Which Navity Story is Correct and Why?

[Dawnofhope]

It's amazing how people look at Muhammad as a prophet, But Muhammad can not even keep the stories straight as for the one Muhammad speaks about in the Qu'ran (Maryam: 22-27) is about Ha-gar the Egyptian that was Abraham's wife Sarah handmaiden.

All I had to do is read the first sentence of what you posted, and right off knew what Muhammad written about in the Qu'ran
( Maryam: 22-27) was not about Mary the mother of Jesus, But about Har-gar the Egyptian woman that was Abraham's wife Sarah's handmaiden. This is what happens when you have people like Muhammad that can not read or write.They tell what the heard from others but gets the stories all mix up.
See the book of Genesis 21:9-17

But then Muhammad does this throughout the Qu'ran.
Seeing people haven't a clue or idea about the bible or the Qu'ran, people are easy to be deceived by Muhammad the false prophet

Just another failed attempt by the false prophet Muhammad.

I see little resemblance to the two stories other than Hagar and Mary were women who are cared for by God in the desert. Hagar is certainly not a virgin.

There are other aspects to the story if you read on ...

O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste."
So she pointed to him. They said, "How can we speak to one who is in the cradle a child?"
[Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.
And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive
And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant.
And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive."
That is Jesus, the son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute.
It is not [befitting] for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.
[Jesus said], "And indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path."
(19:28-36)

 

[Faithofchristian]

I see little resemblance to the two stories other than Hagar and Mary were women who are cared for by God in the desert. Hagar is certainly not a virgin.

There are other aspects to the story if you read on ...

O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste."
So she pointed to him. They said, "How can we speak to one who is in the cradle a child?"
[Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.
And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive
And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant.
And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive."
That is Jesus, the son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute.
It is not [befitting] for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.
[Jesus said], "And indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path."
(19:28-36)

First of all, Mary the mother of Jesus, was not in any desert, but in the city of Bethlehem of
Ju-dae-a,
Matthew 2:1

Now as for Ha-gar the Egyptian was in the wilderness, Genesis 21:14

So again Muhammad can not keep the two stories separated. But mix in together.

What Muhammed did is, that he taken just enough parts of each story about Ha-gar the Egyptian and Mary and Jesus and mix them in together. That will deceive the unwise, unless they are wise to see through the deceptions of Muhammad's.
And thats obvious to see. If a person knows the bible and Qu'ran to see that Muhammed had taken just enough parts of each story and mix in together
I could see that right off.
That's because I do know the bible and the Qu'ran. To see that Muhammad had taken things what he was told from the bible/scriptures and twist them just enough that will deceive alot of people.

So people who are unknowledgeable about the bible and the Qu'ran can and will be deceived by the deceptions of Muhammad's

 

[Dawnofhope]

That's because Muhammad couldn't keep the two stories separated.

What Muhammed did is, that he taken just enough parts of each story about Ha-gar the Egyptian and Mary and Jesus and mix them in together. That will deceive the unwise, unless they are wise to see through the deceptions of Muhammad's.
And thats obvious to see. If a person knows the bible and Qu'ran to see that Muhammed had taken just enough parts of each story and mix in together
I could see that right off.
That's because I do know the bible and the Qu'ran. To see that Muhammad had taken things what he was told from the bible/scriptures and twist them just enough that will deceive alot of people.

So people who are unknowledgeable about the bible and the Qu'ran can and will be deceived by Muhammad.

Muhammad is clear about retelling stories about key characters in the bible. There's no attempt to decieve. Just as the New Testament authors draw heavily on the Hebrew Bible so too does Muhammad refer to characters in both the New Tesament and Tanakh. God's Messengers draw heavily on what has gone on in the past. Muhammad built on previous Revelations from God as did Christ and Moses.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Muhammad is clear about retelling stories about key characters in the bible. There's no attempt to decieve. Just as the New Testament authors draw heavily on the Hebrew Bible so too does Muhammad refer to characters in both the New Tesament and Tanakh. God's Messengers draw heavily on what has gone on in the past. Muhammad built on previous Revelations from God as did Christ and Moses.

Well it's clear and obvious Muhammad has you deceived.

If to what you say is true.
Then why is it that Muhammad is found in saying things different than what Moses and Jesus are saying.

It would seem Muhammad would say the same things as Moses and Jesus are saying.
Muhammad can't even got the two stories straight about Ha-gar the Egyptian and Mary and Jesus straight.
And you say Muhammad builds on the things of Moses and Jesus.
But yet Muhammad can't even get the stories straight about Ha-gar the Egyptian and Mary and Jesus straight.

It was Moses himself who written about Ha-gar the Egyptian and Abraham and Sarah Abraham's wife.

But yet Muhammad can't even get what Moses written straight

 

[Trackdayguy]

This is like making up a story to fit prophecy. Matthew and Luke knew where the story was heading. They needed a miraculous beginning to a miraculous life. Most of the prophecies that are fulfilled are very much out of context. Since Luke and Matthew weren't there, then where did these stories come from? From traditions? From Mary? Since the two gospel stories vary so much, were there multiple traditions? But, Christianity needed a great story and, I think, invented one. And, this is one case where I wish the Baha'is would say that the Virgin Birth didn't happen... that it was only symbolic.

Totally. I am becoming more and more convinced that Biblical literalism is possibly the largest deception ever to be inflicted on man. As John Spong says in his book, its "heresy"

 

[Muffled]

I believe the Muslims don't understand that passage in the Qu'ran. That is why it is partially incorrect because it isn't totally clear.

 

[Muffled]

Both have valuable symbolism.

The Christian one I take as not literally having an intact hymen but symbolically meaning that she was pure hearted and unstained by misdeeds.

The Islamic one I take to reflect the pain of childbirth. But along with that, the strong feeling that she was going to bear a special child.

So in a sense, if you add the "Annunciation" to the Christian version, you wind up reasonably close to the Islamic one.

I believe that statement is without foundation. The problem is that some people don't believe God is all powerful.

 

[Muffled]

In reality it's obvious they're all false.

In the narratives I think luke is the most poetic.

I believe you are mistaking your fantasy for reality.

 

[Trackdayguy]

I believe that statement is without foundation. The problem is that some people don't believe God is all powerful.

So the standard answer when we dont know is "it must be God". Really.........

 

[sealchan]

This question was raised recently during a discussion with a Muslim on RF. I found the question intriguing so thought I'd open it up for anyone interested.

We have two gospel accounts of the birth of Christ and one in the Quran.

Matthew 1:18-25 and Matthew 2:1-14 records to the virgin Mary Jesus becoming pregnant through the Holy spirit and an angel of the Lord appearing to Joseph. Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judaea. Wise men were called to meet with King Herod in Jerusalem after hearing how the King of the Jews was to be born. Herod commands them to go find the child, and to report back to him. These wise men then follow a star in the East until it stood over the place where Jesus lay. They enter a house and see Jesus with his mother. They rejoice and fall down worshipping Him. They offer gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh and return home having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod.

Luke 2:7-16 writes of Jesus being wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger because there was no room at the inn. Shepherds take it in turn to watch their flocks in the fields during the night; and an angel of the Lord having frightened the shepherds by his appearance speaks words of comfort. "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." The shepherds hurry off and find Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the manger.

The Quran (Maryam: 22-27) records And so it was ordained: she conceived him. She withdrew to a distant place and, when the pains of childbirth drove her to (cling to) the trunk of a palm tree, she exclaimed, ‘I wish I had been dead and forgotten long before all this!’ but a voice cried to her from below, ‘Do not worry: your Lord has provided a stream at your feet and, if you shake the trunk of the palm tree towards you, it will deliver fresh ripe dates for you, so eat, drink, be glad, and say to anyone you may see: “I have vowed to the Lord of Mercy to abstain from conversation, and I will not talk to anyone today.” She went back to her people carrying the child.

So three different accounts with significantly differences.

Which account(s) are true if any and why?

For what its worth I believe they are all theological narratives as opposed to strictly historic and all three are correct in essence.

Baha'is like Christians and Muslims uphold the mystery of the virgin birth.

My view is that these are all inspired stories not based on any eyewitness testimony so the question is based on a false premise.

They all share spiritual non-literal truths.

 

[CG Didymus]

Matthew 1:18-25....

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “ Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “ Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “ God with us .” And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. (NASB)

I can see no leeway in this scripture to assume that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. To suggest such a thing is to deny the mechanics of the ransom. Jesus had to be the sinless equivalent of Adam in order to redeem his children. Only a perfect sinless life could balance the scales of God's perfect justice. A life was given for the lives taken by Adam's disobedience. (Romans 5:12)

It seems like some of the other religions aren't as cut and dry as Christianity... only heaven and only hell. Some of them seem to think God grades on a curve, the better a person is... the closer to God. The worst people are further from God, but not necessarily in an eternal hell. And, I think Baha'is allow for continued advancement to a higher level in the spiritual realm. So a "perfect" sacrifice wouldn't be necessary.

 

[CG Didymus]

Well if you ask 2 individuals about the party last night, each of them would focus on different details, and each would omit the details that they considered irrelevant. … this is exactly what we would expect to have if these sources where truly independent.

But neither Luke or Matthew were there when Jesus was born, so what were their sources? If from Mary, or Jesus or from God... why wouldn't the story be the same? If from traditions then when did the traditions develop? Before or after Jesus was crucified? Either way, there could have been a lot of variations of the story.

 

[CG Didymus]

Whether or not it was literally true or symbolic makes little difference to Baha'i theology. However when someone comes along and claims Baha'is don't believe in miracles, clearly we do.

I have heard some Baha'is say the healing miracles were symbolic and not literal. The big problems ones are when Jesus brings a couple people back to life, 'cause if he could do that, then why couldn't he, with God's power, come back to life himself. So at some point Baha'is have to say "no" to some of the alleged miracles.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have heard some Baha'is say the healing miracles were symbolic and not literal. The big problems ones are when Jesus brings a couple people back to life, 'cause if he could do that, then why couldn't he, with God's power, come back to life himself. So at some point Baha'is have to say "no" to some of the alleged miracles.

The key here is what is life?

If one is brought back here, what is the use, as the body will again die.

Thus we can now seperate what are probably miracles which also impart metephor for us to consider and what are to be understood as purly metephor in explaining spiritual understandings.

It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh amounts to nothing is then better understood.

We have been given choice to make all this stand to sound reasoning.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have heard some Baha'is say the healing miracles were symbolic and not literal. The big problems ones are when Jesus brings a couple people back to life, 'cause if he could do that, then why couldn't he, with God's power, come back to life himself. So at some point Baha'is have to say "no" to some of the alleged miracles.

We do.

The resurrection of Christ:
Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 103-105

This is theologically but not literally true.

The miracles of Christ:
Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 100-102

These are all theologically true and that is the most important aspect. They may be literally true as well.

 

[Trackdayguy]

My view is that these are all inspired stories not based on any eyewitness testimony so the question is based on a false premise.

They all share spiritual non-literal truths.

This quote is the winner for me. "They all share spiritual non-literal truths" Why can't people get this ? Why do the literalists & fundamentalist keep banging the same old drum about it BEING TRUE.

Brilliant answer

 

[CG Didymus]

It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh amounts to nothing is then better understood.

The "flesh" sure seems like it's something important while we living here on Earth. So maybe you're taking this "Spirit" gives life thing too literal... it might be a metaphor.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The "flesh" sure seems like it's something important while we living here on Earth. So maybe you're taking this "Spirit" gives life thing too literal... it might be a metaphor.

We take on the best form suited to where we are. This matrix requires us to live in a physical body all the while growing spiritual limbs.

I personally think the body is perfectly created for its purpose. Each day we do not use it for what it was created for, is another wasted day.

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

T
Baha'is like Christians and Muslims uphold the mystery of the virgin birth.

That's wise.
Why upset billions of folks that Bahai wants a chance of converting?

Nazareth, both Canas and a couple of other rocky hilltop communities were scattered around the larger hilltop of Zippori (or Sepphoris) which had been a city treasured by Herod. Around the time of Jesus's birth Herod Antipas was rebuilding this city which had been razed by the Roman Syrian Legate after an uprising in 5BC.

The masses of labourers, workers in wood, stone, bone and metal, hauliers and support workers that were rebuilding Sepphoris kept their homes and families upon these hills and travelled to Sepphoris.

Mary daughter of Heli may well have been of the high class, her cousin being married to a priest, and she may well have held a position in a Greek Temple on Sepphoris. The Preisthood was deeply hellenic and copied the Romans where and how it could, and 'yes', there were Temples to Greek Gods such as Melgarth-Heracles (Baal to the Jews) and the Great Temple shekels were even struck with graven-images, Caesar's basic name (in Greek) and the image of Melgarth-Heracles on its face.

Mary may have been a Temple-Virgin. Joseph may have met with her as he worked at Sepphoris. This was partially written about........ the history of arts of this is held..... anybody want to challenge that?

Obviously the Christians had to think up something different to this, but what a mess the result was. And then following religions needed to acknowledge the Nativity..... in a wishy washy kind of way.

Just another example of 'Well it was, but it wasn't'......

Sorry...... I just keep seeing the double-speak.

 

[sealchan]

This quote is the winner for me. "They all share spiritual non-literal truths" Why can't people get this ? Why do the literalists & fundamentalist keep banging the same old drum about it BEING TRUE.

Brilliant answer

Fear of death, conformity to group, love of family...

In my own family upbringing, love was expressed through food. I've had to work hard to separate the two in my adult life. In a similar way, religious belief may be the glue that helps keep a person bound meaningfully to their familiy. The belief in an afterlife as literal, for instance, helps to counterbalance whatsoever experience that future reality is understood to compensate for.

I think that many people have found comfort in their religion as a deep balm to mend the real or perceived inadequacies in their lives. It supplies a ritual or a mantra or a story that replaces a psychological need. Confession is a form of primitive but effective psychology.

But religion often stands in the way of personal, psychological development. When a religious community fails to recognize the value of subjective truth, then it petrifies the souls of their own adherents. Personal experience is seen as a threat and you get insincerity as a matter of course.

But I think this is also the norm because true spiritual experience is something happens to a person as much as it is a result of effort and intention. True spiritual experience overpowers objective knowledge held by the group and a group formed by literalism cannot tolerate such deviancy.