Virgin birth of Jesus and its acknowledgement

[redleghunter]

Bible please.

This is your quote:

The only well-known religious leader to record about virgin birth happens to be Mohammed in Koran!

Are we not unduly giving full importance to one rank outsider and totally disregarding another?

I checked...Muhammad is not in the Bible.

That is why I asked if the Qur'an is in your personal canon.

 

[Righttruth]

This is your quote:



I checked...Muhammad is not in the Bible.

That is why I asked if the Qur'an is in your personal canon.

Yes, that is why it is surprising: a person of another religion

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Yes, that is why it is surprising: a person of another religion

So if every NT writer does not repeat every fundamental of Christian belief, do you find that "surprising" also?

Should we be "surprised" (since it was asked and you did not answer), that you omitted denying that Muhammad's writing is sacred to you?

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, that is why it is surprising: a person of another religion

I showed you two very early church fathers who are historical which firmly claim the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Your response was "from the Bible" but yet mentioned Muhammad.

Please clarify.

 

[Righttruth]

So if every NT writer does not repeat every fundamental of Christian belief, do you find that "surprising" also?

It would surprise anybody giving spiritual importance to the writings to find mundane aspects highlighted ignoring more important spiritual significance by NT writers!

Should we be "surprised" (since it was asked and you did not answer), that you omitted denying that Muhammad's writing is sacred to you?

So just because Mohammed mentions a sacred belief of Christians, it becomes unholy for you resulting in immense hatred for him?

 

[Righttruth]

I showed you two very early church fathers who are historical which firmly claim the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

That is expected. Nothing surprising about it.

Your response was "from the Bible" but yet mentioned Muhammad.
Please clarify.

One need to acknowledge the truth when it comes out from an outsider from a different religion. Due regards are in order. Not total hatred for that person.

 

[redleghunter]

That is expected. Nothing surprising about it.



One need to acknowledge the truth when it comes out from an outsider from a different religion. Due regards are in order. Not total hatred for that person.

Who indicated hate towards Muhammad? You injected that into the discussion.

However, if I offended you due to any reverence you have for Muhammad, then please accept my sincere apologies.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It would surprise anybody giving spiritual importance to the writings to find mundane aspects highlighted ignoring more important spiritual significance by NT writers!

Either the Bible must surprise you an awful lot to the point of my wonder that you believe any of it - or you did not answer the question.

So just because Mohammed mentions a sacred belief of Christians, it becomes unholy for you resulting in immense hatred for him?

I have no great love for Mohammed, hate what many of those who uplift him do, but can't say I hate him.
Avoiding answering the same question begins to look suspicious. Want to make it three times - Is his writing sacred to you or not?

 

[Righttruth]

Either the Bible must surprise you an awful lot to the point of my wonder that you believe any of it - or you did not answer the question.

For me words of Jesus are supreme. Other sources are not at the cost of these.

I have no great love for Mohammed, hate what many of those who uplift him do, but can't say I hate him.
Avoiding answering the same question begins to look suspicious. Want to make it three times - Is his writing sacred to you or not?

I am glad that you don't have typical hatred exhibited by many towards Islam and Mohammed without reading Koran.

I don't accept Mohammed's ways. Nothing can surpass our Jesus and His words.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

For me words of Jesus are supreme. Other sources are not at the cost of these.



I am glad that you don't have typical hatred exhibited by many towards Islam and Mohammed without reading Koran.

I don't accept Mohammed's ways. Nothing can surpass our Jesus and His words.

Am glad you do not accept Islam prophet's words as sacred.
So you are saying the whole point of the thread was to express your surprise that commonly held beliefs of early Christians were not all mentioned by every writer in every letter they wrote. Is that correct?

 

[redleghunter]

Due regards are due to him, though we don't approve his approach, for his attempt uphold virgin birth as well as his teaching to consider the words of Jesus for righteous conduct for all.

I've read the Qur'an and visited nations where they live by the Qur'an.

There is absolutely no mention of Issa and there is no evidence of the teachings, according to Muslims, of Issa practiced.

If your point is Muhammad expresses proper Christian teachings from the Gospels, perhaps you should open a thread in "Debate non Christians."

The fact you ignored my quotes from VERY early church fathers on the Virgin birth, and opted to jump to Muhammad did lead me to believe the Qur'an or parts of it are canon for you.

My assessment of your posts is you personally choose texts to fit your theological view. This includes denying the apostolic mission of Paul and deeming him an outsider. In theological terms that pretty much makes Paul a false teacher. You did not say that exactly, however that is what you accuse Paul of being to every Christian here.

Why? Because the OT is quite clear that if someone declares something in the Name of God and prophesied or taught falsely, they are a false prophet.

That is how you present St Paul...as a false teacher. You did not use those words but you defined him as such.

Now you want us to seriously consider Muhammad as a historical figure who gets the Virgin birth "right" whereas most of the NT authors are silent. It's an interesting approach but Muhammad IS a false prophet. His version of the Virgin Birth denies the Incarnation.

Now if you would like to explain your veneration of Muhammad's position, which denies the Incarnation, perhaps we can also discuss your position on the Deity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Righttruth]

Am glad you do not accept Islam prophet's words as sacred.
So you are saying the whole point of the thread was to express your surprise that commonly held beliefs of early Christians were not all mentioned by every writer in every letter they wrote. Is that correct?

Are you saying that Mohammed's saying of virgin birth of Jesus is not sacred? My surprise is Paul's indication of Jesus' conception as something normal!

 

[Righttruth]

I've read the Qur'an and visited nations where they live by the Qur'an.

There is absolutely no mention of Issa and there is no evidence of the teachings, according to Muslims, of Issa practiced.

What about these quotes from Koran taken out from the book, "Why I am A Believer In Jesus":

"After having exposed to major religious thoughts of the world, I was naturally curious to know about Islam. I read Quran during a spring vacation. Prophet Mohammed holds Jesus Christ with a very high esteem! Here is the relevant verse:

“Then We sent unto her Our spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-fearing. He said: I am only a messenger from thy Lord that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? He said: So it will be. Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And it will be that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. And she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place” (Surah 19:16-22).

Then in Chapter II, section 11, verse 87 we read: “And most certainly we gave Moses the book and we sent apostles after him one after another: and we gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy revelation. What! Whenever then an apostle came to you with that which your souls did not desire, you were insolent so you called some liars and some you slay.”

In Chapter III, section 5, verse 44 we read, “When the angels said: O Mary! Surely Allah gives you good news with a word from Him (of one) whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah).”

In Chapter V, section 11, verse 82 we have: “Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: we are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.”

Chapter XXVIII, section 1, verse 5: “And we desired to bestow a favor upon those who were deemed weak in the land, and to make them the leaders and to make them the heirs.” This can be compared to the beatitude of Jesus: "Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5)."

If your point is Muhammad expresses proper Christian teachings from the Gospels, perhaps you should open a thread in "Debate non Christians."

That is not my thrust in this thread.

The fact you ignored my quotes from VERY early church fathers on the Virgin birth, and opted to jump to Muhammad did lead me to believe the Qur'an or parts of it are canon for you.

I don't limit myself to man-made canons. I seek the truth from many writings.

My assessment of your posts is you personally choose texts to fit your theological view. This includes denying the apostolic mission of Paul and deeming him an outsider. In theological terms that pretty much makes Paul a false teacher. You did not say that exactly, however that is what you accuse Paul of being to every Christian here.

Why? Because the OT is quite clear that if someone declares something in the Name of God and prophesied or taught falsely, they are a false prophet.

That is how you present St Paul...as a false teacher. You did not use those words but you defined him as such.

Do you believe Paul more than Jesus?

Now you want us to seriously consider Muhammad as a historical figure who gets the Virgin birth "right" whereas most of the NT authors are silent. It's an interesting approach but Muhammad IS a false prophet. His version of the Virgin Birth denies the Incarnation.

I am not questioning the silence. I am surprised by Paul's normal view of the conception of Jesus.

Now if you would like to explain your veneration of Muhammad's position, which denies the Incarnation, perhaps we can also discuss your position on the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Yes, I believe Jesus is an incarnation of God.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Are you saying that Mohammed's saying of virgin birth of Jesus is not sacred? My surprise is Paul's indication of Jesus' conception as something normal!

That the Apostle said the birth was "normal" is your opinion and would be disputed by many reputable Christian scholars today. That such a belief has been held and defended by the Church and theologians for nearly two millennium is beyond dispute. That your opinion may be supported or even held by modern "scholars" like those that were a part of the Jesus Seminar is not surprising to me, but far from impressive either.

The belief in a Virgin Birth is clearly present in the 1st century among Christians and also known to non-Christians as part of Christian claims. Christians holding such beliefs clearly included some in this Apostle's inner circle. This Apostle also has a bit of rep as being hot tempered, unafraid of controversy and bold in announcing his beliefs and denouncing lies.

I would think if someone really thought Saint Paul did not believe something to be true, something that is so basic and held by so many Christians within the Church that the surprise would be that he did not denounce the belief.

Adding - Would also think because he does not denounce the belief, that given alternate translations for references Saint Paul gave to His Birth, I would think one would give more credence to translations and understandings that supports the belief, that is unless one is seeking to get justify the argument that the Virgin Birth was made up.

 

[redleghunter]

Are you saying that Mohammed's saying of virgin birth of Jesus is not sacred? My surprise is Paul's indication of Jesus' conception as something normal!

No, the Muslim account is not sacred. It excludes the Incarnation.

The best lies have 9/10ths of truth sometimes leaving out the most important detail.

Muhammad leaves out the Incarnation. Therefore, Muhammad is a false prophet.

 

[redleghunter]

What about these quotes from Koran taken out from the book, "Why I am A Believer In Jesus":

"After having exposed to major religious thoughts of the world, I was naturally curious to know about Islam. I read Quran during a spring vacation. Prophet Mohammed holds Jesus Christ with a very high esteem! Here is the relevant verse:

“Then We sent unto her Our spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-fearing. He said: I am only a messenger from thy Lord that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? He said: So it will be. Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And it will be that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. And she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place” (Surah 19:16-22).

Then in Chapter II, section 11, verse 87 we read: “And most certainly we gave Moses the book and we sent apostles after him one after another: and we gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy revelation. What! Whenever then an apostle came to you with that which your souls did not desire, you were insolent so you called some liars and some you slay.”

In Chapter III, section 5, verse 44 we read, “When the angels said: O Mary! Surely Allah gives you good news with a word from Him (of one) whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah).”

In Chapter V, section 11, verse 82 we have: “Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: we are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.”

Chapter XXVIII, section 1, verse 5: “And we desired to bestow a favor upon those who were deemed weak in the land, and to make them the leaders and to make them the heirs.” This can be compared to the beatitude of Jesus: "Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5)."



That is not my thrust in this thread.



I don't limit myself to man-made canons. I seek the truth from many writings.



Do you believe Paul more than Jesus?



I am not questioning the silence. I am surprised by Paul's normal view of the conception of Jesus.



Yes, I believe Jesus is an incarnation of God.

If the Qur'an led a Muslim to explore the True Jesus Christ, that is good news. However, such a person if Christian now would not believe the Issa of Islam but the Jesus Christ of Holy Scriptures.

Yes, I believe Jesus is an incarnation of God.

Please explain "an" for me.

 

[redleghunter]

Do you believe Paul more than Jesus?

It is not a conflict for me. It is not an either/or.

Jesus Christ directly confronted and revealed Himself to Paul. Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles as directed.

You try to find conflict where there is none.

 

[Righttruth]

That the Apostle said the birth was "normal" is your opinion and would be disputed by many reputable Christian scholars today. That such a belief has been held and defended by the Church and theologians for nearly two millennium is beyond dispute. That your opinion may be supported or even held by modern "scholars" like those that were a part of the Jesus Seminar is not surprising to me, but far from impressive either.

The belief in a Virgin Birth is clearly present in the 1st century among Christians and also known to non-Christians as part of Christian claims. Christians holding such beliefs clearly included some in this Apostle's inner circle. This Apostle also has a bit of rep as being hot tempered, unafraid of controversy and bold in announcing his beliefs and denouncing lies.

I would think if someone really thought Saint Paul did not believe something to be true, something that is so basic and held by so many Christians within the Church that the surprise would be that he did not denounce the belief.

Adding - Would also think because he does not denounce the belief, that given alternate translations for references Saint Paul gave to His Birth, I would think one would give more credence to translations and understandings that supports the belief, that is unless one is seeking to get justify the argument that the Virgin Birth was made up.

My concern is not whether Paul believed virgin birth or not. My concern is why he did not mention in the context of the verse, a sublime and profound belief of Christianity. We also need to pay importance to Mohammed for his recognition explicitly that is not found in the OT.

 

[Righttruth]

No, the Muslim account is not sacred. It excludes the Incarnation.

The best lies have 9/10ths of truth sometimes leaving out the most important detail.

Muhammad leaves out the Incarnation. Therefore, Muhammad is a false prophet.

So his acknowledgement of virgin birth is a falsehood then?

 

[Righttruth]

If the Qur'an led a Muslim to explore the True Jesus Christ, that is good news. However, such a person if Christian now would not believe the Issa of Islam but the Jesus Christ of Holy Scriptures.

That is what we hope for. Don't you think that Koran itself will help in that respect compared to Jews who continue to reject Jesus?

Please explain "an" for me.

I also believe that the Holy Spirit is also an incarnation of God. There is only one God.