Quote
Quote Originally Posted by Burninglight View Post

But anyone can borrow a story from somewhere else and add details to it that may not be true. The point is the story was found in the NT Bible first; again, there is a preponderance of evidence suggesting very strongly that he did borrow it from the NT Bible since it was Matthew that states Jesus' virgin birth was a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. Anyone can argue that the prophecy given in Isaiah 7: 14 had already been fulfilled 700 years+ before Jesus was born. I would say this locks in my point that you have failed to address in anyway shape or form. IMHO, you have been pawned. Here is the OT verse that had already been fulfilled before Jesus birth: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Matthew said Jesus is the fulfillment of this verse, but it had already been fulfilled in the time of king Ahaz. One can argue that Muhammad borrowed a discrepancy from the Bible. can you prove otherwise? I don't think you can; in fact, I know you can't! But you can try.
What do you want to tell me by this? Do you want to tell me that Matthew was just trying to find any sentence in the OT and consider it a prophecy about Jesus Pbuh? Yes, I know this and I surely agree with you.
Do you want to tell me that Matthew was not inspired by God while writing his gospel and that he was doing errors while writing it ? I agree with you.
Do you want to tell me that Matthew's gospel is a man-made book like many other books in the Bible? I agree.

The point is that the virgin birth of Jesus Pbuh is a true story. Luke said in the beginning of his gospel that he has been making effort to know the true things about the story of the Christ to write them to Theophilus. One of the things that he's been able to know is the virgin birth story, because it is a true story. The same story has been told to us by God in the holy Quran.

Islam, Prophet Muhammad Pbuh and the holy Quran have nothing to do with the prophecy in Isaiah which occured at the time of king Ahaz and which the writer of Matthew's gospel claimed that it is a prophecy about the Christ.

Anyway, if you insist that just because the story of virgin birth is mentioned in the gospel, this means that prophet Muhammad Pbuh must have taken it from the Bible, which I see is a completely ridiculous and wrong conclusion, but if you insist on this, then what about the virgin birth stories before christianity?
Read about them here
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Virgin_...ther_religions
They are common in many other religions, so according to your way of thinking, you must also believe that the story of virgin birth in Christianity has just been taken from other religions too.

Quote
Now, your point of Adam having no parents is ridiculous. It had to be that way to start the human race, but that wasn't the case for Jesus; besides, the Scriptures say that God was Adam's father. Every prophet if you can call Adam one has a father, but not everyone had a mother. Jesus' father was and is God. That doesn't mean God sired Jesus; It means that Jesus proceeded from the father as His word incarnate. You have been pawned again friend.
The concept that I want you to understand is that God can create a normal man without a father or a mother (Adam) and can create a normal human being from a male without a female (Eve) and can create a normal man from a female without a male (Jesus Pbuh)

Now let me ask you a yes/no question : Can God create a normal man from a female without a male? Can God make a virgin give birth to a normal human being who is neither divine nor the son of God ?

If you say yes, then you have no point in arguing that Jesus Pbuh was divine because he was born from a virgin.
If you say no, then you are claiming that God is not powerful enough to create a normal baby from a virgin without a male.
Choose the answer.

Anyway, it's worth to mention that there is a mode of reproduction called parthengenesis, in which reproduction is from a female without a male
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis
It's common in animals and it doesn't show that these animals are divine of course, so you have no point in your argument at all.