Virgin Birth of Isa
-
Peace all,
I'm asking the question to what word does feehi refer to? Indeed, can we not read in this particular instance that because of the linguistic it would refer to the fajara? Let's begin here as the subject of this thread pertains to Jesus, doesn't it?
adjwi
Salaam all
I do not think you can solve this linguistically, since both Jesus and faraj are masculine, and can be referred to by the masculine suffixed pronoun in "feehi".
Mary became pregnant because she "ahsanat" farajaha/ got married, not because "God" blew into "her private parts"! I find this too literal and tasteless, like a different way of having sex...I believe that God blew into Jesus to make him a special person, the way He blew into the "bashar" to make him "insaan".
-
Peace,
Salaam all
I do not think you can solve this linguistically, since both Jesus and faraj are masculine, and can be referred to by the masculine suffixed pronoun in "feehi".
Mary became pregnant because she "ahsanat" farajaha/ got married, not because "God" blew into "her private parts"! I find this too literal and tasteless, like a different way of having sex...I believe that God blew into Jesus to make him a special person, the way He blew into the "bashar" to make him "insaan".
What I am seeing is that Jesus is made to be present from the reader. Mary became pregnant because she got married does not come from the literal. Is ''too literal and tasteless'' a criteria of analysis? Is it that the data is not in agreement with your morality and esthetics?
''... I believe...'' is just an expression of faith, no better than someone elses, no?
I believe it was Jesus the foetus inside her womb,
God has no mate, so the Ruh cannot be understood as some divine sperm
Arnold, who's writing about divine sperm other than you? The question is not about a son of god, there is no question to be asked. The question is about a virgin birth. Creating from nothing. Like ''kun faya kun''. Such an interpretation is naturally impossible. For this to be possible you need a kind of quantum leep into the uncreated. Would that fit the story?
Mary gets married, the couple has a child naturally and the child becomes known as ''son of god'' ??? I can't see how that story fits together.
adjwi
-
Peace "lobster",
peace
You think that "before the end of the universe" is not slow?
And if you can reach the truth independently of the quran, what's the quran's role then?JK- Ofcourse the truth can be reached independent of the Quran, since this is the nature of ongoing cause and effect, and there is no problem with that at all. The role of the Quran is TO ACHIEVE THIS EXPONENTIALLY MORE FAST (remember the saying "time is money" and perhaps it would make it clear).
This is exactly what I was talking about. Making the quran an idol which must be obeyed, then coming up with your understanding independently, and then using that idol to promote your understanding. It has "wrong" written all over it with bold capital letters.
JK- Oh man. It's not just my understanding which counts. IT'S THE UNDERSTANDING WHICH COMES ABOUT AS A RESULT OF INDEPENDENT REASEARCHERS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD COMING TO SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS WHILST STUDYING THE QURAN which matters. This has been my point throughout. The mere understanding of one individual doesnt mean much.
The fact is that people are better off directing this effort somewhere else because trying to understand the quran isn't getting them anywhere, and if we agree with you about the nature of the quran, then even with all their efforts doubled they will not get anywhere because the human race hasn't evolved enough yet.
Like Abraham, we must study the signs in nature, in the world around us, and let experience be our teacher.JK- We are evolved enough now to engage in very good archaeological as well as textual research which would be enough to decipher great parts of the Quran. Whatever conclusions come out of there could then be applied in the real world and the development observed. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "lobster",
You also said amongst other thingsEven if you had a "quran alone" government that worked and was free from any corruption, the everyday lives of people wouldn't be any different, or at least wouldn't be any better.
JK- this is where i strongly disagree with you. I believe that with a Quran Alone government even ordinary people would be marvellous scientists helping in the development of sophisticated micro robots and their softwares which would lead that society to travel through space where no man has gone before and erive technology from yet unknown compounds which no one has done before within a relatively very small period of time. Besides this there will be much more honesty, mutual understanding, psychological health and well being and support as all this would be recognized as being beneficial in the long run, thus removing most of the short sightedness that still exists in all societies at present. GOD Bless!
-
A question to those who believe in the virgin birth of Isa How could his mother Mary become pregnant, without a human father ?
Peace
-
Peace,
What I am seeing is that Jesus is made to be present from the reader. Mary became pregnant because she got married does not come from the literal. Is ''too literal and tasteless'' a criteria of analysis? Is it that the data is not in agreement with your morality and esthetics?
Got married comes from "ahsanat". If it is "preserved" the quran uses another verb "hafaza hafazat farajaha", which is also the literal meaning of "to preserve".
As for the "tasteless", it is believing that God "blew into her faraj". Why does God have to blow into the faraj to make her pregnant? What about the "be and he is"? -
A question to those who believe in the virgin birth of Isa How could his mother Mary become pregnant, without a human father ?
Peace
I know this sounds like straddling the fence between two seemingly irreconcilable views, but from a Jewish rabbinical perspective, both are possible. Some rabbis did not consider a woman to have lost her virginity until her first menstruation, regardless if she had intercourse or not. So, if Mary became pregnant at her first ovulation and before her first menstruation, then she would be considered by some to be a virgin until after giving birth and then having her first menstruation once her hormones returned to pre-pregnancy levels. If you think about the incredible timing that would need to be involved in something like that happening, then by pre-scientific standards you certainly have a miracle, and by scientific standards you have something that while not technically a "miracle" is certainly statistically almost impossible.
Peace.
-
I know this sounds like straddling the fence between two seemingly irreconcilable views, but from a Jewish rabbinical perspective, both are possible. Some rabbis did not consider a woman to have lost her virginity until her first menstruation, regardless if she had intercourse or not. So, if Mary became pregnant at her first ovulation and before her first menstruation, then she would be considered by some to be a virgin until after giving birth and then having her first menstruation once her hormones returned to pre-pregnancy levels. If you think about the incredible timing that would need to be involved in something like that happening, then by pre-scientific standards you certainly have a miracle, and by scientific standards you have something that while not technically a "miracle" is certainly statistically almost impossible.
Peace.
I think my question has not been understood.
I was wondering how a woman (in our case, Mary) can become pregnant without a man (without the sperm of him). Who made her pregnant ?
Peace
-
I think my question has not been understood.
I was wondering how a woman (in our case, Mary) can become pregnant without a man (without the sperm of him). Who made her pregnant ?
Peace
Peace,
I understood your question. ) What I'm saying is that it is possible to consider Jesus' birth to be a "virgin birth" by rabbinical interpretations of the Torah that were espoused by some at the time of Jesus, AND for Joseph to be his biological father like anyone else's father.
The possibility of this has been treated from both Jewish and Christian schools of thought. The late Christian scholar William Barclay did so, as did historian and Dead Sea Scrolls translator Geza Vermes in his book "Jesus the Jew".
So I guess what I'm saying is that what you consider to be a virgin birth, i.e., a child born without sperm, may not be the definition of a virgin birth by the context in which the concept originated. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying it is a possibility for consideration.
-
Peace,
With the Nazerenes, a female was considered a virgin until she got her first child. As Jesus was her first child, he was born out of a "virgin". They used also the term that is more closely to the Aramiac term for "maiden" that was mistranslated to the greek word for "virgin". This is how the misunderstanding was created as Romans were used to virgin births from the Mithra and Isis-Horus myths.
Paul clearly says Joseph is the father of Jesus.
This is why the Quran cannot support a Christian myth that even was uphold in the first Christian movement until 60 years later.
-
A question to those who believe in the virgin birth of Isa How could his mother Mary become pregnant, without a human father ?
Peace
How can ADAM be created out of "DUST"??
How can Parthenogenesis can produce living one ?
How can "Dolli" sheep can be produced without "fertilization "? -
How can ADAM be created out of "DUST"??
How can Parthenogenesis can produce living one ?
How can "Dolli" sheep can be produced without "fertilization "?I don't know about the second one or the third but have a read of this for the first
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4702336.stm - There they attempted to create life and failed. But they used clay.
-
A question to those who believe in the virgin birth of Isa How could his mother Mary become pregnant, without a human father ?
Peace
I will rephrase my question in more specific terms.
A question to those who believe in the virgin birth of Isa How could his mother Mary become pregnant, without a human father ? Did it happen because God blew his spirit into Mary ?
Peace
-
I think it's going to take some time before I'm lettng go of the virgin birth thing.
But a lot of the thread reminds me of a joke I heard.
A world-famous geneticist walks into a church and says "God. We don't need you anymore. We can create life now."
Well, God, who hears this a lot, decides this time, to pay attention and asks, "Is that so?"
The scientist says "Yes, and we can even do it the same way."
God asks "Out of dust?"
"Yes," answered the scientist.
"Show me." God said.
So the geneticist bent over and began scooping together a ball of dust. God interrupted him, "Hey..."
"Yes God?" said the scientist.
"Get your own dust."
-
Got married comes from "ahsanat". If it is "preserved" the quran uses another verb "hafaza hafazat farajaha", which is also the literal meaning of "to preserve".
As for the "tasteless", it is believing that God "blew into her faraj". Why does God have to blow into the faraj to make her pregnant? What about the "be and he is"?Moremover, God did blow His Spirit into the bashar/Neanderthal, which was already created of dust, to turn them into Adam/Homo sapiens (wise, knowing humans)...So He blew into jesus to make him wise and knowing, not into a "faraj" to make someone pregnant. This is the comparison between Adam (us) and Jesus.
-
Salaam,
I completely agree with Samia, only it is not Neanderthaler but the Homo-Ergaster that was the ancestor of the Homo Sapiens. Neanderthalers were a seperate branch that lived together with Homo-Sapiens for about 100.000 to 40.000 years untill they died for reasons still unspecified.
http//anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/images/bigtree2.GIF
-
Peace all,
Moremover, God did blow His Spirit into the bashar/Neanderthal, which was already created of dust, to turn them into Adam/Homo sapiens (wise, knowing humans)...So He blew into jesus to make him wise and knowing, not into a "faraj" to make someone pregnant. This is the comparison between Adam (us) and Jesus.
Salaam,
I completely agree with Samia, only it is not Neanderthaler but the Homo-Ergaster that was the ancestor of the Homo Sapiens. Neanderthalers were a seperate branch that lived together with Homo-Sapiens for about 100.000 to 40.000 years untill they died for reasons still unspecified.
1920 She said "How can I have a son when no human being has been with me, nor have I desired such?"
1920 Qalat anna yakoonu lee ghulamun walam yamsasnee basharun walam aku baghiyyan
O.K. so that's what Mary was saying... but what was it, the Neanderthal or the Homo-Ergaster that hadn't touched her??? ??? ;D
adjwi