The birth of John was as miraculous as that of Jesus.

reply to post by slugger9787

I read every word of your OP.

I read every post in this thread.

Yet you say John was born the normal way... despite his mother being infertile... and God causing a miracle to happen.

I recognize that you have your mind made up that the concepttion of both Jesus and John are equal.

I said its as miraculous as that of Jesus.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Regarding the role of the holy spirit.... would you say it performed a direct biological function with Mary?

All we know about the mechanism of the conception is what we are told, and there is no point in going beyond that.
We are told about Mary that she would be "overshadowed" [EPISKUASAI] by the power of the Most High. This was not said about Elizabeth.
The resulting child was "from the Spirit"- EK PNEUMATOS. This was not said about Elizabeth.
He would be called "the Son of the Most High". This was not said about Elizabeth.
These are differences.

And like logical7 said, God does not become a father just because He created a child miraculously in the womb of a woman.

He does if the New Testament says he does. "The Son of the Most High".

What is the difference between what you are doing, and what Salman Rushdie did in the reverse direction, using the Koran?
You will acknowledge publicly, then, that Salman Rushdie did nothing wrong?

The birth of John was as miraculous as that of Jesus

Johns birth was a miracle. Yes. He was born to an old infertile couple.

Jesus birth was a miracle. Yes. But MUCH more of one than John. Jesus was born to a virgin who didn't have relations with a man. She became pregnant by God Himself .. by being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Whereas John was born by two (infertile) earthly parents who had sexual relations.

Both miracles for sure. But Jesus miracle was MUCH MUCH bigger.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by logical7

 

OP wanted to say that the birth of Jesus and the birth of John were the same kind of birth.
My point has been that they were not.
If you understand that there is a difference, you agree with me rather than the OP.

the OP starts with,
For with God nothing shall be
impossible.
-Luke 1:37
we both agree to it and so does the OP.
The similarity in the miracles is that both are done by God.
The claim you have is one is more difficult than the other. Yes to us, but what about 'for God??'
did God felt it any difficult to make Jesus pbuh than John pbuh?
Nobody is denying the miracleness of the miracle or its uniqueness.
It however would be wrong to claim a miracle superior just to imply that the prophet is superior.
Each Miracle was meant to make people realise the One God.
Be it snake of a staff, parting the sea, baby to old couples or virgin birth.
It all manifests what the OP started with.
So i hope you agree that God is all powerful and not use a virgin birth to claim that God now has a son!!

reply to post by logical7

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
. John's birth as miraculous of the birth of Jesus

That is the title of the thread, and the claim which the thread wanted to prove.
I have been establishing the exact opposite by showing that they are not the same kind of miracle, and one is greater than the other.

You are trying to generate false comfort for yourself by juggling that into some kind of agreement.
Why do you bother?
You know we are not in agreement, so claiming otherwise is dishonest.

The birth of Jesus was a greater miracle than, and a different kind of miracle from, the birrth of John.
Once you accept that point, and only then, you can say that we agree.

reply to post by DISRAELI

The birth of Jesus was a greater miracle than, and a different kind of miracle from, the birth of John. Once you accept that point, and only then, you can say that we agree.

ok, lets do it your way, i agree with the above. From the perspective of us humans that is exactly how it appears.
Now, do you agree with me that for God they are no different/difficult to make them happen?
I am insisting for this because this is the bigger picture. If you insist to hold your half truth and not acknowledge the other half then you are ofcourse free.

reply to post by logical7

Since God did both, it does, of course, follow that he can do both.

However, one is described in the New Testament as the mere giving of a child to a previously infertile woman, which is a lesser event.
The other is described in the New Testament as the birth ofa child EK PNEUMATOS HAGIOU, the Son of the Most High, conceived by a virgin woman. This is a greater event, and one of greater importance
We've been through all that. You're just going round in circles now, like a dog chasing its tail.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


additionally, you as muslim do not believe in a trinitarian God composed of
God the Father,
God the Son, and
God the Holy Spirit.

reply to post by slugger9787

additionally, you as muslim do not believe in a trinitarian God composed of
God the Father,
God the Son, and
God the Holy Spirit.

Even a non-muslim can point out the fact that Jesus never called himself a God... and that Jesus himself prayed to God. God is also described as a singular entity in the Bible.

I am the LORD, and there is no other. There is no other God besides me. - Isaiah 45:5

He didn't say anything about Him being a trinity.

reply to post by DISRAELI

The birth of Jesus was a greater miracle than, and a different kind of miracle from, the birrth of John.
Once you accept that point, and only then, you can say that we agree.

Yes, Jesus' birth was greater miracle. But it does not change the fact that John too was born by the will of God.
Both were miracles of God. There is no reason to make a God out of Jesus.

reply to post by DISRAELI

He would be called "the Son of the Most High". This was not said about Elizabeth.
These are differences.

He does if the New Testament says he does. "The Son of the Most High".

a) "Son of Most High" was a title that was given to Jesus... much like how Adam is also called "son of God".

b) David is also referred to as Jesus' father... in the same chapter. So what now, is Jesus the son of both God and David?

c) Your portrayal of "Son of God", implies a relationship between God and Mary. But the Bible clearly tells us that Mary, a creation of God was simply favored and blessed with a child.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by logical7

 

Since God did both, it does, of course, follow that he can do both.

However, one is described in the New Testament as the mere giving of a child to a previously infertile woman, which is a lesser event.
The other is described in the New Testament as the birth ofa child EK PNEUMATOS HAGIOU, the Son of the Most High, conceived by a virgin woman. This is a greater event, and one of greater importance
We've been through all that. You're just going round in circles now, like a dog chasing its tail.

thanks for acknowledging what i asked, I however understand why you cant declare it too openly when it affects your belief so deeply and why you have to keep repeating you position.
I believe the virgin birth and accept that God caused it. To me it makes me accept and marvel at God more but to you its an excuse to make up a new god. It would be interesting how Jesus pbuh would take that, his name was used to keep people away from the One God that he worshipped and asked everyone to do the same.