*Miraculous Birth* of Isa: continued debate
-
Peace,
However in this testing life, me and you share a common thing, that thing is Islam, and because you are claiming something opposite to what is very well founded for 2000 years...
The ideas about virginal births only developed hundreds of years after Jesus died.
And when you come to things that are "very well founded for 2000 years" you may as well believe that Jesus is the son of god and that he is returning at some point in time in the future. They are also "very well founded". While you are at it you might as well believe that Jesus ver. II.0, will pray behind a mysterious 'Imam Mahdi ver 1.0' - hang on I think the mahdi belief is not as well founded - it's only 1200 years old.
Well, it is known by many Muslims (regardless the sects) and many Christians that Jesus should come back, this is a huge subject and ironically I believe in it due to a small clue in the Quran...
Well, what do you know; you do believe in all the "very well founded" things
The "virgin myth" is a slippery slope, and this sort of nonsense follows from it.
Have fun
-
Peace Ahmed,
You stated
The creation from dust similarity is irrleveant the verse never said they are similar BECAUSE they were made from dust, rather it was extra info that he was made from dust
You're stretching pretty far now Ahmed.
and because you are claiming something opposite to what is very well founded for 2000 years
The Qur'an says the majority will lead you astray.
while you provided NO PROOF BUT CONJECTURE AND HEARSAY FROM THE SUPPORTERS OF THIS FALSE CLAIM
Sorry, bro, but just saying "no proof" doesn't make it so. I provided ayat for every position I've taken.
The most compelling Quran evidence that you are turning a blind eye on it is, the Quran consistently do not use the word parents when it comes to Jesus
Is he the only one? If not, then it's not so compelling, is it?
Those billions will stop worshipping him when Jesus comes back, so why worry about them if it is already in the plan of Allah that they will recognise this simple fact that there is no God but Allah?,
Even if you were right and Isa is coming back, it would be TOO LATE for all the trillions of people who died before his return. Guidance is for THIS LIFE, not for some unknown future date.
You keep trying to make it seem as if there is no need for Allah to guide them. Meanwhile, it is clearly evident throughout the Qur'an, that the people of the book are addressed over and over about not transgessing their boundaries and saying that Allah had a son.
You're being very inconsistent and I fear it is because you need to protect your position. I would rethink this strategy.
you guys are manipulating the simple fact that Jesus was like Adam because he both DID NOT HAVE A FATHER
I'm not manipulating anything.
The Qur'an does not say what you claim, plain and simple bro.Well, it is known by many Muslims (regardless the sects) and many Christians that Jesus should come back, this is a huge subject and ironically I believe in it due to a small clue in the Quran
Wonderful, one small clue and you fall right back into preconceptions.
I suggest you be honest with yourself and admit that you haven't overcome what you've been spoonfed. It will be quite liberating.The Qur'an clearly states that Isa was a man, and all men die, and will be resurrected on the last day. The Qur'an even describes the conversation between Allah and Isa on the last day. So what small clue overrides Allah's law??
Ok sorry, but you know that up to today there are all sort of things that are worshipped as gods
That's fine, but it's irrelevant to our discussion.
well, anything wrong is motivated by the devil
OK. But you haven't proven it's wrong, only that you don't agree.
but again don?t manipulate the fact that what you say is not only against my belief, it against the followings believe that Jesus had no human father as well
- Most Muslims
- Most Islamic Sects
- Most Christians
I?m just one human out of category 1 because I don?t follow any sect.
The numbers are meaningless. The Qur'an says not to follow the majority, to think for onesself. That's what I'm doing. Why do you have a problem with that?
Well that is not what I don?t like ?Argument? because I don?t argue when I have knowledge ...
An argument is a position within a debate. It doesn't mean something derogatory. We are simply arguing our positions. And you judged my position before hearing my argument. That's closed-minded.
But it was said STRAIGHTFORWARD IN MANY OTHER LOCATIONS
So what? The fact that it's been repeated should be a clue that Allah repeats this from many different angles throughout the Qur'an. There is no limit to how many times it should be repeated.
That is fine, I may be able to do it to, I?m talking about creating a pit then filling it up with wood, then burn it as hell then put a human in there for about 15 minutes at least
OK, quote the ayah that states exactly what you just said and we'll discuss it further.
Well Allah only said that his words does change
Wrong, He says his laws don't change. Again, agree to disagree here if you wish.
I hope you didn?t consider it an insult, I meant you are nothing but an Atheist, ie. you only believe in matter
Bro, I understand that English is your second language, and I'm tolerant of this. However, using words like Atheist, it is your responsibility to be concise in it's application.
Atheists do not believe in God.
you only believe in matter sorry and it is hard for you to believe in the unseen while this is a major requirement to be with the true believers group 23
I'm not sure where you got this opinion, but I assure you it's not from me. Of course I belive in the unseen. I just don't believe in the untrue.
Is Allah real(exist) or not?
yes
Did He sent the Quran or not?
yes
And Is the Quran His true and direct words or not?
yes
Neither me and that is the way according to 1736, what the majority understand though that he was a newly born baby...
Again with the majority stuff.
but the truth according to the compelling evidence that it is non sense and most likely motivated by the devil while YOU DON?T KNOW IT.
Thanks for the insight, and the insult. I'll keep that in mind in our next debate.
But the truth is one bro or at least in some issues MUST BE ONE, like a god or not, black or white I mean and the issue of Jesus father is black or white
You're putting Isa on the same level as Allah.
Allah is black and white.
His guidance is universal.I'm sorry for any typos or other mistakes as i really don't have time to check it man and I was responding as i was reading it
No problemo.
peace,
Tay -
As Salaam Alaikum,
I believe that Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant. D
Let me be brief and just babble for a second, i don't want to get too into this, it's already been exhuasting just reading this.
While those of you argue, "There must be a Y chromosome" because scienec proves that there is... I would like to point this out
God can create sperm.
And he could of planted it into her if he wanted.
We see today that there are women getting pregnant, but yet they have had no sex to get it done.
Take me for instance. My sister has a problem with her tubes, she has cist (or whatever u call it) on them. So it may be hard for her to get pregnant.
So who will I possibly be to her in the future if she doesnt? The carrier of her children. Does that mean her husband and I were banging eachother? No. It's called SCIENCE and all of that inventro fertilizaiton or whatever you call it. So why can't you all think that Allah was just ahead of our time???
Also maybe it's just me, but am I the only one who finds it interesting how an ayat talks about how "She" concieved a child......
usually when tehre ar e2 people involved, don't we usually say "They concieved"???????
I'm trying to think of where one would say "I have concieved a child" and yet two people have been involved... wierd.
Anyways...
I believe Mary was a virgin.
salaam
-
Peace NoProgressive,
While I respect your opinion of "I believe that Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant", your modern example is flawed.
The process of invetro fertilization requires taking the sperm of a man and fertilizing the female egg outside of the body. Science is not creating the sperm cell, they're just cutting out the middle-man, so to speak.
Peace,
Tay -
Salam Tay,
Peace NoProgressive,
While I respect your opinion of "I believe that Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant", your modern example is flawed.
The process of invetro fertilization requires taking the sperm of a man and fertilizing the female egg outside of the body. Science is not creating the sperm cell, they're just cutting out the middle-man, so to speak.
Peace,
TayJK- Please read my post at http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4700
GOD Bless! -
Peace
Actually, this "miracle" just maybe possible.
http//ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/sex2.htm
- Virginal reproduction
In cases of parthenogenesis (virgin birth), an ovum starts to divide by itself without fertilization, producing an embryo in which the paternal chromosomes may be replaced by a duplication of maternal ones. This asexual reproductive method is rare among warm-blooded vertebrates but more common among invertebrates. Pathological parthenogenesis has been observed in higher animals, such as the frog, fowl, and certain mammals. Parthenogenesis usually gives rise to female offspring or sometimes an abnormal male.
In 1900 Jacques Loeb accomplished the first clear case of artificial parthenogenesis when he pricked unfertilized frog eggs with a needle and found that in some cases normal embryonic development ensued. In 1936 Gregory Pincus induced parthenogenesis in mammalian (rabbit) eggs by temperature change and chemical agents. Artificial parthenogenesis has since been achieved in almost all major groups of animals, by mechanical, chemical, and electrical means, though it usually results in incomplete and abnormal development.
Attempts at artificial parthenogenesis in humans have not yet been successful. The first cloned human embryo was produced in October 2001. Eggs had their own genetic material removed and were injected with the nucleus of a donor cell. They were then incubated under special conditions to prompt them to divide and grow. One embryo grew to six cells before it stopped dividing. The same experimenters also tried to induce human eggs to divide into early embryos parthenogenetically -- without being fertilized by a sperm or enucleated and injected with a donor cell -- but their efforts met with only limited success .
There is some evidence, however, that natural parthenogenesis does occasionally occur in humans. There are many instances in which impregnation has allegedly taken place in women without there being any possibility of the semen entering the female genital passage . In some cases it was found either in the course of pregnancy or at the time of childbirth that the female passages were obstructed. In 1956 the medical journal Lancet published a report concerning 19 alleged cases of virgin birth among women in England, who were studied by members of the British Medical Association. The six-month study convinced the investigators that human parthenogenesis was physiologically possible and had actually occurred in some of the women studied .
Many primitive peoples believe that there are two methods of human reproduction the ordinary animal one and a higher one rarely employed -- virgin birth . One belief is that the rays of the sun can fertilize women. In this regard, it is interesting that ultraviolet rays can cause parthenogenesis in unfertilized eggs of sea-urchins. It is also believed that moon rays, wind, rain, and certain types of food can cause impregnation. In the 19th century the Trobriand Islanders of the western Pacific insisted that cases of virgin birth still occurred among them.
Further evidence for the possibility of human parthenogenesis comes from the mysterious phenomenon of dermoid cysts . These are malformed embryonic growths or tumour-like formations occasionally found in various parts of the body, including womb, ovaries, and scrotum. They often contain bones, hair, teeth, flesh, tissue, glands, portions of the scalp, face, eyes, ribs, vertebral column, and umbilical cord. They are found in males as well as females, both young and old, including virgins. They appear to be undeveloped embryos and fetuses in various stages of growth. Loeb and several other researchers argued that dermoid cysts may be related to the parthenogenetic tendency of the mammalian egg, catalyzed perhaps by an increase in blood alkalinity. However, the body's parthenogenetic capacity is now very feeble and the generative centres lack the power to carry the reproduction process through to its proper conclusion.
It is possible that some cases of human parthenogenesis involve self-fertilization rather than true virgin birth, as there are cases of sperm being produced in women by vestigial, usually nonfunctional, male reproductive glands known as the epo?phoron (parovarium) and paro?phoron, which correspond to the seminiferous tubules of the testicles in males. In some instances, the magnetic influence and nervous excitement occasioned by attempted sexual intercourse may rouse into activity the latent, rudimentary male sex glands so that they secrete semen, resulting in impregnation .
Prior to the acceptance by the medical profession of the present theory of conception (epigenesis) in the middle of the 19th century, the ovist and aura seminalis theories prevailed, which can be traced back to Pythagoras. According to the ovist theory, the new organism is a product of the egg alone, and the spermatozoon and male progenitor are not essential to the reproductive process. According to the aura seminalis theory, the male supplies only a vital stimulus (an aura or emanation) which initiates the development of the ovum. The aura seminalis theory was rejected after it was established in 1854 that ova were fertilized by the actual entrance of the nucleus or head of the spermatozoa.
However, Loeb's experiments showed that for fertilization to occur, neither the sperm nucleus nor the spermatozoon itself need enter the egg, or even be in proximity to the egg. He replaced the sperm by alkaline solutions, ultraviolet rays, and other stimuli. Alexander Gurwitsch discovered in the 1920s that cells emit weak ultraviolet ('mitogenetic') radiation that can cause cell division in other cells at a distance -- a finding still resisted by mainstream scientists .
The power of sperm to cause fertilization is distinct from their capacity of hereditary transmission. In one experiment, a fertilizing enzyme (occytase) was isolated from spermatozoa and, when added to unfertilized sea-urchin eggs, caused them to develop. This substance is present in mammalian blood, since the addition of ox's blood to unfertilized eggs produced the same effects. Sperm therefore exercise two independent functions they can trigger the segmentation of the ovum, and they may convey paternal genetic qualities. The former function can be replaced by chemical substances, while the latter can be dispensed with, in which case the offspring have purely maternal characteristics .
Eggs show at least a beginning of segmentation under normal conditions. But sperm, which are highly alkaline, appear to accelerate the process by compensating for the excessive acidity of the medium surrounding the egg rather than a chemical deficiency in the egg itself. An acid condition of the blood prevents the parthenogenetic development of ova in the ovaries, while increased alkalinity appears to favour parthenogenetic development .
Commenting on Pincus's experiments on artificial parthenogenesis in rabbits, G. de Purucker stated that the means employed had probably thrown the ova back to a condition identical with the hermaphroditism of the early third root-race. Since there is always a double sex in every human or animal of our day, the ova would develop from the double current innate in the mother rabbit and produce offspring much as the hermaphrodites did towards the middle of the third race .
References
J.B. Cibelli, R.P. Lanza and M.D. West, with C. Ezzell, 'The first human cloned embryo', Scientific American, Jan. 2002, http//sciam.com/explorations/2001/112401ezzell/index.html.
Raymond Bernard, The Mysteries of Human Reproduction, Mokelumne Hill, CA Health Research, n.d., pp. 47-50, 56-63.
Ibid., pp. 3-10.
Ibid., pp. 11-28, 89-93.
Ibid., pp. 51-5, 117; F.H. Buzzacott and M.I. Wymore, Bi-sexual Man or Evolution of the Sexes, Health Research, 1966 (1912), pp. 32-4; Hilton Hotema, Secret of Regeneration, Health Research, 1963, ch. 204-205, 211.
Secret of Regeneration, ch. 208-210, 234; Gray's Anatomy, http//www.bartleby.com/107.
Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, The Secret Life of Plants, New York Harper & Row, 1973, pp. 54-5, 197-9; R. VanWijk, 'Bio-photons and bio-communication', Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 15, pp. 183-97, 2001.
The Mysteries of Human Reproduction, pp. 42, 109.
Ibid., pp. 118-9.
G. de Purucker, Studies in Occult Philosophy, Pasadena, CA Theosophical University Press, 1973, pp. 455-8. - Virginal reproduction
-
Peace Zeljko,
You asked
Did Jesus have a wife? How about a child?
The Qur'an is not specific in this regard, however, this may be a clue
We did send messengers before thee, and appointed for them wives and children and it was never the part of a messenger to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or commanded). For each period is a Book (revealed).
Peace,
Tay -
Salam Tay,
Peace Zeljko,
You asked
Did Jesus have a wife? How about a child?
The Qur'an is not specific in this regard, however, this may be a clue
We did send messengers before thee, and appointed for them wives and children and it was never the part of a messenger to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or commanded). For each period is a Book (revealed).
Peace,
TayJK- But this verse doesnt say that ALL messengers before Muhammad had wives and children. Taking it as such would be a misnterpretation. Irrespective of whether Jesus had children or not, which is historicaly quite absurd anyways, he was still not a usual person. GOD had definitely blessed him with extraordinary powers which he carried out in accordance with GOD's Will like healing the sick and raising the death by GOD'S leave. GOD Bless!
-
Peace Johnny,
You stated
But this verse doesnt say that ALL messengers before Muhammad had wives and children.
Did I say that's what the verse stated??
I said it may be a clue.Irrespective of whether Jesus had children or not, which is historicaly quite absurd anyways...
Please tell me which historical text(non-religious, by definition) even mentions Jesus of Nazareth, besides the account of Josephus. Historically, in regards to Jesus, you don't have much to work with. So, to call anything historically absurd in this regard, is, in itself, absurd.
GOD had definitely blessed him with extraordinary powers which he carried out in accordance with GOD's Will like healing the sick and raising the death by GOD'S leave.
That's irrelevant, whether or not it's true.
Peace,
Tay -
Salam,
In order to assure whether Jesus had kids or a wife we have to bring +ve proof otherwise we cant say that he had any. Moreover why would even the textual religious texts not mention it if he had a wife or children? I find that amazing since the Bible talks consistently of the family of the other prophets but not in the case of Jesus. Hence i say that the very way in which Jesus as born makes him abnormal in this regard. GOD Bless! -
Peace Johnny,
You stated
In order to assure whether Jesus had kids or a wife we have to bring +ve proof otherwise we cant say that he had any.
I disagree. We can't say that he didn't have any, because this is not mentioned in the Qur'an. The Qur'an does mention that messengers had wives and children. Isa was a messenger. Granted, the Qur'an does not say ALL messengers, but since one has to deduce based on what we're given as guidance, then it's only fair to correlate Isa with 1338 as a possibility.
Moreover why would even the textual religious texts not mention it if he had a wife or children?
Because the religious texts were swept into one common theme, and that is the pagan virgin birth story that carried over from generations past. It is common knowledge among Christian and secular intellectuals that there was a massive book-burning and doctrine-erasing party that went on around 325-350 ad. Everything non-conforming was considered heretic, punishable by nothing less than death. Very few doctrines survived this cleansing. See the gnostic gospels and dead sea scrolls for some conflicting reports.
I find that amazing since the Bible talks consistently of the family of the other prophets but not in the case of Jesus.
The NT is all about the teachings of Isa, culminating in his crucifixion. The Qur'an tells us he was not killed nor crucified. You're gonna have to make a choice on which one to believe. If it's the Qur'an, then there's plenty of room and time for Isa to have had a family.
Hence i say that the very way in which Jesus as born makes him abnormal in this regard.
Even if he was born miraculously, why would that stop him from having a family?
Peace,
Tay -
Salam "Tay",
Even if he was born miraculously, why would that stop him from having a family?
Peace,
TayJK- Good point. Thats why i say it's irrelevant whether he had children or not. This doesnt ncessarily make him completely normal like other human beings. He was a special messenger just as GOD says that He raises some above others, as per 2253, BUT we are not to make distinction between them. GOD Bless!
-
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