Jesus's virgin birth between Talmud,New Testimony, and Quran

[YmirGF]

The Baha'i view is that the birth of Jesus was miraculous... and so basically we agree with the Gospels and the Qur'an.

Which isn't really possible, but it does sound nice.

 

[danieldemol]

...In NT:

• Mariam cousin married her to cover the scandal till he sew a dream
• Close relatives are not sure if she's innocent from adultery or not
• Issues :
  • Nobody witness the miracle of virgin birth
    
  • The child was deceived and grown up calling his mother's husband as father till 12 years...
  • ...We don't know who documented Mariam's story as Jesus didn't say a word

...The issues of these 2 stories are explained in Quran story :

• Mariam was virgin, not married, spent her life in Holy of Holies
• She get pregnant, she laid the child Al-Masseh
• Everybody knew and see the child, everybody believed that she did adultery, She should be stoned
• Miracle happened, the child spoke to all in a miraculous way that shuts everyone's mouth
• He told his mother's story and exposes who is he, and his mission
• Mother and son lived in pride and glory
• Everyone see the Virgin birth....

Your points all require citations so that we can follow where what you are saying does or doesn't come from the original texts

 

[Limo]

That IS funny. You do understand that not very many people see them as being anything more than interesting stories, right? You could look at them as being like the less than authentic hadiths that your scholars do not believe are genuine.

I didn't say it's authentic or trusted
I say that all books canonical or Apocrypha have the same problems , unknown author, no narration series, changed,,,,
From validation point of view they're all the same

 

[Limo]

Your points all require citations so that we can follow where what you are saying does or doesn't come from the original texts

I did it short, I didn't bring any text from any book
You can find the Virgin birth story in the beginning of Matteo and Luke

 

[Robert Vincelette]

There is more wrong with the virgin birth mythology. 1. was Jesus' DNA half Mary's and the other half God's? If so, this implies that male DNA is too inferior to female DNA for a messiah and is sexist, 2. why should God incarnate in a conception that conforms to society's arbitrary standards of what is laws that men almost spuriously ascribed to God? Does God have to acquiesce to society's customs? Is one's sanctity dependent of the adventitious circumstances of one's birth? The Catholic Church admits it is pandering to prejudices against ******** in choosing to make them ineligible for the priesthood.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm sorry your opinion is that my argument is uninformed - I believe otherwise.

Your 'Argument' is that three religions are responsible for all the world's problems. Its not merely uninformed. Its is actively multiplying a misinformation! You go so far as to mark your religion 'Early Buddhism', and no Buddhists are able to figure out what it means. It means that you are starting a war among Buddhists, ignoring every single thing that goes wrong in religions in the first place, and then you pop up in just about every discussion remotely related to anything that isn't Buddhism to denounce everybody else. You say it is on topic, but your topic is always only one thing. There are other topics.

I was on topic, addressing the OP's concern that we address the logic behind these stories, and I certainly did.

You and the OP are both trash talking things you have no real interest in. He's a believer in the Koran which requires him to believe the NT is trash, so there's no debating it with him. For him its only a matter of identifying problems. You're an 'Early Buddist' which means someone trying to fart smarter than all the other Buddists, and you've got an axe to grind against Christianity of all kinds regardless of logic. Saying your post was related to the logic of the NT is bizarre. You basically said "I hate the NT. That's why its not logical."

 

[buddhist]

Your 'Argument' is that three religions are responsible for all the world's problems. Its not merely uninformed. Its is actively multiplying a misinformation!

The only misinformant in this conversation is you.

1. I never wrote in this thread that the Abrahamic religions "are responsible for all of the world's problems" as you claim. Instead, I stated "IMO ... [they] are the root causes of most of the world's troubles".
2. I also never wrote that there was a singular Abrahamic religion, as you claimed I did, and then attacked me for it.

You go so far as to mark your religion 'Early Buddhism', and no Buddhists are able to figure out what it means.

It simply means I follow the earliest texts of Buddhism. Would it be more preferable for comprehension for me to not list any religion at all, instead?

It means that you are starting a war among Buddhists,

No, it simply means I am precisely identifying the specific Path I follow, without equivocation.

ignoring every single thing that goes wrong in religions in the first place, and then you pop up in just about every discussion remotely related to anything that isn't Buddhism to denounce everybody else.

I have no problem debating issues in debate subforums. I don't recall having a habit of denouncing the person. Are you, as a staff member, claiming that debate is no longer acceptable in debate subforums?

You say it is on topic, but your topic is always only one thing. There are other topics. You and the OP are both trash talking things you have no real interest in. He's a believer in the Koran which requires him to believe the NT is trash, so there's no debating it with him. For him its only a matter of identifying problems. You're an 'Early Buddist' which means someone trying to fart smarter than all the other Buddists, and you've got an axe to grind against Christianity of all kinds regardless of logic. Saying your post was related to the logic of the NT is bizarre. You basically said "I hate the NT. That's why its not logical."

You're putting words in my mouth & misinforming again; I did not write anywhere in this thread that "I hate the NT", just that it's logical to me that they were invented, given the incredible number of dissonant stories about Jesus, because logic was a central idea in the OP's post. Also, what's the one topic I always talk about, as you claim? I would've expected far more from a staff member.

 

[Brickjectivity]

1. I never wrote in this thread that the Abrahamic religions "are responsible for all of the world's problems" as you claim. Instead, I stated "IMO ... [they] are the root causes of most of the world's troubles".

Again. Its the same charge, continually leveled in just about any old thread discussing just about anything related to any religion that vaguely references Abraham.

2. I also never wrote that there was a singular Abrahamic religion, as you claimed I did, and then attacked me for it.

Oh, puh-leeese. As I said, my objection is to what you are doing and have no intention of misleading anyone about your objectives which are ridiculous enough as it is.

It simply means I follow the earliest texts of Buddhism. Would it be more preferable for comprehension for me to not list any religion at all, instead?

You may list whatever religion you want to. You may of course claim to be better or more original or more true than all other Buddhists.

No, it simply means I am precisely identifying the specific Path I follow, without equivocation.

Oh, you mean the 'Original' Buddhist path as opposed to that which other Buddhists follow. I have no control of that, but I point out that its no different than the mistakes made by people in other war-involved religions of naming themselves superior. Its a little like nationalism, not that I am against nationalism of all kinds though I have my limits.

I have no problem debating issues in debate subforums. I don't recall having a habit of denouncing the person. Are you, as a staff member, claiming that debate is no longer acceptable in debate subforums?

Changing the subject are we? If you feel someone is leaning on you then you should report it to and admin. I'm allowed to debate as much as anyone else. It doesn't take me out of circulation.

You're putting words in my mouth & misinforming again; I did not write anywhere in this thread that "I hate the NT", just that it's logical to me that they were invented, given the incredible number of dissonant stories about Jesus, because logic was a central idea in the OP's post. Also, what's the one topic I always talk about, as you claim? I would've expected far more from a staff member.

Nonsense. I'm summarizing and paraphrasing plainly. You are accusing and jibing away from discourse, and you can stuff the insults about my performance as a staff member. You have yet to address the opening topic. How many posts now, and you still haven't addressed it. You just stick to your one thing, that 'Abrahamic' religions are all wrong, not that there is such a thing as an Abrahamic religion. For you that substitutes as addressing the topic of almost anything related to Christianity.

 

[RESOLUTION]

I'm discussing how logical these story not belief in a book or in Jesus or even in God.

The story of virgin birth in NT and Talmud are insulting to Mariam and Al-Masseh,
In NT:

• Mariam cousin married her to cover the scandal till he sew a dream
• Close relatives are not sure if she's innocent from adultery or not
• Issues :
  
  • Nobody witness the miracle of virgin birth (Wise Men, The Angels, Gabriel. God. The Holy Spirit and of course The Shepherds,.)
• 
  
  • The child was deceived and grown up calling his mother's husband as father till 12 years

Joseph and Mary on return from the Temple in Jerusalem find Jesus missing.And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? Where in the NT does Jesus call Joseph Father?

• • Imagine this deceived child is suppose to be God the Son who created universe or God himself

And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

• We don't know who documented Mariam's story as Jesus didn't say a word
• Luke 1King James Version (KJV)
  1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
  
  2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

John 16:13King James Version (KJV)
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Let us look at what we do know:

At no point in the NT is it suggested or even mirrored what you have written above. You said you wanted to discuss the LOGICAL story not belief. But what you have written is not from the NT. It is a personal opinion omitting the truth in the NT and even the OT.

Talmud story : If we believe that Yeshu ben Pandera is Jesus Christ:

• Mariam was a married woman
  
• She did adultery with a roman soldier Pandera
  
• If she's married and did adultery it's normal to be pregnant
• issues:
  • How people knew about adultery ? Why they didn't stone her according to law ?
    • The answer is because there were no 2 eyewitness
    • If there is no 2 eyewitness, then there might be one who repeated these allegations
    • . The guy should kept his mouth shut or people shouldn't believe but this is not the case
  • Rabbis repeated this allegations, taught , and wrote it in books without telling the evidence(s)
    
  • There might be be a strong evidence for these allegations such as she's not married (virgin)
    
  • There should be a strong reason for not stoning her although she's a virgin

The issues of these 2 stories are explained in Quran story :

• Mariam was virgin, not married, spent her life in Holy of Holies
• She get pregnant, she laid the child Al-Masseh
• Everybody knew and see the child, everybody believed that she did adultery, She should be stoned
• Miracle happened, the child spoke to all in a miraculous way that shuts everyone's mouth
• He told his mother's story and exposes who is he, and his mission
• Mother and son lived in pride and glory
• Everyone see the Virgin birth

This is a logical discussion, I hope nobody tells about disbelieve of a book or the story or the miracle or god. These are all known.
We're discussing how logical these stories.

LOGIC cannot exist in the absence of TRUTH. Truth must be foundational and in the OT Christ fulfills beliefs of the Messiah.

Jesus Christ, was the Son of God. In the NT we see God himself clearly declaring this.

The Prophets, the disciples and Jesus Christ all spoke by the power of Gods Holy Spirit.

The NT clearly states this... King James Bible
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Given the times every woman would have been a maiden. A virgin who was not married. Though promised in marriage she was classed as married to Joseph but sexual relations could not take place till the final ceremony.

We see God tell Joseph that Mary was a virgin and the child she carried was the Son of God.

Whatever the different versions from books by people NOT WITNESSES they cannot logically deny the truth of the original those people chose to be actual witnesses.

We can all choose what we will believe. Everyone wants a piece of Jesus. Jesus appears in other religions because he is the one person in any religion - that no other religion can deny the power he showed in his life. His love for God and his commitment to all those he served and helped in life. Christ never told a lie. He gave his life for mankind. These things has no other person done. No other religious figure ever shown the love of God or the person of God as he did. What logic are you really searching for?

 

[GeelongFams4WldPeace]

"Limo, post: I'm discussing how logical these story not belief in a book or in Jesus or even in God.
The story of virgin birth ...

Good question. Basically, did God break laws of biology to create a miracle? - or is "virgin" a misquote, that grew into a tradition / superstition?

The disciples didn't follow Jesus because He had a freaky birth. He was awesome before this story arose.
The prophecy (Isaiah 7:14) is also translated to be a maiden or young unmarried woman, traditionally, a virgin

• Close relatives are not sure if she's innocent from adultery or not

Joseph and Mary go to Joseph's hometown. Even though he must have relatives there, Jesus is born, not in a living room, but a manger. I see this as evidence Joseph's family knew he married 5 to 6 months ago, and now has a 9 month pregnant wife.
(I calculated this because [Luke 1:31,56] Mary had the revelation, went to see her cousin, Elizabeth, and stayed in her house for 3 months.)

• • How people knew about adultery ? Why they didn't stone her according to law ?

For me, two reasons:

• Joseph [Matthew 1: 18-20, 24] took responsibility for her for the first few years.
• When the "3 wise men" let slip to Herod that his successor was born, families in that area had their babies slain. Mary and Jesus would not have been popular being the cause of their deaths. At that time, the family went as refugees to Egypt. That effectively saved any post-birth stoning.

This is a logical discussion, I hope nobody tells about disbelieve of a book or the story or the miracle or god. These are all known.
We're discussing how logical these stories.[/QUOTE]

Just like the disciples didn't necessarily believe in a virgin birth, but still honor Jesus, so can I
I do think that his biological father needed to be of the right ancestry to keep Jesus special.
I have heard *suggestions that Elizabeth's household may have been a possibility, making the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist more pronounced.
(* Discussions with seminarians)

 

[whirlingmerc]

I'm discussing how logical these story not belief in a book or in Jesus or even in God.

The story of virgin birth in NT and Talmud are insulting to Mariam and Al-Masseh,
In NT:

• Mariam cousin married her to cover the scandal till he sew a dream
• Close relatives are not sure if she's innocent from adultery or not
• Issues :
  • Nobody witness the miracle of virgin birth
    
  • The child was deceived and grown up calling his mother's husband as father till 12 years
  • Imagine this deceived child is suppose to be God the Son who created universe or God himself
  • We don't know who documented Mariam's story as Jesus didn't say a word

Talmud story : If we believe that Yeshu ben Pandera is Jesus Christ:

• Mariam was a married woman
  
• She did adultery with a roman soldier Pandera
  
• If she's married and did adultery it's normal to be pregnant
• issues:
  • How people knew about adultery ? Why they didn't stone her according to law ?
    • The answer is because there were no 2 eyewitness
    • If there is no 2 eyewitness, then there might be one who repeated these allegations
    • . The guy should kept his mouth shut or people shouldn't believe but this is not the case
  • Rabbis repeated this allegations, taught , and wrote it in books without telling the evidence(s)
    
  • There might be be a strong evidence for these allegations such as she's not married (virgin)
    
  • There should be a strong reason for not stoning her although she's a virgin

The issues of these 2 stories are explained in Quran story :

• Mariam was virgin, not married, spent her life in Holy of Holies
• She get pregnant, she laid the child Al-Masseh
• Everybody knew and see the child, everybody believed that she did adultery, She should be stoned
• Miracle happened, the child spoke to all in a miraculous way that shuts everyone's mouth
• He told his mother's story and exposes who is he, and his mission
• Mother and son lived in pride and glory
• Everyone see the Virgin birth

This is a logical discussion, I hope nobody tells about disbelieve of a book or the story or the miracle or god. These are all known.
We're discussing how logical these stories.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Actually there were a number of witnesses:

Mary knew
Joseph knew
Aunt Elizabeth knew with her prophesy and baby John the Baptist leaping inside her
Angels spoke of his birth in the skies to shepherds
Wise men came from the east

They knew

 

[whirlingmerc]

BTW since only the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies on the day of atonement
Mary would never have set foot inside it

There also seems some confusion regarding Mary as part of the Trinity, but Mary is not part of the Trinity (that would be Father Son and Spirit not Father Mary and Son )

 

[whirlingmerc]

In the end Mary is regarding Genesis where God says 'the seed of the woman will crush the serpents head'
The seed of the woman points forward to a virgin birth.

And Mary would be the maidservant spoken of in Psalm 116 'I am your servant the son of your maidservant'

 

[Limo]

Actually there were a number of witnesses:

Mary knew
Joseph knew
Aunt Elizabeth knew with her prophesy and baby John the Baptist leaping inside her
Angels spoke of his birth in the skies to shepherds
Wise men came from the east

They knew

These are less than 10
For a unique miracle all over human history should be witnessed by huge number

 

[RESOLUTION]

These are less than 10
For a unique miracle all over human history should be witnessed by huge number

Alright explain how a huge number could witness the virgin conception?

Might it be better to say there was NOTHING to say Mary wasn't a virgin.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Alright explain how a huge number could witness the virgin conception?

Might it be better to say there was NOTHING to say Mary wasn't a virgin.

The law requires 2 or 3 witnesses

 

[RESOLUTION]

The law requires 2 or 3 witnesses

God, The Holy Spirit and the Angel Gabriel. Since you are trying to bring legalism into this regarding the Laws of God,then you have to accept God and all mentioned above to be the true witnesses.

 

[whirlingmerc]

God, The Holy Spirit and the Angel Gabriel. Since you are trying to bring legalism into this regarding the Laws of God,then you have to accept God and all mentioned above to be the true witnesses.

Jesus referred to the Father as a witness and Himself as a witness.... so... ok.. why not?

"I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Fatherwho sent me bears witness about me.” John 8:18

that would be only 2

 

[Limo]

Alright explain how a huge number could witness the virgin conception?

Might it be better to say there was NOTHING to say Mary wasn't a virgin.

According to NT her causing accepted to cover her by pertaining marriage. People would never convinced that she was Virgin.
Mosa miracles were witnessed by all israiliets and all Egyptians
To believe in miraculous awaited Messiah by Virgin birth , all israiliets should see unmarried woman pregnant and birth then a cleat message to declare the miracle