Virgin Birth of Isa
-
Hello All,
I am new here. As a former Jewish Christian, I am very familiar with the Bible. I learned Hebrew and Aramaic at synagogue, and I use these languages in my study of the Bible. I say this all to evidence that I am not a novice to biblical studies.
As an agnostic, I enjoy and love the Quran. Of all holy book options, I consider it the most likely to be inspired. However, I have problems with the way that it appears to indiscriminately repeat aspects of biblical absurdities and myths. One example of this is the virgin birth. Why would the Quran need to repeat the virgin birth myth. Is it not obvious that the virgin birth narratives represent the merging of pagan and Christian thought and an exegetical disaster related to Isaiah 7?
Is it possible that the Quran did not expect the reader to take the story literally? If it is literal, then it is a blemish on the book.
Very interested in comments....
Peter
http//daat-erwat.blogspot.com
-
peace,
This has been discussed in detail many times, some background
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8409.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8422.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9703.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13111.0 -
Peace be with you and welcome,
Quran never uses 'virgin' in connection with Mary, not once. Does it imply it? Maybe... Here's something another member said, that you may find of use.
359 tells us that both Adam and Isa were born from dust/clay via the "be" command from God.
347 tells us also that God creates via the "be" command.This, however, is not unique to Adam and Isa...
3020 Among His Signs is this, that He created you from dust;
Who is this in reference to? See also 1837, 225, 3511, 4067.
Furthermore, according to 4068 "...when He decrees an affair, He only says to it Be, and it is". Notice, that this is not a special command just for Adam and Isa. It is whenever Allah decrees an affair.
Therefore, the conclusion is
Adam, Mankind, Isa = created from dust/clay
Adam, Mankind, Isa = created via the "be" commandSo what is 359 telling us?
Adam and Isa were men created just like all other men.Peace,
TayPlease study the quran, as you have the bible.
Excellent tools available at
-
Peace PeterS
Depending on your interpretation there is no virgin birth in the quran.
Joe
Hello Joe and House M.D.
I appreciate both of your responses. I have read the previous threads on this issue as per the direction offered in the first reply to my inquiry.
I see that a case can be made against the virgin birth in the Quran; however, I wonder how much of this case is guilty of faulty hermeneutics. The essential exigetical question is "What did the original readers understand the passage to mean?" That is, because the 1passage was first written within the context of a specific milieu and under the auspices of specific exigencies, what how did the original audience understand a given text?
Am I asking the right questions? I believe that I am. The answers to these questions appear to confirm the virgin birth as the original audience (for whom this was written) would have already known of the virgin birth story.
Thoughts....?
Peter
-
Peace,
Virgin birth is rejected by the Quran on 2 fronts
Muhammed Asad says in his translation
3 59 Verily, in the sight of God, the nature of Jesus is as the nature of Adam, whom He created out of dust and then said unto him, "Be" - and he is.* (3 60) the truth from thy Sustainer; be not, then, among the doubters!
*Lit., "The parable of Jesus is as the parable of Adam...", etc. The expression mathal (rendered above as "nature" is often metaphorically employed to denote the state or condition (of a person or a thing), and is in this sense - as the commentators have pointed out - synonymous with sifah (the "quality" or "nature" of a thing). As is evident from the sequence, the above passage is part of an argument against the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. The Qur'an stresses here, as in many other places, the fact that Jesus, like Adam - by which name, in this context, the whole human race is meant - was only a mortal "created out of dust", i.e., out of substances, both organic and inorganic, which are found in their elementary forms on and in the earth. Cf. also 1837, 225, 3020, 3511, 4067, where the Qur'an speaks of all human beings as "created out of dust". That "Adam" stands here for the human race is clearly implied in the use of the present tense in the last word of this sentence.
And
The Quran clearly mentions Jesus's father. In surah An-Aam verse 84-87 Allah mentions names of 18 prophets at a stretch. Of these, verse 86 specifically mentions name of Isa as ". And Zakariyya, and Yahya and Isa and Ilyas - everyone was of the righteous." After stating the names of the 18 prophets, in the very next verse 88 Allah goes on to say that
688 And from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren. And We chose them and We guided them towards the Right Path.
In the verse 688, the Arabic words ". Wa min aaba ihim" is critical. Let me break down the words Wa means And, Min means From Aaba means Fathers Ihim means Among theirs. Together it means . And from among their fathers.
Muslim scholars are in jeopardy with this statement from Allah. They desperately try to justify their faith that Jesus did not have a father. So now they start twisting the meaning and interpretation. At this time I want to emphasize that if Jesus did not have a father then the verse 688 should not have included his name or should have specifically stated that illa Isa or except Isa. Or would you say it was an oversight (nauzubillah!) on part of Allah!!! If the argument is that some HAD fathers, then which other prophet did not have a father? Can you tell me who was born without a father other than Jesus?
There are several other prophets whose fathers are not specifically mentioned in the Qur-an , for example, Nuh, Dawud, Ayyub, Musa, Harun, Zakariya, whose name exists in the list of 18 prophets in the above verses. Even though we dont find the mention of fathers of these prophets we believe these prophets did have fathers. But in case of Jesus we make the exception that he did not have a father. We make this exception because the Christian teachings tell us that Jesus did not have a father, although time and again Bible refers to his father as a person named Joseph.
Muslims are more interested to uphold the Biblical statement at the cost of the Quranic declaration.
I have researched and discussed also the other issues of 'miracles' and the supernatural in these articles
http//19.org/index.php?arnold
-
peace Arnold, all,
We need to be careful with the words we use, for example "rejected by the Quran" is very strong terminology and it does not fit with the evidence cited in my opinion.
Re 687 (not 68
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13826.msg123995#msg123995 -
Salaam Wakas,
Verse 359 uses Adam in the present tense referring to Mankind in general. Are we born by virgin births? I think not....
-
peace Arnold,
For sake of argument, let's say adam=mankind in this verse, it does not change the fact that 359 is clearly equating the creation of Jesus like that of adam/mankind (i.e. created out of dust, "be" and it is), as Muhammad Asad points out
As is evident from the sequence, the above passage is part of an argument against the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus.
The word "divinity" is used, nothing about virgin birth. To prove this further, M.Asad explicitly states in his following note
*I.e., regarding the true nature of Jesus. According to all the reliable authorities, verses 59-63 of this surah were revealed in the year 10 H., on the occasion of a dispute between the Prophet and a deputation of the Christians of Najran who, like all other Christians, maintained that Jesus was "the son of God" and, therefore, God incarnate. Although they refused the "trial through prayer" (mubahalah) proposed to them by the Prophet, the latter accorded to them a treaty guaranteeing all their civic rights and the free exercise of their religion.
Thus, M.Asad did not see these verses as evidence against a virgin birth.
Please note, I am not saying there is a virgin birth, nor there isn't one, I am simply clarifying.
-
Peace,
And I posted it because of his correct comment that the Arabic concerning Adam is in the present tense and therefore refers to Mankind in general. And again, are we born by the use of virgin births? No, so your whole reference to why Asad said is pointless.
-
peace Arnold,
It is possible I have misunderstood your evidence presented, but we shall see what is pointless and what is not through discussion )
I do not understand how you have linked statement A with statement B, as shown below
...the Arabic concerning Adam is in the present tense and therefore refers to Mankind in general.
And again, are we born by the use of virgin births? No, so your whole reference to why Asad said is pointless.
The verses are not even discussing virgin birth. I can only assume you have extrapolated the following
creation of Jesus = 'dust, "be" and it is'
creation of mankind = 'dust, "be" and it is'
creation of Jesus = creation of mankindExtrapolation
'dust, "be" and it is' equals procreation involving male AND femaleIs that what you're implying? If so, please provide Quranic evidence for the extrapolation.
-
Are we created just out of dust? No...we go through a whole process as shown in 225. Our nature is being made up out of 2 seperate genepoles. Jesus is just part of the human race as everybody else and has gone through the same stages of creation as everybody else. This is why the comparison is made between Mankind and Jesus.
Plus the concept of virgin birth was not part of the original beliefs of Christians, but was introduced through Mithra legends and Isis-Horus worship in the first century. How can the Quran suddenly support a doctrine that wa snot even present among the first followers of Jesus?
This is my line of thinking, in where I keep the logical side of the interpretation and I am not alone in this thinking. If people want to stay neutral or hold on to the traditional understanding is their choice.
-
peace Arnold,
It would be helpful if you clarified what I highlighted.
Are we created just out of dust?
When I use "dust", I was just using what you used initially, for coherence in our discussion. It more correctly means soil/earth/dust. As far as I'm aware, every component in our body can be found in earth.
Where in 225 does it show "Our nature is being made up out of 2 seperate genepoles." or in what way does 225 give evidence to your view?
This is why the comparison is made between Mankind and Jesus.
No, the comparison is made to disprove the 'divinity / Son of God / God incarnate' view, as pointed out by M.Asad. This is clear. What you have attributed to these verses is an extrapolation. What I am trying to clarify is the evidence behind this extrapolation.
Plus the concept of virgin birth was not part of the original beliefs of Christians, but was introduced through Mithra legends and Isis-Horus worship in the first century. How can the Quran suddenly support a doctrine that wa snot even present among the first followers of Jesus?
Impossible to verify. Showing "evidence" from history is not the same as showing "rejected by the Quran".
This is my line of thinking, in where I keep the logical side of the interpretation and I am not alone in this thinking. If people want to stay neutral or hold on to the traditional understanding is their choice.
I wish to clarify the "evidence" presented, that is all.
-
Salaam Wakas,
Yes, of course it is about the divinity of Jesus, but I believe it also clearly says "he is created as any other human". I will write a more eloborate thoughtline when I have more time to show why and how I think this way.
-
I have to agree with Arnold Yasin. The rest of mankind have simple births without any virgins being involved and Jesus is no different.
There is no point in fettering those verses to the concept that "Jesus is not divine" alone. That reeks of traditionalist idealogy and "context of revelation"/"asbab nuzool". It of course must mean that Jesus is no more divine than the average man, but it definitely cannot be restrained to just that statement alone - if God willed, god would have said exactly that in clear words and HAS DONE SO ALREADY (2116, 517, etc). Instead we get a comparison to men regarding his creation (again, said in general in 2117). I wonder if Zakariya is involved at all (339).
-
peace Arnold, OPF,
I think we should be careful about the wording we use when saying things like "rejected by Quran" or "clear" etc. Hence this issue was brought up. Many members (and people generally in the real world) use strong terminology when it is uncalled for and cant be substantiated. Members need to be very wary of this due to its frequency.
Look forward to a more elaborate thoughtline from you both about this subject. I would say though, that a lot of discussion has taken place on this topic, in previous threads, like most other topics brought up on the forum.
-
I agree that the quran does not "reject" but it passively implies that it's a farcical interpretation. If the quran describes god as al-haqq then why would anything in it be out of line with such a thing?
Anyway, the burden of proof is in the person suggesting change to established thought and they have to provide positive evidence to the contrary. The established thought, regardless of the 2.5 billion christians and the other billion muslims that may wish to say otherwise based on their beliefs alone, is that virgin births just do not happen and for humans, cannot happen. Find a modern person who has reproduced asexually without being cloned.
I can't believe people are allowing their interpretations of the quran to be derived from preconceptions and the idea that linguistically it doesn't rule it out - that just doesn't compute with and and nor should it if we hold to be true.
-
There's another aspect called 'evidence' which those advocating a virgin birth need to bring. Whether or not Arnold's use of "the quran rejects" is a bad extrapolation or not, the fact remains that virgin birth IS an extrapolation, the absence of mention of a father is nothing that indicates Jesus didn't actually have one.
