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

For with God nothing shall be impossible.
-Luke 1:37


1. Mary and Elizabeth
Compare Mary and Elizabeth....

Mary could not have conceived naturally because she was a virgin.
Elizabeth was described as "unable to conceive" and she and Zechariah were both "very old".
One was a virgin. The other could be described as infertile and old. The chances of them conceiving children were nil. Yet, both gave birth to sons.


2. The news of John and Jesus
Compare the narratives of Jesus' and Johns birth...

The angel appeared to Zechariah.
Zechariah was afraid.
Zechariah expressed doubt (and was muted temporarily)
the angel comforted him and assured him of a son.
He was instructed to name the baby "John" (Luke 1:11-13)

The angel appeared to Mary....
Mary was afraid.
Mary expressed doubt.
the angel comforted her and said she would give birth to a son...
She was instructed to name the baby "Jesus".


3. John's birth as miraculous of the birth of Jesus
Zechariah himself expressed disbelief towards the news of a son by saying "I am an old man and my wife is well along in years”. So considering Zechariah was old and Elizabeth was "unable to conceive" it can legitimately say John's arrival in Elizabeth's womb was as miraculous as Jesus' arrival in Mary's womb. John, like Jesus also the result of a divine intervention, thereby being as miraculous as Jesus.

If Jesus, who was conceived miraculously (of a virgin) is considered divine....then by the same logic, shouldn't John, also conceived miraculously (to infertile / old parents) also be considered divine?

The answer to this is simple.

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible.
-Luke 1:35-37
.

Thats right.
With God nothing shall be impossible.
The miraculous conceptions of John and Jesus only speaks of the power of God.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

From the Biblical perspective, ALL birth (animal and human) comes from God.
In that viewpoint, your birth and mine are from God and equally miraculous

But there is a difference between "you will bear a child" (Elizabeth) and "the Holy Spirit will come upon you and you will bear a child" (Mary).
That addition is the reason why you can't say the first was as miraculous as the second.

The Holy Spirit is the difference.

reply to post by DISRAELI

In that viewpoint, your birth and mine are from God and equally miraculous

Yes, I know birth is 'miraculous' and all that... but in our cases our parents were fertile and ummm... we happened naturally. Jesus was born to a virgin... and John was born to an old infertile mother.

But there is a difference between "you will bear a child" (Elizabeth) and "the Holy Spirit will come upon you and you will bear a child" (Mary).
That addition is the reason why you can't say the first was as miraculous as the second.
The Holy Spirit is the difference.

Well, from that perspective... we see that John was filled with the Holy Spirit, even before his birth (Luke 1:15), whereas Jesus received the holy spirit during his baptism. It could be argued that John was more special in that respect.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

The difference comes out even better in Matthew;
"That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit".
That is not said of John or anybody else. Merely being "filled with" is something less. In the New Testament, being "filled with the Holy Spirit" is something that can happen to adults, and not specifically linked to birth.
Being "conceived of the Holy Spirit" is something else altogether.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


It was a miracle yes, but not on par with Jesus. Also, you could also throw Jacob in with your comparison because Sarah was quite up there in years also.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

From the Biblical perspective, ALL birth (animal and human) comes from God.
In that viewpoint, your birth and mine are from God and equally miraculous

But there is a difference between "you will bear a child" (Elizabeth) and "the Holy Spirit will come upon you and you will bear a child" (Mary).
That addition is the reason why you can't say the first was as miraculous as the second.

The Holy Spirit is the difference.

edit on 1-3-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

this also happened

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied,
saying,

in other translations, it can also be 'Holy Ghost came upon'
so if you are giving it a sexual twist then you better be ready to explain all the other times when it happened to others.
According to me, its just a way of saying being inspired by God/ God's power etc.
But again i dont want God to have a son so desperately. I am fine with all humans being God's creation and servants.

reply to post by logical7

That is "filled with". I've already explained that "filled with is something different.

What happened to Zachariah was EPLUSTHE- which means "was filled with". Like a liquid entering a vessel.
Whereas Mary had a conception which was EK PNEUMATOS HAGIOU- "out of the Holy Spirit.
This is describing something completely different.
How is your knowledge of New Testament Greek?

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by logical7

 

That is "filled with". I've already explained that "filled with is something different.

What happened to Zachariah was EPLUSTHE- which means "was filled with". Like a liquid entering a vessel.
Whereas Mary had a conception which was EK PNEUMATOS HAGIOU- "out of the Holy Spirit.
This is describing something completely different.
How is your knowledge of New Testament Greek?

edit on 1-3-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

my knowledge of greek is bad, but i do see when and why 'Holy Spirit' is mentioned.
Its used when something divine happens.
Another way of saying 'from God'
you maybe see Holy Spirit as another entity than God, i am not sure, correct me if i am wrong.
'of the Holy Ghost' can be simply 'from God'
yes Jesus pbuh is a miracle from God, it would be however sick to give it an image of 'insemination'
does God breed???!!

Originally posted by logical7
yes Jesus pbuh is a miracle from God, it would be however sick to give it an image of 'insemination'
does God breed???!

I don't set up that image. The New Testament does.
As long as we accept the New Testament, we're stuck with it.

You've got complete freedom, of course, to reject the Christian New Testament altogether, and go away and be a Muslim.
But as a Muslim, you would have no business quibbling about the meaning of the Christian New Testament.

Coming back to the topic, let's re-affirm the difference between the two situations.
When Zachariah or anyone else in the New Testament is "filled with the Spirit", the result is simply that they produce words.
The result of Mary's experience with the Holy Spirit is a baby. Her child is EK PNEUMATOS HAGIOU. This is not said about any other conceiving mother in the Bible, not even Elizabeth.That makes it a unique event.

reply to post by DISRAELI


i dont deny the virgin birth as unique. The OP and all muslims say the same, its a miracle, unique yet just another miracle, God doesnt become a default father if He made a baby born without a human father and muslims as you rightly said are not stuck with the imagery of NT and can accept, marvel and still worship God alone like its going on all along in the OT, then in teachings by Jesus pbuh and then islam.
OP doesnt want to discredit the miracle, just wants to drive this above message home.
I see that you agree.

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.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Or it's all untrue. Mary had a similar birth to that of John, being born of a very old woman who was supposed to be barren as well.

One thing I find interesting is that before John's birth, Zecharia performs an Egyptian ceremony by burning incense. Egyptians burned incense while preparing someone for the dead, they also used myrrh to embalm the bodies. Jesus was brought frankincense and myrrh by the three wise men when he was born.

Why are all these Egyptian death ceremonies being mentioned during the birth of John and Jesus? Seems kind of strange to me. Maybe the births were both made up? In my opinion they were.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

It was a miracle yes, but not on par with Jesus. Also, you could also throw Jacob in with your comparison because Sarah was quite up there in years also.

I agree that Jacobs case as well.

But I wanted to compare Jesus and John because their births happened around the same time period.

reply to post by DISRAELI

You've got complete freedom, of course, to reject the Christian New Testament altogether, and go away and be a Muslim. But as a Muslim, you would have no business quibbling about the meaning of the Christian New Testament.

Fair enough.
But I have taken off my muslim badge for a while... and we go with what the New Testament says?

Coming back to the topic, let's re-affirm the difference between the two situations.
When Zachariah or anyone else in the New Testament is "filled with the Spirit", the result is simply that they produce words.
The result of Mary's experience with the Holy Spirit is a baby. Her child is EK PNEUMATOS HAGIOU. This is not said about any other conceiving mother in the Bible, not even Elizabeth.That makes it a unique event.

There is no doubt that Mary's experience with the Holy spirit was unique.
But it still remains that John being to infertile/old parents was as miraculous as a virgin getting pregnant.

Did Zechariah and Elizabeth have sex? If not, then Johns appearance in Elizabeths womb is as miraculous as Jesus appearing in Marys womb.

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

And like logical7 said, God does not become a father just because He created a child miraculously in the womb of a woman.... because For with God nothing shall be impossible.

John is the cousin of Jesus.
John was conceived in the usual way by
copulation between a male and a female.

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit
Born of the Virgin Mary

I or someone else can explain something like this to you but
neither I or anyone else can understand it for you,
you will have to do that yourself.

reply to post by slugger9787

John was conceived in the usual way by
copulation between a male and a female.

You didn't read my OP did you?
Johns mother was infertile.... and his father was old. The odds of them conceiving a child on their own was zero. So Johns birth was as miraculous as Jesus'.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I read every word of your OP.

I read every post in this thread.

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

You are a Muslim, therefore you must believe
that Jesus was a prophet and not The Son of God.


Again, it can be explained to you by others.
no one can understand it for you.
You have to listen to the miracle with your spirit/soul
and not your education and history.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


in the old testament there are many instances of the Holy Spirit coming upon some Holy man.
Then that man was able to make god inspired and accurate predictions.

After Jesus died on the cross and resurrected and appeared to his disciples, on Pentacost Jesus said I am leaving you with the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit to be with you alwayus.
Tongues of fire and a strong wind came. then the disciples left and being filled with the Holy Spirit began proclaiming the good news in several different languages.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It was a miracle yes, but not on par with Jesus. Also, you could also throw Jacob in with your comparison because Sarah was quite up there in years also.

I agree that Jacobs case as well.

But I wanted to compare Jesus and John because their births happened around the same time period.

And I made a mistake, I meant to say Issac.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And I made a mistake, I meant to say Issac.

And I repeated your error without double checking. Come on, brain!!