*Miraculous Birth* of Isa: continued debate
-
Peace Jonny,
I believe the emphasis is on the fact that Isa was a normal human being. This is reinforced quite often, as in, he ate food, he was merely a messenger, he will be questioned on the "last day", and, as you mentioned, that there is no distinction among Allah's messengers, etc.
Whatever he did in his life, whether viewed symbolically or literally, was only through the grace of Allah.
Peace,
Tay -
-
Peace Jonny,
But thats how it's supposed to be logically otherwise you can explain anything with symbolism.
And you can explain anything with a literal approach as well "Because God said so".
Personally, I prefer to find the lesson in the symbolism that I can apply to my life and verify. But like I said, it's your right to believe whatever you want, brother.
Peace,
Tay -
Salam "tay",
And you can explain anything with a literal approach as well "Because God said so".
JK- Personally i never use this type of approach. Now if taken literal then it is what it is and we can not manipulate the meaning to suit our desire. Thats what was meant. Now th question arises "what does that particular event signify". Well i must admit we dont know for sure right now but we will most assuredly find out in the future since the Quran is for all times so instead of jumping to sudden symbolic conclusions it would be more wise to wait and perhaps GOD will repeat His miracles and everyon e would stand in awe. Thats why I believe He kept those significant miracles mentioned in the Quran.
Personally, I prefer to find the lesson in the symbolism that I can apply to my life and verify. But like I said, it's your right to believe whatever you want, brother.
Peace,
TayJK- Once again this shows you dont have patience. You rush to a conclusion of symbolism where it doesnt say to do so. GOD gives many allegories in the Quran and HE STATES that Hes going to give one now like in 2435. The word "mathal" is used their indicating the allegory. So if GOD meant Isas birth, Moses rod, etc to be allegorically then he would have used a term like "mathal" before mentioinng it. Simple. GOD Bless!
-
Peace Jonny,
I stated
And you can explain anything with a literal approach as well "Because God said so".You stated
Personally i never use this type of approach.
I disagree. You use it in the very next sentence
Now if taken literal then it is what it is...
Next, you stated
we can not manipulate the meaning to suit our desire
Of course not. Why, then, do you assume that miracles might be coming in the future without any Qur'anic evidence?
You stated
Now th question arises "what does that particular event signify". Well i must admit we dont know for sure right now but we will most assuredly find out in the future since the Quran is for all times
Like I said, if that works for you, then okie dokie.
It doesn't work for me. A book of guidance should be about guidance, not about waiting for guidance that may not come for generations.so instead of jumping to sudden symbolic conclusions it would be more wise to wait
More wise according to you - not me, nor the Qur'an. Where does the Qur'an tell us that we should wait to understand the meaning of something it advises?
752 And We have come to them with a Scripture which We have detailed with knowledge; a guide and a mercy to those who believe.
See? No mention of waiting for the guidance. It's already there.
perhaps GOD will repeat His miracles and everyon e would stand in awe.
Not really bro. According to the Qur'an(6109, 615, the day such miracles take place, no one who hasn't already believed will believe anyway. It will be too late. So what's the point then?
Once again this shows you dont have patience.
Actually, I'm trying to conform to 1736
How is it that you verify these miracles, bro?You rush to a conclusion of symbolism where it doesnt say to do so.
1736 says I should verify all info. We are told that Allah uses every kind of example(226, 1789). Now you tell me that there must be a disclaimer stating that symbolism is being used.
If that's the case, then you should be able to find every kind of example in the Qur'an, preceded by the words "the following is an example". Please show me these verses brother. Not 1 or 2, but every kind, please.
Simple.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace,
I just want to address the "example" ie. mathal = symbolic point that Layth adheres to, and jonny_k follows, and is advanced above in relation to Jesus' creation/conception.
Peace,
I voted 'all literal'.
When God wants to make a 'symbolic' point, He uses the word 'mathal' (the example)...Other than that all that is said is literal.
God does not leave us guessing...We do that ourselves.
Khi- Salam. Exactly my point. GOD Bless!
Let's have a look at 359
359 The example of Jesus, as far as the God is concerned, is the same as the example of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he became.
Inna mathala AAeesa AAinda Allahi kamathali adama khalaqahu min turabin thumma qala lahu kun fayakoonu
So in this example (excuse the pun) Jesus is described with the term 'mathal' - and Adam is also. Thus the explanation implies a symbolic nature to the creation of each of these individuals.
Even the "mathal" theorists cannot deny this.
Therefore accordingly, this is pointing unambiguously that the nature of Jesus (his creation) is symbolic.
Regards.
-
Salam "truth",
I just knew this point would come up some time and voila here you did it. Well you see the verse above indeed gives an allegory of THE COMPARISON BETWEEN JESUS AND ADAM and NOT the virgin birth of Mary. This comparison is symbolical because it is not 100% alike if we consider that Jesus had a mother while Adam had neither father nor mother. It is there to remind us that WITHOUT ANY DOUBT GOD can do just anything and does NOT necessarily have to wait for the laws of nature to come into action with time like the Darwinian evolutionists claim. Dont you get this simple point? GOD doesnt say that Jesus' miraculous birth or his miracles are "mathal" does He? GOD Bless! -
Salam "truth",
I just knew this point would come up some time and voila here you did it. Well you see the verse above indeed gives an allegory of THE COMPARISON BETWEEN JESUS AND ADAM and NOT the virgin birth of Mary. This comparison is symbolical because it is not 100% alike if we consider that Jesus had a mother while Adam had neither father nor mother. It is there to remind us that WITHOUT ANY DOUBT GOD can do just anything and does NOT necessarily have to wait for the laws of nature to come into action with time like the Darwinian evolutionists claim. Dont you get this simple point? GOD doesnt say that Jesus' miraculous birth or his miracles are "mathal" does He? GOD Bless!Hey bro
While I don't agree with your belief in the 19 thingy I do respect your manner bro, excellent attitude
I was preparing about 15 pages reply to the this similitude things "mathal" to discuss it with brother Tay but I changed my mind as he is a very tough (in debating) and picky type of guy, which is fine with me but I don't have the time to commit to go one on one with his arguments (some are good though) so I decided to finish it off and post it for you as it will clearly explain to you and (others) what the word Arabic "Mathal" really means
Peace and God bless
-
Peace Khizar,
It is there to remind us that WITHOUT ANY DOUBT GOD can do just anything and does NOT necessarily have to wait for the laws of nature to come into action with time like the Darwinian evolutionists claim.
Oh I see.
So the roughly 25 billion years before the earth was formed etc. is an aberration then?
You are effectively saying that the God created the universe in ~25 billion years before the earth which has been around 4.5 billion years or so; but after all that time there was a sudden rush and He could not wait any further?
Is that your logic?
Dont you get this simple point?
I hope you see the nonsense in your argument.
Regards.
-
Salam "truth",
Oh I see.
So the roughly 25 billion years before the earth was formed etc. is an aberration then?
JK- No not necessarily though i still doubt the exact date. It may be different but anyways this has nothing to do with my claim. Infact this is exactly my point. GOD set a certain time for normal events we call natural BUT does this mean He cannot do otherwise at any other point? Or does this mean He didnt impant ceratin functions in the universe which cause sudden creatures or planets toi appear in a very short time? Ofcourse not. The cambrian explosion is one example of this. In the same way GOD may have calculated from the beginning a time when the atoms and molecules come together in a ceratin point that Mary give birth to a son without a male. I think you didnt read my article "Are miracles necessary supernatural".
You are effectively saying that the God created the universe in ~25 billion years before the earth which has been around 4.5 billion years or so; but after all that time there was a sudden rush and He could not wait any further?
Is that your logic?
JK- At the moment the range is between 15-20 billion years. Anyways i didnt make such a claim. Must be your misunderstanding. I said GOD doesnt HAVE TO WAIT. He can just as well intervene OR He could have planned and calculated in the virgin birth of Mary from the beginning before big bang which is actually what i'd go for.
I hope you see the nonsense in your argument.
Regards.
JK- I hope you see that you didnt even understand my argument. GOD Bless!
-
Peace be upon you,
The metaphor of the virgin birth has been going on since WAAAAAY before Judaism. The oldest religious document recorded in the world contains this virgin birth story. So why are some tryin to make this version a literal story? It has always been a metaphor.
-
Peace be upon you,
The metaphor of the virgin birth has been going on since WAAAAAY before Judaism. The oldest religious document recorded in the world contains this virgin birth story. So why are some tryin to make this version a literal story? It has always been a metaphor.
Z Peace to you Idolfree,
I really don't understand why one would need to rule out a literal reading of the verses in light of the fact (God's Law) that such births are medically concievable(possible).
Peace
-
Peace be upon you Zeljko,
A literal virgin birth does nothing to guide me. A metaphorical story that shows me how to awaken my own WILL so I can save myself is worth so much more to me, its uncomparible.
When we take into account that this same metaphor has been used since the oldest recorded religious system, then it really looks bad for te one time literal virgin birth story.
Finally, the God describes the stories as similitudes in this very book called "Koran".
-
Idolfree,
It seems you are implying that anything that is scientifically plausable can not hold any spiritual message for us. Does this mean that the miracle of dawn or solstice can hold no spiritual allegory for us? I am absolutely positive this is not what you mean, so I am supreemly puzzled why the idea of a real virgin birth troubles you. Shouldn't it be a walk in the park for people like us?
It happened! So what? Subahanallah!
There are those who believe it happened and those who do not. If both sides can find spiritual allegory in the event anyway then that is great news isn't it?
-
"The Sufi"
I am supreemly puzzled why the idea of a real virgin birth troubles you. Shouldn't it be a walk in the park for people like us?
1736 And you shall not follow blindly any information of which you have no direct knowledge. (Using your faculties of perception and conception) you must verify it for yourself. In the Court of your Lord, you will be held accountable for your hearing, sight, and the faculty of reasoning. (And so, the insane and the disabled will have their incapacities taken into account in a court of law.)
We are never told to believe in myths. It's a walk in the park for Christians to believe it, as well as much besides it about Jesus. What's worst is that these other fabrications take support from the virgin birth myth.
By believing in this blindly you are acting as an accomplice to the lies.
It happened! So what? Subahanallah!
How about if we reverse it.
It didn't happen! So what?
Are the two positions equivalent? No. Because the latter statement doesn't strain our intellect and cuts off support for the nonsense of god-men and son of etc. The latter position is verifiable in our intellect and support the truth that Jesus was only a man, and nothing more than it.
Given that the latter position requires nothing extra or supernatural to have happened; and changes absolutely nothing for us, then using Occam's razor we must reject the virgin birth myth.
Regards.