at that moment nothing miraculous had yet appeared from that tiny morsel of flesh. Yet they deduce the Messiah’s divinity from the marvels he later performed, even though, by their own claim, God was already united with him before he displayed any wonders. Hence, the mere absence of miracles from something cannot be taken as proof that the Lord has not united with it, so long as such a union is deemed possible.

From this it would follow that every lifeless object or living creature from which wonders are manifested must likewise be evidence that the Lord has united with it. In that case, the worshippers of the calf would be less blameworthy than the Christians. Indeed, even if an idolater were to say that his idol created the heavens and the earth, he would still have a stronger excuse than the Christians; for the appearance of miracles from a speechless animal or an inanimate object is more astonishing than their appearance from a rational human being—let alone from the prophets and messengers, who are already known for the extraordinary signs shown at their hands.

Thus, when miracles are wrought through someone who declares, “I am a prophet sent (by God),” those miracles attest to his prophethood, not to his divinity. The Messiah himself often said, “I am a prophet sent,” as the Gospel records in several passages. A dumb animal or a piece of lifeless matter, however, cannot possibly be a prophet.

Therefore, if union is permissible with an embryo and with a buried body devoid of soul, then a union with the calf or with an idol would be even more plausible—so that the calf’s lowing would count as one of its wonders. Consequently, the reasoning of the calf-worshippers in taking that wonder as proof of its godhood would be stronger than the Christians’ argument for the divinity of the embryo, assuming that any of the miracles they cite had in fact occurred.