be crucified, or be killed—to the exclusion of the other, all the more so in view of the alleged union between them.

Moreover, although crucifixion and death are a greater negation of lordship than Mary’s bearing Him and giving birth to Him, that does not make any of these notions any less impossible with respect to God.

Whoever’s mind can accept that the Lord of the worlds emerged from Mary’s private part while she was still a virgin has imagined the Lord of the worlds passing through a tiny opening; and that is the very height of impossibility.

Whoever concedes this must also concede that He could come forth from every aperture of comparable or larger size, and that the Lord of the worlds could emerge from the mouth or private part of any creature, or through the cracks of doors and other openings.

If they object, “That place was pure,” we reply, “The mouths of the prophets and the righteous are purer than any woman’s private part on earth; therefore, by your reasoning, He could emerge from the mouth of every prophet and friend of God, or from his ear or nose, for these openings are superior to women’s genitals. Highly exalted is God above what the wrongdoers ascribe to Him—infinitely exalted!”

These Christians claim that God’s being born from Mary’s womb is different from His eternal begetting from the Father; in their view there are two births, one spiritual and one bodily.

Yet when they are pressed to explain their words, and it is said to them, “It is inconceivable that the Lord of the worlds should exit through a narrow opening, whether a genital opening, mouth, ear, or any other aperture,” they reply, “This is beyond reason,” and admit that the intellect cannot conceive it.

They can therefore be told: “No prophet has ever uttered such a claim; never did any prophet say that Mary carried the Lord of the worlds and gave birth to Him—indeed, no prophet ever spoke…”