The Muhammad and Aisha controversy

[sumskilz]

Taking that Hadith story at face value, why does Islamic schools follow the age of 9 but not 6? It's an easy question.

Because adolescence, as they are defining it, is not the minimum marriageable age, it is the age at which one can consent to marriage.

Quoting the source I referenced before:

Notwithstanding the precondition of mutual consent, all schools recognise the power of a guardian to marry off his ward before she reaches puberty, and it is not uncommon for this in fact to occur shortly after the female child is born. 32 In this case, the consummation of the marriage must be postponed until puberty.33 The so-called ‘option of puberty’ offers the minor the possibility of objecting to the marriage upon attaining puberty, for as long as the marriage has not yet been consummated.34 However, classical opinions agree that this right of objection can be excercised only through a court and that it is applicable only to marriages concluded by a person other than the father or grandfather of the minor.35

If the marriage is arranged by the father or the grandfather of the girl, then the husband may have sex with her at age 9, according to the Islamic schools that define female adolescence as age 9. The obvious rational for age 9 being Muhammad's example, as recorded in the Hadith.

[Common Soldier]

But now that you know the truth that St Joseph was also a paedophile, you be as quick to educate people to this fact as you are regarding Muhammad's proclivities. Surely, that's how this works right? Surely it's the paedophilia that's the problem, not anything else...

As I have shown, we don't know what age Mary was when she was married to Joseph, so we can't say Joseph was one. He might, or he might not have been according to our standards.

If Aisha was nine, even by ancient Roman standards she wouldn't have been old.enough to get married. And while 9 may have been legal in.Muhammad's society, it still would not have been typical or usual.

[sumskilz]

Pedophilia is actually attraction to prepubescent children. Despite modern people having legitimate reasons to discourage or prohibit acting upon it, there is nothing biological abnormal about attraction to young reproductively capable individuals. Many traditional societies have considered about 12 or 13 to be beginning of adulthood. In Hellenistic and Roman Period ancient Israel, the average age of adult women in cemeteries is estimated at about 32-34 years old. That sort of changes the implications of teenage marriage in my opinion.

In contrast, age 9 is quite unusual, and is even before the age of accelerated growth, and certainly would have been well-before puberty in a pre-modern society.

[PointOfViewGun]

Because adolescence, as they are defining it, is not the minimum marriageable age, it is the age at which one can consent to marriage.
Quoting the source I referenced before:
If the marriage is arranged by the father or the grandfather of the girl, then the husband may have sex with her at age 9, according to the Islamic schools that define female adolescence as age 9. The obvious rational for age 9 being Muhammad's example, as recorded in the Hadith.

This doesn't really address what I asked. You're merely dancing around it. There is no argument there that explain why Islamic school's setting age of marriage at 9 when Muhammad supposedly married Aisha at 6 as you implied it to be it's basis. The wordplay you utilize between marriageable age and age of consent is rather self-evident.

[sumskilz]

This doesn't really address what I asked. You're merely dancing around it. There is no argument there that explain why Islamic school's setting age of marriage at 9 when Muhammad supposedly married Aisha at 6 as you implied it to be it's basis. The wordplay you utilize between marriageable age and age of consent is rather self-evident.

No, I explained it clearly. It should be easy to understand as long as you read the quotations.

[PointOfViewGun]

No, I explained it clearly. It should be easy to understand as long as you read the quotations.

A clear explanation would not require someone to look at quotes from a different person. If you did that would be a referral, not an explanation. Anyways, your initial links argued that in Islam age of marriage is 9 for girls. When I asked you how come then Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 you started dancing around the question. Your latest quote talks about a guardian's responsibilities. It doesn't even address the question.

[sumskilz]

When I asked you how come then Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 you started dancing around the question.

There is no minimum marriage age when the marriage is arranged by the girl's ward. Additionally, she may not object to it when she reaches puberty (the age of consent to marriage) if that ward was her father or grandfather. The age at which Muhammad consummated the marriage is relevant to the legal determination of the age of consent to marriage, since the age at which a man may have sex with a wife he married under the age of consent is the same as the age of consent. Muhammad's actions, as reported in the Hadith, are thus central to the argument for age 9 being puberty for girls and thus the age to consent to marriage for those schools of Islamic jurisprudence that consider age 9 to be the age of consent to marriage.

There is no new information in this post that I had not provided before.

[PointOfViewGun]

There is no minimum marriage age when the marriage is arranged by the girl's ward. Additionally, she may not object to it when she reaches puberty (the age of consent to marriage) if that ward was her father or grandfather. The age at which Muhammad consummated the marriage is relevant to the legal determination of the age of consent to marriage, since the age at which a man may have sex with a wife he married under the age of consent is the same as the age of consent. Muhammad's actions, as reported in the Hadith, are thus central to the argument for age 9 being puberty for girls and thus the age to consent to marriage for those schools of Islamic jurisprudence that consider age 9 to be the age of consent to marriage.
There is no new information in this post that I had not provided before.

That's why it continues to dance around the question.

[Common Soldier]

Common Soldier,

This is what Wiki says on the subject of Jewish boys and girls when reaching the age of self responsibility. Bar Mitzvah (Hebrew: בַּר מִצְוָה‬) is a Jewish coming of age ritual for boys. Bat Mitzvah (Hebrew: בַּת מִצְוָה‬; Ashkenazi pronunciation: Bas Mitzvah) is a Jewish coming of age ritual for girls. The plural is B'nai Mitzvah for boys, and B'not Mitzvah (Ashkenazi pronunciation: B'nos Mitzvah) for girls.

According to Jewish law, when Jewish boys become 13 years old, they become accountable for their actions and become a bar mitzvah. A girl becomes a bat mitzvah at the age of 12 according to Orthodox and Conservative Jews, and at the age of 13 according to Reform Jews.[1] Prior to reaching bar mitzvah age, the child's parents hold the responsibility for the child's actions. After this age, the boys and girls bear their own responsibility for Jewish ritual law, tradition, and ethics, and are able to participate in all areas of Jewish community life. Traditionally, the father of the bar mitzvah gives thanks to God that he is no longer punished for the child's sins (Genesis Rabbah, Toledot 63[2]). In addition to being considered accountable for their actions from a religious perspective, a thirteen-year-old male may be counted towards a prayer quorum and may lead prayer and other religious services in the family and the community.

Bar mitzvah is mentioned in the Mishnah (Ethics of the Fathers, 5:21) and in the Talmud. In some classic sources the age of 13 appears for instance as the age from which males must fast on the Day of Atonement, while females fast from the age of 12. The age of b'nai mitzvah roughly coincides with physical puberty.[3] The bar or bat mitzvah ceremony is usually held on the first Shabbat after a boy's thirteenth and a girl's twelfth birthday (or thirteenth in Reform congregations).

Therefore in Mary's case it is quite feasible that she was indeed 13/14 when she gave birth to Jesus, why? Because Old Covenant traditions remain true for Jewish boys and girls today as far as I know.

The Mishnah was written in around 200 AD,. 200 years after Mary's time, during which the Jewish community had experienced great change. Second, the Mishnah was written by and for the Rabbinic community, and does not reflect what ordinary Jews were doing. 1st century Judaism was much diverse than later Rabbinic Judaism, and many Jews, like the Sadducees had beliefs and practices that differed from later Rabbinic Jews.

In "The Mishnah in Contemporary Perspective" Part 2, on page 78 it states that the Rabbinic assumption of marriage of daughters at or near puberty was not clearly attested to by Jews outside of Rabbinic texts. The practice of marriage of daughters around puberty may have just been the practice of the Rabbinic community, and not Jews as a whole. Note, the alleged ancestors of the Pharisees, represented only one of several Jewish groups

[Common Soldier]

So did Samson, but he was arguably ritually purified before his death by the cutting of his hair, so it ended up sort of making sense. I'm not suggesting that I think Jesus wasn't from the Galilee, other references are clear enough - "This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee." (Matthew 21:11). Nor am I particularly committed to the supposition, but there is something strange going on with the term. For example: "There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He will be called a Nazorean'" (Matthew 2:23) What prophets? Who is being quoted? There is no record outside the NT of anyone speaking about Nazareth or a Nazorean until a few centuries later, and nothing was really there other than a few farm houses. This was a problem both Jerome and Eusebius were aware of. As I remember, Jerome argued it meant "branch" rather than "of Nazareth", as in a branch of the Davidic line. That works linguistically, but not sure I buy it. So my suggestion, is that it's potentially a re-purposing of the Nazirite symbolism as one who is consecrated to God from birth as a sacrifice. You're right that it doesn't work with a plain reading of the Pentateuch or Jewish tradition, but then neither does a lot of Christianity's symbolism. The whole last supper symbolism for example. That the term happened to be rendered in Greek similar to the name of the tiny village Jesus was from could confuse the issue. Although maybe it's nothing, I probably wouldn't have bothered to look for another explanation if I hadn't read so many others pontificating on the linguistic problem. The Greek also adds a syllable. As I understand it, this bothers linguists. Supposedly it doesn't fit an otherwise consistent pattern. Others have suggested the Nazirite connection, my hypothesis is only original in my particular suggestion regarding the potential symbolism. Usually the speculation ends precisely with your objection, like (paraphrasing) Nazirite makes the most sense linguistically, but then again, Jesus didn't act much like a Nazirite.

EDIT: There are two spellings, Ναζαρηνός and Ναζωραῖος. Some translations differentiate them as Nazarene and Nazorean. Nazirite is Ναζιραῖος.

EDIT2: Also seems to be something I reflexively commented on out of interest, rather than being of any real relevance.

I agree, that Jesus Nazarite might have been a religious designation that was confused by the later Gospel writers into thinking the designation meant the village he was from. There is, as you say, plenty of evidence in the Gospels to show Jesus was from Galilee, and the writers knew he came from an small unimportant village, so assumed the term Nazorean referred to it, not to a title. In Enflish, where we use "of" and "from", that mistake would be harder to make, but Greek didn't use those prepositions, so the distinction wouldn't be as clear. Ambiguity can exist in English, Philadelphian refers to someone from PhiladelphiA, but it can also refer to someone from a 17th century religious sect.

Jesus might not have behaved like a Nazarite as one would have expected, but perhaps he changed, and the term was from an earlier time. Jesus seemed to have been a disciple.of John the Baptist at one time, but seems to have left to create his own ministry. Perhaps the hen with John he was more Nazarite, but the title stuck. As for the reference in Matthew, we know that there were slightly different versions of the Bible books at the time, so perhaps Matthew was referring to a line from a version of a biblical book we no longer have. Like referring to the longer ending of Mark, and then have all the versions of Mark with the longer ending lost over time. Future reader of such a reference might be puzzled, since his bible wouldn't have reference.

[Cyclops]

What you say is great flattery for Catholic Church, it's in their interests to look and act as if they invented the concept. But the idea isn't new.

Horus birth involves no coitus, Osiris birth involves no Coitus, and this Deities are from BC (before Christ) era. There's more.

If you're unfamiliar with the Osiris myth, Isis has sex with his reanimated corpse. Don't google the images, there's lots of erect green penises (Its egyptian art, what do you expect). There's one late variant where the sex takes the form of a flash of lightning, but in all other cases its actual penetrative sex.

If you want to get ridiculous the Old Kingdom Ra creation story a virgin birth as he is alone when he creates life by rubbing one out. the virginity is largely incidental.

i do agree there are virgin birth stories in other traditions (reflected in the Jesus story) but the Christian focus on virginity is extraordinary, and the only case where the issue is of central importance.

... but there is something strange going on with the term. For example: "There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He will be called a Nazorean'" (Matthew 2:23) What prophets? Who is being quoted? ...

EDIT2: Also seems to be something I reflexively commented on out of interest, rather than being of any real relevance.

Please continue to comment reflexively or otherwise, even if nitpickers self combust as a result.

The question of "what prophets?Who is being quoted?" is a very hot one. As you well know Jewish texts were assembled over time, with the Torah (as in the Pentateuch, not the wider sense) elevated to the highest position and lesser books arranged around this pinnacle. The exact make up of the Jewish and later Christian canon (subject to a lot of re-editing over the centuries) led to variant texts being excluded.

The Dead Sea scrolls (as reported by Robin Lane Fox in his Unauthorised Edition) include numerous variant texts in many languages, some in Hebrew and Aramaic which agree with Septuagint version over the Masoretic (snap says the Pope, Lutherans grumble over their beer), but also multiple versions of OT books substantially longer or shorter than the received forms, with concomitant differences (eg a very short Job without the confusing repetitions) (now the Pope gets to grumble over his beer, Rabbis go

חה חה חה

).

In Scripture Jesus quotes non existent scripture (John 7:38 "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water") which is impossible for theological reason but also highly improbable for quite logical ones too.

Jesus was a learned rabbi, I don't think he'd pluck nonsense from the air. The quote was likely known to the evangelist who included it without thought. Only later when all the Jewish Jesus followers (and truckloads of Rabbis and priests) have died and the libraries of Jerusalem have been burned does the quote become obscure.

There was a welter of prophets, rabbis, and baptists in the Hellenistic/Roman period, John, Bar Kochba, two Jesuses (the second one was a fizzer, he had a one line prophecy and was turned loose after a beating from the Lictors) they are just the tip of the iceberg. There were whole libraries with multiple conflicting versions of very solemn and important scripture, including the one at Qumran which includes new versions of belief in Sonship and Fathership of God, the Kingdom to come and the water of life (all themes of Jesus, but varying from older forms).

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the tip of a theological iceberg: we see another point at Elephantine which hints at the diversity of Near Eastern religious thought. I think they had scriptures coming out of their ears, an "authorised" Temple Scripture probably anchored Jewish faith but the flowers had overgrown the pot a long time ago, and it took savage gardening to trim the canon back to its current form.

Quite possibly Matthew although a Roman tax collector was a man of religious education too: his bitter railing against the Temple and Pharisees suggests he knows his scripture. Likely he's quoting some well known prophecy from a lost text or a forgotten version of a well known Prophet. it needed no reference at the time, only later when puzzled Hellenes pored over his words and there was no one left to answer their questions did it become confusing. If there was a reference to a Nazirite handy that seemed to support the importance of Jesus why wouldn't Matthew use it? We should not be surprised that the source has not survived, so much has been lost, and the little evidence of past diversity at Qumran has been kept locked away lest it upset the vast body compromise theology bunged into the gaps since then.

[Heathen Hammer]

But now that you know the truth that St Joseph was also a paedophile, you be as quick to educate people to this fact as you are regarding Muhammad's proclivities. Surely, that's how this works right? Surely it's the paedophilia that's the problem, not anything else...

Again, not the point. The moral difference here is that Christians believe that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary and that consummation of Jesus din't involve physical act of sex.
Muslims acknowledge the fact that muhammad was a pedo who had sex with children and are fine with it.

[basics]

Why does Matthew 27:9 attribute the prophecy to Jeremiah when it is from Zechariah?
Matthew 27:9 Jeremiah Zechariah
Question: "Why does Matthew 27:9 attribute the prophecy to Jeremiah when it is from Zechariah?"

Answer: The Gospel of Matthew says that the temple leaders took the “blood money” that Judas Iscariot had returned to them and used it to buy a potter’s field to bury strangers in. Their action was a fulfillment of prophecy: “Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: ‘They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me’” (Matthew 27:9–10). However, the prophecy that Matthew alludes to regarding 30 pieces of silver is most likely from Zechariah 11:12–13, which reads, “I told them, ‘If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.’ So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’—the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the Lord.” Is this a case of an error in the Bible? Why would Matthew appear to attribute the prophecy of the 30 pieces of silver to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah?

The most likely answer is found in the structure of the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible is divided into three sections called the Law, Writings, and Prophets. Jesus refers to these divisions in Luke 24:44. The collection of the Prophets began with the book of Jeremiah. The scrolls were sometimes referred to by the name of the first book, which in the case of the Prophets would be Jeremiah. So, when Matthew says that “Jeremiah says,” he means that the prophecy was found in the “Jeremiah Scroll.”

Others have suggested the possibility that Matthew alludes to a composite of prophecies that included those of both Zechariah and Jeremiah. This is also possible, and Jeremiah did pay a visit to a potter’s house (Jeremiah 18), yet it is difficult to find a particular prediction in Jeremiah that would fit the reference to 30 pieces of silver.

Another theory is that the name Jeremiah in Matthew 27:9 was ignorantly inserted by a later scribe or that a copyist inadvertently wrote “Jeremiah” instead of “Zechariah”; the latter is more likely if the scribes were using abbreviated forms of the names: in that case, it would be a simple matter of mistaking Ιριου for Ζριου. If a copyist transcribed an iota in place of a zeta, the error is explained.

Still another suggestion has been that perhaps other writings from the prophet Jeremiah existed in Matthew’s time, and those writings mentioned the 30 pieces of silver. However, this is an argument from silence, since no such information is known or is elsewhere alluded to in Scripture or in history.

The best solution is probably found in the understanding of how the Jewish people spoke of the parts of Scripture. It is also interesting that the one gospel writer to note this event was Matthew, who had previously worked as a tax collector. He would have been very familiar with monetary transactions and likely well aware of the purchase price of the Field of Blood, which he immediately connected with Zechariah’s prophecy of 30 pieces of silver. Matthew used this connection to show one of the ways the coming of Jesus fulfilled numerous predictions in the Old Testament, affirming Jesus as the true Messiah.

[fkizz]

If you're unfamiliar with the Osiris myth, Isis has sex with his reanimated corpse. Don't google the images, there's lots of erect green penises (Its egyptian art, what do you expect). There's one late variant where the sex takes the form of a flash of lightning, but in all other cases its actual penetrative sex.
If you want to get ridiculous the Old Kingdom Ra creation story a virgin birth as he is alone when he creates life by rubbing one out. the virginity is largely incidental.
i do agree there are virgin birth stories in other traditions (reflected in the Jesus story) but the Christian focus on virginity is extraordinary, and the only case where the issue is of central importance.

I know you're trolling by now, but births seen as technically Parthenogenisis, by Biology standards is not even considered as Coitus.
Either way it's a very flattering way of trolling, you're basically saying the Church is 100% correct when it acts as if the Virgin Birth is a Christian invention rather than a re-adaption

[Common Soldier]

I know you're trolling by now, but births seen as technically Parthenogenisis, by Biology standards is not even considered as Coitus.
Either way it's a very flattering way of trolling, you're basically saying the Church is 100% correct when it acts as if the Virgin re-adaption

Horus birth is not consider parthenogeisis, and the others you have cited don't either. Horus was born through sex, between between Isis and Osiris, and parthenogeisis means without sex. I suggest you get a dictionary, you clearly don't know the meaning of the words you used.

None of the writings we have claim Isis was a virgin when Horus was born, nor do they claim that Horus was born without sex. The Gospels do specifically state Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, Matthew and Luke stress Mary was a virgin, unlike Isis

You are the one trolling, ignoring the ancient sources to promote your agenda. The ancient sources are not full of birth stories without sex, where the birth was biologically normal except for the mother being a virgin. (Jesus was not born from the side ala Buddha, or from the head ala Athena)

[Cyclops]

I think the trolling in this case has generally been in attributing to all Muslims a distasteful attribute. I think smearing Christians in the same way is just as bad.

I know you're trolling by now,

No I am nitpicking, We actually agree on a lot of points, I am just making a fuss about distinctions between miraculous births and virgin births, and the specific features of the stories about Jesus' birth.

but births seen as technically Parthenogenisis, by Biology standards is not even considered as Coitus.

Isis has sex with Osiris' corpse, he ejaculates and impregnates her. I don't think the Osiris myth is particularly relevant, except in the most general way and serves rather to distinguish than to exemplify the Jesus birth stories.

There are weak attempts to directly link the resurrected Osiris as some sort of precursor/model for Jesus but I think there's only the loosest association. Near eastern belief readily acknowledges a resurrected God (Dummuzi is another, there are many examples) as it does persecuted babies. The massacre of the innocents in Matthew recalls other birth myths like Moses, Cyrus and so on but it doesn't make Jesus an Egyptian Prince or a Persian King of Kings. These stories accumulate around Jesus as they do many famous figures, because they seemed suitable attributes for a divine or divinely inspired person.

Ra on a mud hill and thereby creating life is technically a virgin birth (but not Parthenogenesis in either its theological or biological sense as the first requires a female virgin, and the second an egg): his virginity is irrelevant theologically speaking (except obliquely as he is the primal being) and he later goes on to have sexual relationships in other myths. Most of the virgin births do not result in perpetual virginity: I guess Athena is the only virgin birth that remains a virgin, she is a special case but her virginity may have been as much political as magical.

Jesus conception may or may not be sexual: he is clearly identified in the Gospels as the Son of Man, but self identifies as a Son of God the father. In our current understanding of biology that requires sexual input, but in Jesus' day (in both pre and post Easter belief) Sonship of God was not necessarily biological.

Either way it's a very flattering way of trolling, you're basically saying the Church is 100% correct when it acts as if the Virgin Birth is a Christian invention rather than a re-adaption

Yes I think we agree. I'm not trolling, but I do think Jesus' ideas about God as Father, and himself and other believers as Sons of God are central to his beliefs and represent a distinct emphasis if not completely new ideas. Most of the elements are familiar but over time they evolve into something which I think is unique. Certainly Christian thought bears the imprint of waves of Hellenistic influence (in particular Manichean thought through St Augustine), and comes to a very rare emphasis on virginity as purity.

I don't think this relates to the Athena myth, anyone have any ideas there? My own feeling the emphasise buy the majority of Christians on the perpetual virginity of Mary really are theologically unique.

[fkizz]

No I am nitpicking, We actually agree on a lot of points, I am just making a fuss about distinctions between miraculous births and virgin births, and the specific features of the stories about Jesus' birth.

Well the topic interests me, and I will research more, but this is a very uphill battle for me.

The problem is, I'm not even supposed to dispell the idea that Virgin Birth claim is unique to Jesus, even if I have pointers otherwise. So I can't elaborate as much as I would like.
Still I have to ask, how do you consider Adam and Eve then?

Which Coitus happened to make those two beings appear? Their births weren't technically Virgin Births? (as in no Coitus involved to generate them)

If not Virgin Births, then whatever sex happened to make Adam appear? Adam can be considered the first Virgin Birth with an even more incredible story of conception. Not even Adam and Eve count as virgin births for you? (coming into existence without coitus)

You are the one trolling, ignoring the ancient sources to promote your agenda. The ancient sources are not full of birth stories without sex, where the birth was biologically normal except for the mother being a virgin. (Jesus was not born from the side ala Buddha, or from the head ala Athena)

Alright if you're so clarified explain which passages are referencing sex behind the creation of Adam in Genesis.
Go ahead.

Jesus conception may or may not be sexual: he is clearly identified in the Gospels as the Son of Man, but self identifies as a Son of God the father. In our current understanding of biology that requires sexual input, but in Jesus' day (in both pre and post Easter belief) Sonship of God was not necessarily biological.

I don't think this relates to the Athena myth, anyone have any ideas there? My own feeling the emphasise buy the majority of Christians on the perpetual virginity of Mary really are theologically unique.

If Jesus birth is mostly biogical, then that means at best Jesus is one of cases of only partial divinity, more or less implies the Holy Trinity becomes less consistent to not say worse. To follow the Trinity, the Virginity of Mary is fairly consistent route, albeit, plenty of Protestant factions disagree with the Perpetual Virginity.

[Cyclops]

Well the topic interests me, and I will research more, but this is a very uphill battle for me.

I apologise if I've been obscure, the topic interests me also and its worth discussing, especially in good faith as I believe you are.

The problem is, I'm not even supposed to dispell the idea that Virgin Birth claim is unique to Jesus, even if I have pointers otherwise. So I can't elaborate as much as I would like.
Still I have to ask, how do you consider Adam and Eve then?

I would consider them a creation rather than a reproduction. It is definitely a miracle, but they do not either of them appear in the world as babies IMHO.

Which Coitus happened to make those two beings appear? Their births weren't technically Virgin Births? (as in no Coitus involved to generate them)
If not Virgin Births, then whatever sex happened to make Adam appear? Adam can be considered the first Virgin Birth with an even more incredible story of conception. Not even Adam and Eve count as virgin births for you? (coming into existence without coitus)

You are correct in calling them as "coming into existence without coitus" but I would say they only count as miraculous births in a tenuous way. There's nothing to suggest in either our understanding or what we might guess past understandings of Adam or Eve's creation/transmutation that God had sex with mud or Adam's ribcage.

Alright if you're so clarified explain which passages are referencing sex behind the creation of Adam in Genesis.
Go ahead.

There's no as far as I can see. The creation of Eve from Adam's rib is a pun from a Sumerian myth that was lost in translation. I have heard arguments that Adam's naming of animals may infer carnal knowing of them, i think that's clearly absurd. Adam;'s relationship with Eve is carnal and I think in the original healthy and positive. When the idea of original sin appears after Easter (probably centuries after) there's the Manichaean dislike of sex reatrig its head, and the forbidden fruit is somehow mixed up with sex and shame.

If Jesus birth is mostly biogical, then that means at best Jesus is one of cases of only partial divinity, more or less implies the Holy Trinity becomes less consistent to not say worse. To follow the Trinity, the Virginity of Mary is fairly consistent route, albeit, plenty of Protestant factions disagree with the Perpetual Virginity.

Indeed, that's probably more consistent with contemporary Jewish beliefs about Jesus, even among his followers. I think you've summed up the spread of beliefs about Jesus quite succinctly there.

My own view is that Jesus was seen by all his contemporaries as an important teacher. Some liked him, some did not. After he died most considered him a dead teacher, but a group of his followers experienced his Resurrection and return. I doubt he did come back, but people of faith believe it in good faith, and Jesus' apostles and disciples all behaved as though they had seen him return. i am not accusing Christians, or Jesus' 120 followers at Pentecost of lying, they saw what they saw. The exact meaning of his return was maybe not fully expressed for centuries, but he brought them a message to pass on.

"I died, I am risen as prophesied, you can join me under God through the Holy spirit". Peter and Paul preached this we know.

I believe Jesus' godhood was apparent to many of his followers eg in Alexandria, although others saw the reality of his human sacrifice, and the miracle of resurrection as the main feature of his passion.

I think the message was more important than the man for most, although arguments about his nature occurred as the church grew larger, more diverse and the generations between those who had met Jesus and the current church grew. Maybe Jesus said he was divine, maybe he denied it. Our sources say both.

Latetr as the church gained politcal power people who denied vchrit's divinity were expelled from the church, so it became a bit of a self-fulfilling belief.

[PointOfViewGun]

Again, not the point. The moral difference here is that Christians believe that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary and that consummation of Jesus din't involve physical act of sex.
Muslims acknowledge the fact that muhammad was a pedo who had sex with children and are fine with it.

I reject the idea that Muhammad was a pedophile or the idea that he had sex with children. I do all that based on facts. I'm not a Muslim?

[fkizz]

I would consider them a creation rather than a reproduction. It is definitely a miracle, but they do not either of them appear in the world as babies IMHO.
You are correct in calling them as "coming into existence without coitus" but I would say they only count as miraculous births in a tenuous way. There's nothing to suggest in either our understanding or what we might guess past understandings of Adam or Eve's creation/transmutation that God had sex with mud or Adam's ribcage.

There you go. There's at least 2 Virgin Births, in the Bible itself, and the Torah many years before Jesus. So one of the reasons the Virgin Birth of Jesus might've been accepted (conception/creation) is that such idea was a familiar one, people who followed the old testament had been hearing about Adam and Eve since forever, where two Human Beings (pre-fall) come to exist without the act of Coitus.

My own view is that Jesus was seen by all his contemporaries as an important teacher. Some liked him, some did not. After he died most considered him a dead teacher, but a group of his followers experienced his Resurrection and return. I doubt he did come back, but people of faith believe it in good faith, and Jesus' apostles and disciples all behaved as though they had seen him return. i am not accusing Christians, or Jesus' 120 followers at Pentecost of lying, they saw what they saw. The exact meaning of his return was maybe not fully expressed for centuries, but he brought them a message to pass on.

"I died, I am risen as prophesied, you can join me under God through the Holy spirit". Peter and Paul preached this we know.

I believe Jesus' godhood was apparent to many of his followers eg in Alexandria, although others saw the reality of his human sacrifice, and the miracle of resurrection as the main feature of his passion.
I think the message was more important than the man for most, although arguments about his nature occurred as the church grew larger, more diverse and the generations between those who had met Jesus and the current church grew. Maybe Jesus said he was divine, maybe he denied it. Our sources say both.

Latetr as the church gained politcal power people who denied vchrit's divinity were expelled from the church, so it became a bit of a self-fulfilling belief.

Not too shabby, albeit the Ressurection itself has implied the idea of Divinity to some degree at least. A merely Human Jesus would never be capable of the miracle of Ressurection, and what created the whole movement that 2000 years later makes us stay here talking about it so different from the other movements was that something very out of the ordinary happened after Jesus death sentence was carried on, to the bafflement of the witnesses.

There had been other claims to being Messiah who ended up on the Cross as well, and they all had the "influential charismatic spiritual teacher" feature in them. What makes an honest difference between Jesus and those other Messiah claims was that none of the others ressurected.