Jesus, Miracles, Virginbirth and the Nazarenes
-
Peace,
The celibacy laws in the Nazerene Temple determined that people only got married for offspring, and get divorced after the birth of the second or third child. So Mary could not have been called after Joseph as they were already divorced. Secondly Joseph died at a young age as far as we know. Also all other people were called after their father or male ancestor as they were known or prominent and also had normal marriage rules. The Nazarenes were quite weird when it came to marraige. They only allowed between royal families.
Temporary marriage! This is what you get when you add details from Hadiths and Bible etc to Al-Quran. These stories are inspired by the shayateen, the enemies of the prophets. (6112)
It is hard for people to find the right criterion for history. But i showed you Quranic verses to make my point, and you want to ignore them all.
Jesus is mentioned among these prophets because of being a "good doer", "upright" or "preferred over the worlds". Not because of having a father like they had.
Jesus is pre-quranic, unlike this "O minkind". So this "o minkind" does not include Jesus. Or do you think that Al-quran was a guidance for pre-quranic mankind as well?(2185) Since it is called "a guidance for mankind".
Excuse me? Does this mean only the people AFTER the Quran are made by male and female? The Quran clearly says ALL humans are made by the mixing of the two cells. This includes past and present.
The criterion for us, to decide what Allah's sunnat is, is al-quran. And Allah's sunnat is that Al-Quran always calls a married woman by her husbands name.
Where is your proof this is the only way possible? Plus if she was divorced, she wouldn't be called by her husbands name would she? I have no Quranic proof she was divorced, and you have no proof she wasn't so this cannot be used as an argument.
If you hadn't been deceived by the stories created by the shayateen, the prophets' enemies, I doubt you would have questioned the virgin birth, no offense. Only the authors of the Bible, the shayateen, have worked so hard to produce a father for Jesus. The stories created by shayateen don't explain Al-Quraan.
6/112 We have made for every prophet enemies, shayateen human and jinn, to inspire each other with fancy saying, in order to deceive?
Indeed he has decieved you and many. The Quran has talked clearly, ALL humans are made from sperm and egg. You have not given ANY Quranic evidence to support your claim or disproven mine. I have ONLY 1 little part of history, the rest of my post, 80% is ALL Quran which you still have not disproven.
If the malaika was telling Marium about 10 years in the future, why would she say "no man has touched me" ?! She said it because she was pregnant at that time. Thats what the malaika was telling her.
Does the verse say this or is this your personal interpretation? I believe it is the last. You always hammer on only Quranic evidence, and i have given it.
Peace
-
Jesus is pre-quranic, unlike this "O minkind". So this "o minkind" does not include Jesus. Or do you think that Al-quran was a guidance for pre-quranic mankind as well?(2185) Since it is called "a guidance for mankind".
Excuse me? Does this mean only the people AFTER the Quran are made by male and female? The Quran clearly says ALL humans are made by the mixing of the two cells. This includes past and present.
Are you saying that whenever "mankind" is mentioned, it is referring to ALL mankind of past as well?!
The criterion for us, to decide what Allah's sunnat is, is al-quran. And Allah's sunnat is that Al-Quran always calls a married woman by her husbands name.
Where is your proof this is the only way possible? Plus if she was divorced, she wouldn't be called by her husbands name would she? I have no Quranic proof she was divorced,
To be divorced, she has to married first. And to suggest that she was married would be un-Quranic. And Biblical.
and you have no proof she wasn't so this cannot be used as an argument.
This is THE argument. Let me show you again
If the malaika was telling Marium about 10 years in the future, why would she say "no man has touched me" ?! She said it because she was pregnant at that time. Thats what the malaika was telling her.
Does the verse say this or is this your personal interpretation?
The verse is saying it. Suppose, someone tells a girl "You are gonna get pregnant after 5 or 10 years", the girl might say "really? ...oh, ok."
But if she is told "You ARE pregnant!", her response would be "how?! Since no man has touched me!". Just like Marium's response.
It means that when the malaika gave her the good news...
- She was not married. Since she was called by her name, and not by her husband's name.
- And she was not divorced either, since she said that no man had touched her.
So you see now, why she wasn't married? And thats why she was called by her name. And thats why it is not just my personal interpretation.
-
Peace Brother Fahad,
Only the authors of the Bible, the shayateen, have worked so hard to produce a father for Jesus. The stories created by shayateen don't explain Al-Quraan.
That's odd. Those who decided what the Bible consists of in a meeting in Nicea rejected all books and gospel that claimed that Jesus had a father, so that they could easier call him the son of god, as far as I know. They did infact do the opposite of what you accuse them of.
The authors of the bible have nothing to gain by producing a father for Jesus, they have on the contrary everything to lose by such. The divinity of Jesus is the cornerstone of christianity.
Nadeem
-
This is clearly a contradiction. It says all mankind is made of sperm and eggs, but then it says Jesus was not. Maybe baby Jesus was the son of God.
I agree with Fahad that a girl would never have the reaction Mary did if she was told she would be pregnant some time in the future. It's like someone telling me I'm going to die eventually. I would say "of course." It's not surprising news or anything.
Can you explain this bit, Arnold? -
Do you actually think it's more logical (which it clearly isn't)?
It clearly is. It is evident from Marium's response.
or is that part of your blind belief in the quran (or at least your interpretation of it)?
I showed why it is not just my interpretation.
-
Peace bro.
Peace Brother Fahad,
Only the authors of the Bible, the shayateen, have worked so hard to produce a father for Jesus. The stories created by shayateen don't explain Al-Quraan.
That's odd. Those who decided what the Bible consists of in a meeting in Nicea rejected all books and gospel that claimed that Jesus had a father,
I was talking about whoever claimed that Jesus had a father, in the bible or gospel, whatever.
so that they could easier call him the son of god, as far as I know. They did infact do the opposite of what you accuse them of.
They were producing a father anyway.
The authors of the bible have nothing to gain by producing a father for Jesus, they have on the contrary everything to lose by such. The divinity of Jesus is the cornerstone of christianity.
They are enemies of the prophet. They deceive people about the prophets. Thats what they gain.
-
Peace,
Excuse me? Does this mean only the people AFTER the Quran are made by male and female? The Quran clearly says ALL humans are made by the mixing of the two cells. This includes past and present.
Are you saying that whenever "mankind" is mentioned, it is referring to ALL mankind of past as well?!
Where is your proof this is the only way possible? Plus if she was divorced, she wouldn't be called by her husbands name would she? I have no Quranic proof she was divorced,To be divorced, she has to married first. And to suggest that she was married would be un-Quranic. And Biblical.
To say she was not married when being made pregnant is also un-Quranic. And when it comes to procreation, the Quran is clear that it has used the same system always for humans.
The verse is saying it. Suppose, someone tells a girl "You are gonna get pregnant after 5 or 10 years", the girl might say "really? ...oh, ok."
But if she is told "You ARE pregnant!", her response would be "how?! Since no man has touched me!". Just like Marium's response.
It means that when the malaika gave her the good news...
When i would walk up to you and say i was gonna push you and you will fall and it will hurt. Does this immediately mean i will do it right that moment? No. And you can react'How? You haven't even touched me!', but does this imply at all you were already hit? No. Does this reject the notion i can hit you 2 years from now? No. The same holds with Mary. She was told she was gonna get pregnant of Jesus, it doesn't say she was MADE pregnant right there on that moment. No timespan is given. And her reaction is the same like yours would be on my news that i was gonna push you "how? i haven't been touched?". To believe that telling the good news also implies that she was made pregnant right at that moment is non-Quranic. To believe her rejection of being touched when she was told she will have a child, immediately implies she will never be touched by a man is again non-Quranic. She was raised in a temple. This almost always implies celibacy, and being raised to keep celibacy. Her response is normal for a person who has been raised as a nun.
- She was not married. Since she was called by her name, and not by her husband's name.
The verses in the Quran that talk about her becoming pregnant were told when she was not married yet. The verses that tell about her pregnancy and deliverance of Jesus, she was already divorced as custom in the Nazarene Temple. Plus, you have no law that says people can only be called by her husbands name. In the Quran you can see it used when the husband is also a subject in the Quran like the pharoah or Abraham. Since Jesus's father has no significance, he is not part of the Quranic story, and thus Mary is not named as her ex-husband. All wives that do carry their husbands name, have husbands that are part of the Quranic message.
- And she was not divorced either, since she said that no man had touched her.
We only know that she was not touched on the moment. To say that this means she was not gonna get married after the malikah's visit is conjecture.
Till now you have only defended weak personal interpretation. The Quran says clearly ALL of mankind is made out the mixture of 2 cells. And God doesn't change His ways. So the virginbirth interpretation of the verses do not stand, and are to be rejected.
Peace
-
Sorry arnold,your 'interpretation' of marys suprise at being informed of a pregnancy is not logical or tenable....You have used your own interpretation of dubious arbitrary historical references to justify YOUR personal theory on what you think the quran is saying...Fahads and phoenixs- point still stands unanswered....why do you guys go to such strange illogical lengths to prove and justify your own 'pet' theories and interpretations....you guys are acting like priest and gods.....You guys are just saying 'unquranic this' and 'unquranic that', but arnold many of your assertions are backed by 'unquranic' sources and references,in fact your logic is sometimes unquranic,are you reading between gods lines or are you a special interpretor for the modern times.....? You are becoming pretty dogmatic,i think phoenix is the only open-minded person left...
ps; i know you are A good thoughtful human arnold,but please think more on what you are saying,and dont become a slave to your own theories,admit your mistakes/infallibility now and again,and take other peoples advice and opinions on board as well....Take it easy... -
peace arnold,
If she was raised as a celibate, then she wouldn't have said "no man has ever touchED me" That is past tense. She is saying that she cannot have a child because no man has ever touched her in the PAST. I would agree with you if she said "no man is supposed to touch me," or "i've vowed celibacy" or "no man is going to touch me".
Plus, in every other scripture it is a virgin birth, but not in the quran? why not?
This is either a contradiction, or you are right, or we don't know what this actually means yet. Whatever the case, I'm not finding your explanation very convincing.
It is possible (and likely) that this is a parable (a FICTITIOUS story with moral or lesson), and not a historical account. A virgin birth is not possible just as moses splitting the sea is not possible. -
Peace,
Sorry arnold,your 'interpretation' of marys suprise at being informed of a pregnancy is not logical or tenable....
When a person is raised as a nun in a Temple, and she didn't know she was selected for marriage and suddenly 2 beings tell you will have a child. It is not so unlogical she would go into defense immediately.
You have used your own interpretation of dubious arbitrary historical references to justify YOUR personal theory on what you think the quran is saying...Fahads and phoenixs- point still stands unanswered....
The Quran says that ALL humans are made out of male and female, so this shows you cannot approach the story of Mary from a virginbirth point of view.
why do you guys go to such strange illogical lengths to prove and justify your own 'pet' theories and interpretations....you guys are acting like priest and gods.....You guys are just saying 'unquranic this' and 'unquranic that', but arnold many of your assertions are backed by 'unquranic' sources and references,in fact your logic is sometimes unquranic,are you reading between gods lines or are you a special interpretor for the modern times.....?You are becoming pretty dogmatic,i think phoenix is the only open-minded person left...
I give my interpretation. It doesn't matter if you accept or don't. And what is your definition of dogmatic? That i believe the Quran is divine? If that still is your definition of dogmatic, then yes, i'm dogmatic. For the rest i'm trying to understand the Quran from a scientific point of view. Nothing more. I'm no master of the Quran and i always stay open to suggestion. To say i don't do this is nonsense dear Asif, as you know i've always been open minded. I have always backed down when proven wrong. Most of my ideas i get from ancient commentators who already said these things 1400 years ago. I believe i have clearly answered their questions. If you believe it is not so, then we must agree to disagree as i'm not convinced at all by his arguments. If this is closeminded by your standards, then this means i must lose my scientific empirical demands and standards before i'm 'openminded'.
Peace bro
-
Peace,
If she was raised as a celibate, then she wouldn't have said "no man has ever touchED me" That is past tense. She is saying that she cannot have a child because no man has ever touched her in the PAST. I would agree with you if she said "no man is supposed to touch me," or "i've vowed celibacy" or "no man is going to touch me".
I don't believe 'no man has ever touched me' rules out celibacy at all. You demand a different rephrasing to admit celibacy, while i really see clearly a defense against a believed accusation.
Plus, in every other scripture it is a virgin birth, but not in the quran? why not?
This is either a contradiction, or you are right, or we don't know what this actually means yet. Whatever the case, I'm not finding your explanation very convincing.No Phoenix. Only in Luke, is the virginbirth is promoted. Luke was a roman and thus highly influenced by the Isis and Mithra movement. All the other gospels and the other stories in the New Testament clearly say Joseph was the father of Jesus. The idea of virginbirth in Jesus story, was only accepted in Christianity after 200AD, when the Romans influenced Christianity by mixing it with Isis and Mithra mythology.
It is possible (and likely) that this is a parable (a FICTITIOUS story with moral or lesson), and not a historical account. A virgin birth is not possible just as moses splitting the sea is not possible.
The Quran clearly says every human is born out of male and female mixture of cells. You judge it to be a virginbirth story only because she hasn't phrased her defense in the correct way. Plus, your above assertion on the Gospels shows you don't know the history of virginbirth-mythology, otherwise you would have understood me better. Many ancient commentators say the same thing i do. This is not new, it is only not mainstream or dominant explanation in the last 600 year Muslim theology.
-
Excuse me? Does this mean only the people AFTER the Quran are made by male and female? The Quran clearly says ALL humans are made by the mixing of the two cells. This includes past and present.
Are you saying that whenever "mankind" is mentioned, it is referring to ALL mankind of past as well?!
Whenever ?mankind? or ?O mankind? is mentioned, does it include all dead people of the past as well? I am asking you this for the third time, i think?
Where is your proof this is the only way possible? Plus if she was divorced, she wouldn't be called by her husbands name would she? I have no Quranic proof she was divorced,
To be divorced, she has to married first. And to suggest that she was married would be un-Quranic. And Biblical.
To say she was not married when being made pregnant is also un-Quranic.
It is very Quranic. Marium said "My Lord, how can I have a son while no man has touched me?"
And when it comes to procreation, the Quran is clear that it has used the same system always for humans.
Whenever ?mankind? or ?O mankind? is mentioned, does it include all dead people of the past as well?
The verse is saying it. Suppose, someone tells a girl "You are gonna get pregnant after 5 or 10 years", the girl might say "really? ...oh, ok."
But if she is told "You ARE pregnant!", her response would be "how?! Since no man has touched me!". Just like Marium's response.
It means that when the malaika gave her the good news...
When i would walk up to you and say i was gonna push you and you will fall and it will hurt. Does this immediately mean i will do it right that moment? No. And you can react'How? You haven't even touched me!', but does this imply at all you were already hit? No. Does this reject the notion i can hit you 2 years from now? No. The same holds with Mary. She was told she was gonna get pregnant of Jesus, it doesn't say she was MADE pregnant right there on that moment. No timespan is given. And her reaction is the same like yours would be on my news that i was gonna push you "how? i haven't been touched?". To believe that telling the good news also implies that she was made pregnant right at that moment is non-Quranic. To believe her rejection of being touched when she was told she will have a child, immediately implies she will never be touched by a man is again non-Quranic. She was raised in a temple. This almost always implies celibacy, and being raised to keep celibacy. Her response is normal for a person who has been raised as a nun.
)
If you walk up to me and say tell me that you are gonna push me 2 years from now, to make me fall, I will respond by saying "Like I am gonna let you push me now?! Now that you have told me your plans, I won't let it happen!".
But WHY in the world would I say "You haven't touched/pushed me yet"?!! What has it got to do with pushing me two years from now?! Only a foolish person would say "you haven't touched me yet"!
The only condition in which I would respond by saying "You haven't touched/pushed me yet" is if I have ALREADY fallen without you touching me. And then I can say "My lord! How did I fall while Arnold didn't even touch/push me". And if there would be a malaika around, he would be saying "Like that, Allah does what He wills. When He decrees a command, He merely says for it "Be", and it is." !
So... Just like that? (match the colors)
The only condition in which Marium would respond by saying "No man has touched me" is if she was ALREADY pregnant without a man touching her. And then she can say "My lord! How can I have a son(i.e how can I be pregnant) while no man has touched me". And then the malaika said "Like that, Allah creates whatever He wills. When He decrees a command, He merely says for it "Be", and it is." !
I hope you can understand this now.
- She was not married. Since she was called by her name, and not by her husband's name.
The verses in the Quran that talk about her becoming pregnant were told when she was not married yet. The verses that tell about her pregnancy and deliverance of Jesus, she was already divorced as custom in the Nazarene Temple. Plus, you have no law that says people can only be called by her husbands name. In the Quran you can see it used when the husband is also a subject in the Quran like the pharoah or Abraham. Since Jesus's father has no significance, he is not part of the Quranic story, and thus Mary is not named as her ex-husband. All wives that do carry their husbands name, have husbands that are part of the Quranic message.
Married women are always called by their husband?s name. That is Allah?s sunnat. Allah could have put 'Marium?s husband'(whatever that is) in the story if it was required to not break his sunnat. But He didn?t. Because Quranically, there is no such thing as "Marium?s husband" or "Jesus? father". These ideas only come from the satanic stories about the prophets created to deceive people.
- And she was not divorced either, since she said that no man had touched her.
We only know that she was not touched on the moment. To say that this means she was not gonna get married after the malikah's visit is conjecture.
You are confused about this topic, bro. Was she married at the moment the malaika gave her the good news?
Till now you have only defended weak personal interpretation. The Quran says clearly ALL of mankind is made out the mixture of 2 cells. And God doesn't change His ways. So the virginbirth interpretation of the verses do not stand, and are to be rejected.
Whenever ?mankind? or ?O mankind? is mentioned, does it include all dead people of the past as well?
-
Whenever ?mankind? or ?O mankind? is mentioned, does it include all dead people of the past as well? I am asking you this for the third time, i think?
peace Fahad,
whenever somethng says "mankind" it means mankind in general. The whole human race as a whole. It doesn't matter who is alive or who is dead. AND Jesus is compared to Adam, which means jesus must have had two parents.Married women are always called by their husband?s name. That is Allah?s sunnat. Allah could have put 'Marium?s husband'(whatever that is) in the story if it was required to not break his sunnat. But He didn?t. Because Quranically, there is no such thing as "Marium?s husband" or "Jesus? father". These ideas only come from the satanic stories about the prophets created to deceive people.
You talk about Allah's sunnat here, yet it doesn't occur to you that Jesus being born without a father is breaking Allah's sunnat. Because according to the Allah's laws, as the quran says, everyone has TWO biological parents.
Why would Allah break his sunnat here? There are more instances in the quran where Allah's sunnat is broken.
SO, if you think there are no fixed laws, or a fixed way things happen, then you shouldn't talk about it. But if you do, then you need to take hard look at your "miracles" in the quran. -
peace Fahad,
whenever somethng says "mankind" it means mankind in general. The whole human race as a whole. It doesn't matter who is alive or who is dead. AND Jesus is compared to Adam, which means jesus must have had two parents.So when the the Quran says that it is a guidance for mankind, it means that it was a guidance for pre-quranic people as well? Was Quran present in pre-Quranic times? From day one?
Married women are always called by their husband?s name. That is Allah?s sunnat. Allah could have put 'Marium?s husband'(whatever that is) in the story if it was required to not break his sunnat. But He didn?t. Because Quranically, there is no such thing as "Marium?s husband" or "Jesus? father". These ideas only come from the satanic stories about the prophets created to deceive people.
You talk about Allah's sunnat here, yet it doesn't occur to you that Jesus being born without a father is breaking Allah's sunnat. Because according to the Allah's laws, as the quran says, everyone has TWO biological parents.
Why would Allah break his sunnat here? There are more instances in the quran where Allah's sunnat is broken.
SO, if you think there are no fixed laws, or a fixed way things happen, then you shouldn't talk about it. But if you do, then you need to take hard look at your "miracles" in the quran.Al-quran decides what Allah's sunnat is. So Allah did not break any sunnat by the virginbirth and "miracles".
-
Peace,
Whenever ?mankind? or ?O mankind? is mentioned, does it include all dead people of the past as well? I am asking you this for the third time, i think?
It depends on the context of the verse. But if really you want to hang on to your belief in the virginbirth by saying that only after 600AD people were made out of male and female, please do. Then your empirical thinking truly has been lost.
Married women are always called by their husband?s name. That is Allah?s sunnat. Allah could have put 'Marium?s husband'(whatever that is) in the story if it was required to not break his sunnat. But He didn?t. Because Quranically, there is no such thing as "Marium?s husband" or "Jesus? father". These ideas only come from the satanic stories about the prophets created to deceive people.
Allah's way always has been the same when it comes to message or the Laws of Nature. This is Allah's sunnat to me.
We only know that she was not touched on the moment. To say that this means she was not gonna get married after the malikah's visit is conjecture.
You are confused about this topic, bro. Was she married at the moment the malaika gave her the good news?
Was she not married after the news? When the malikah told her, was she instantly pregnant?
I believe we must agree to disagree Fahad.
Peace
-
Arnold,i welcome your empirical scientific approach,i was not claiming you were dogmatic just because you believe the quran is 'divine',no i said that because i feel that you are always asserting your PERSONAL understandings of verses above that of other folks just because you feel that your methodology is better,and i see clearly that other folks oftentimes have a better understanding/more logical interpretation than yourself....I just feel you should take on board other folks views who seem more logical on certain topics,nobody likes someone who comes across as a know it all......Remember ahmedbhaghat? You seem like him at times but with more finesse...(of course you know i do like many many of your great ideas too,its not all bad!)
Now,i find it strange to hear that you say your ideas are from ancient commentators of 1400 years past,because you also claim that the quran has been corrupted in translation by ancient commentators and you are trying to revive the 'original' or correct meanings...I would like you to quote these ancient commentators for the benefit of the forum and explain (if they truely can be verified.) why these aformentioned commentators have almost zero influence on islam today,and why their works are very obscure?
If you claim islam and the quran can be explained in an empirical scientific way then you do away with one of the core ideas of religion (and 99% of islam.) by promoting disbelief in the 'supernatural'.......Your understanding that 'gods sunnat' does not change and is 'scientific' is only from YOUR personal understanding of the quran,do you believe that god CANNOT change his laws,or do you believe god is bound by these laws,and what brings you to the conclusion that god cannot work in a supernatural way? To be blunt,belief in an entity outside of time and space,being all-powerful,all knowing and unaffected by anything is in itself an unverifiable SUPERNATURAL concept,and a concept that defies physics,science,logic and empirical evidence,this means gods sunnat does change with respect to himself,which is a quranic CONTRADICTION which i hope you can see......
Why subject everything to empirical observation when the number one religious entity (god.) cannot really be verified by science or empricism....? -
As always with you arnie, i am posting to give you constructive criticism,and to find flaws in your views with a view to better and greater understandings....As kyle says we need to 'jidal' (debate constructively.) to try and get resistance towards our views in an effort to get to a better,more complete understanding,and to change our mistaken conclusions.(which we all can have.)
You know i do thoroughly respect SOME of your views,i just want you to remain openminded and not turn your views into a monologue or a religion.....We all need to say at times that these things we write are our own FALLABLE views,and our views are not god speaking direct.(ie,infallible.) We all make mistakes and have incomplete understandings at times,even you arnie... handshake muscle elektro
Take care...