Firstly, the three wise men were not Jews but Magi – thus not ‘the people’.

Why such a precision; did Jesus come to the Jews only?

Secondly, they believed in the prophecy about Jesus before he was born – that’s why they made the long journey to Bethlehem. Thus your argument is not valid.

The Biblical account says they worshipped him, thus they believed in him. You may believe a prophecy, but there is one more remaining step, which is to believe, according to the expected signs, that such person is what the prophecy talked about. The sign these wise men supposedly followed was a star in heaven which showed them were the baby Jesus was.

There really is no evidence that anyone believed the baby Jesus was a prophet, despite the Quranic claim of Jesus’ speech.

Which type of evidence are you looking for? Truly and honestly, you can’t prove no one believed in him and I can’t prove everyone who heard him believed in him. If I remind myself that you don’t even believe he spoke while a baby, I therefore prefer not to hammer this issue anymore and I will let you have the last word; whatever you will answer about this, I will not comment.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Reuben_J]

Peace brother Joseph,

Your knowledge of the Bible is rather good; I wish I could too with the Quran.

I’m quite clear already on the Quranic’ position regarding Jesus’ birth and the talking baby Jesus, thanks to you. There are issues here where we obviously differ, and we both know them. I won’t force them and you have been generous in accepting my explanation for the little you asked for.

This topic has offered interesting discussion to all of us here and surely can be extended to more Muslims and Christians alike, if anything, just to hear different views and explanations.

Joseph_Alison:

Salaam Rodrigo;
There is a difference between believe and follow. I take the word follow to mean follow the commandments brought by the prophet, not follow to mean walking after as it seems to be the case in the Biblical account with Peter. In that account Peter followed (walked after) Jesus, but there is no evidence he believed in him at that very moment. In the Biblical account (Mt 2:1) it was the wise men that came from the east of Jerusalem (not Peter) who believed in Jesus first, he was still a young child.

People believed in the prophethood of Jesus (PBUH) but could not follow him until he starts dictating to them the commandments of God; that could obviously not happen in his childhood.

Salaam.
Joseph.

A little comment on this. You know what, during my early days I always thought that Jesus’ disciples knew everything about him. They didn’t. Their knowledge about Jesus seemed to be progressive as events and Jesus’ teachings unfolded by the days.

I would agree with you in your assesment of Peter. But perhaps, **understand ** would be a more suitable word than believe. He did not understand the Master for who and what He is. At times he learned this the hard way.

May God bless you, brother. Looking forwards to discuss more issues in other threads as they come.

Respecfully,

Reuben.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo Bivar:

I used the word follower to mean believer.

Any evidence that Peter believed in Jesus from the first meeting? Unless of course he already knew him or heard about him and knew that the man was not a common character.

Did I say the first meeting? I know that Peter was the first person who believed in the message of Jesus. That is in the Bible somewhere.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo Bivar:

Firstly, the three wise men were not Jews but Magi – thus not ‘the people’.

Why such a precision; did Jesus come to the Jews only?

I’m sorry if I was imprecise. The phrase is, ‘her people’, not ‘the people’. See verse 19:27.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo Bivar:

Secondly, they believed in the prophecy about Jesus before he was born – that’s why they made the long journey to Bethlehem. Thus your argument is not valid.

The Biblical account says they worshipped him, thus they believed in him. You may believe a prophecy, but there is one more remaining step, which is to believe, according to the expected signs, that such person is what the prophecy talked about. The sign these wise men supposedly followed was a star in heaven which showed them were the baby Jesus was.

Please see above regarding her people. Remember that God sent the Magi to Bethlehem so one would expect that they should believe in Jesus’s prophethood. However, since Mary’s people were not sent by Allah but were only told by Jesus that he was a prophet then it bears thinking about whether Allah’s intention to have Jesus telling these people of his prophethood had worked or not.

I hope you see this: you have to take out the Magi from my test because they were sent by God and so would believe already. If they didn’t believe then they wouldn’t have made the journey.

Joseph_Alison:

Rodrigo Bivar:

There really is no evidence that anyone believed the baby Jesus was a prophet, despite the Quranic claim of Jesus’ speech.

Which type of evidence are you looking for? Truly and honestly, you can’t prove no one believed in him and I can’t prove everyone who heard him believed in him. If I remind myself that you don’t even believe he spoke while a baby, I therefore prefer not to hammer this issue anymore and I will let you have the last word; whatever you will answer about this, I will not comment.

Salaam.
Joseph.

Thanks. That was very generous of you. I will end by saying that a lack of evidence precludes one making a positive claim, in general terms. Otherwise, one commits the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. However, this doesn’t apply to a closed data set which the scriptures certainly are. {I take ‘closed data set’ to mean there will be no addition to the data set – all that can be known is available}

Since the Quran does not tell us whether Mary’s people believed Jesus, we have to look at the Biblical texts. It is clear in the Gospels (Christians, please correct me if I’m wrong) that Jesus only began his ministry after he was baptized by John the Baptist, whereupon God spoke to him for the first time, and he went to fast in the wilderness. On his return he began to spread the message. Thus, it is clear that Jesus didn’t have any believers until that point.

Hasta la Vista,
Rodrigo

 

[Neverland]

Dear Joseph,

In this sense, Peter was indeed Jesus’ first Disciples. And His 12 disciples were the first disciples too. So in other words, before Peter, no Jews believed in Jesus or even followed Him.
So it properly answered why Rodrigo concluded that the miracle of talking baby failed to attract any Single Jew, including those who witnessed his birth.
I think the Biblical story of Jesus birth was much more rational, that Mary’s miraculous pregnancy only know by Joseph, her husband. And because He was a good man, he planned to divorce her after she gave birth, to avoid controversy (and harsh punishment for her) if Gabriel didn’t tell to him not to. So of course, no Jews saw a talking baby, so no Jews believed in Jesus before Peter.

Dear Rodrigo,

You said:
I hope you see this: you have to take out the Magi from my test because they were sent by God and so would believe already. If they didn’t believe then they wouldn’t have made the journey.

I believe that the Magi from the east has their own believe (astrology) and they saw the star that indicating A VERY SPECIAL King had been born. That’s why they went so far to visit Jesus. It also stresses a fact that God can give inspiration to both believers and non believers, and it depends on the person to accept or not. So I don’t think the magi believed in Jesus as a saviour or any biblical attribute. That’s my opinion only.

Neverland.

P.S. The conclusion has been great, Senor. Rachel, this thread has been finished.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Neverland:

In this sense, Peter was indeed Jesus’ first Disciples. And His 12 disciples were the first disciples too. So in other words, before Peter, no Jews believed in Jesus or even followed Him.
So it properly answered why Rodrigo concluded that the miracle of talking baby failed to attract any Single Jew, including those who witnessed his birth.
I think the Biblical story of Jesus birth was much more rational, that Mary’s miraculous pregnancy only know by Joseph, her husband. And because He was a good man, he planned to divorce her after she gave birth, to avoid controversy (and harsh punishment for her) if Gabriel didn’t tell to him not to. So of course, no Jews saw a talking baby, so no Jews believed in Jesus before Peter

All the above is correct according to the Biblical account. It is not my habit to try to force things on people, so I leave it here.

So I don’t think the magi believed in Jesus as a saviour or any biblical attribute. That’s my opinion only.

You were right to say it was your opinion only , because it is not the opinion of Bible writers. “Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him” (MT 2:1-2).

Rachel, this thread has been finished.

Did I say that? Brother, I think you should humble yourself a little bit. No offence.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Han_Ji_Hye]

Joseph_Alison:

If I remind myself that you don’t even believe he spoke while a baby, I therefore prefer not to hammer this issue anymore and** I will let you have the last word; whatever you will answer about this, I will not comment.**

Rachel, this thread has been finished.

Did I say that? Brother, I think you should humble yourself a little bit. No offence.

Well Joseph, please decide if you still want to continue.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Han Ji Hye:

Well Joseph, please decide if you still want to continue.

Salaam Brother Han Ji;
If you have been following the discussions, you would have noticed that what I told Rodrigo I would not comment on is the issue he brought up about whether the Jews believed Jesus or not when he announced his prophethood. I told him so because the discussion was leading nowhere about that specific issue.
being a prophet is one thing and being a messenger is one other thing. Jesus (PBUH) announced his messenger ship when he became adult. A messenger is someone who brings a message a

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Please disregard my previous message. Somehow it has been posted accidentally, while I did not finish typing it.
Han Ji Hye:

Well Joseph, please decide if you still want to continue.

Salaam Brother Han Ji;
I am still on this thread and I did not decide to close it yet.

If you have been following the discussions, you would have noticed that what I would not comment on, I told Rodrigo, was the issue he brought up about whether the Jews believed Jesus or not when he announced to be a prophet while he was still a baby. I told him so (I would not comment on anything he made add on that specific subject) simply because the discussion was leading nowhere about that issue.

But I think I should give it one last shot; someone may find the added information useful.

Being only a prophet (Nabi) is one thing and being a messenger (Rassul) is one other thing. I think the confusion came because the two terms have been confounded.

A prophet is someone who speaks by divine inspiration; someone who is an interpreter of the will of God, (dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prophet) and in that sense Jesus (PBUH) was clearly made a prophet (Nabi).

A messenger (Rassul) is someone who brings a message to be conveyed from God to people, something the baby Jesus could obviously not do. A messenger from God is also a prophet.

Jesus (PBUH) did not announce he was a messenger from Allah (SWT) until he became an adult: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!” (Qur’an 61:6) The clear signs are all the miracles Jesus (PBUH) performed by the will of Allah (SWT).

Part of the message Jesus (PBUH) brought to his people was: “(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me”
'It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight."(Qur’an 3: 50-51)

Allah (SWT) inspired the disciples (Hawariyun) to believe in Jesus (PBUH): “And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Messenger: they said, 'We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims”(Qur’an 5:111). A Muslim is someone who submits his will to the will of Allah (SWT).

A known non-married woman giving birth raises obviously some questions, like who is the father of the child? In the Quranic account, the pious Mary was living in the temple; naturally the accusation -as being the father of the child- would fall on one of the men evolving there; the prophet Zechariah was made guardian over Mary and had office in the temple, he could have been accused or anyone else close to Mary. Jesus (PBUH) washed both of them or he washed his mother and any other man who could raise suspicions.

I welcome your or anyone else’s comments.

Salaam.
Joseph.