Do Christians really believe Mary was a virgin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm Catholic and know Mary was an unmarried woman known as a virgin. Why are you people so obsessed with what anyone believes ?

She was married to Joseph. They had other children as well. This was removed from the books to enhance the story. Since she was married and Jesus had older bros it is highly unlikely that she was a virgin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:virgin mary is bs. really. it just is not possible.

Yep, this isn't disrespectful.

Let's start a thread now about everything that is "bs" about Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism, or being an atheist and believing that life is a meaningless void. I mean, that's okay too, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Christmas side question: you know the song the little drummer boy? Is this a story from the bible or a fable that's totally separate?

you could answer your own question by simply reading the bible. Spoiler alert: the Rudolph story might not be real either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And Joseph believed Mary? Who's to say the child wasn't someone else's, even if the two of them weren't fooling around?

Paying for sex and lying about sex are some of the oldest forms of human behavior.

Which is precisely why Joseph decided to "send her away, quietly" "so as not to put her to shame." Then the Angel flipping Gabriel appeared to him to and told him it was all above board, so he went ahead and married her. Does anybody on this forum actually read scripture? I swear, the only time you lot hear the nativity story is the Peanuts Christmas special....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Mary married? Why would she be a virgin as a married woman? Or was she supposed to have been impregnated before she was married?

Why would anyone have believed her? If your daughter came to you & said, "Guess what mom, I'm pregnant and it is God's baby not my boyfriend's." Would you believe her?

Probably not, but if I saw my grandson hung from a cross and buried and then he was walking around again a few days later, I might have thought "Gee, maybe that girl wasn't lying".

I might be there before that if my grandson was teaching the temple at 12 or if he healed the blind and lame or produced an infinite feast of loaves and fishes.

Just sayin'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Mary married? Why would she be a virgin as a married woman? Or was she supposed to have been impregnated before she was married?

Why would anyone have believed her? If your daughter came to you & said, "Guess what mom, I'm pregnant and it is God's baby not my boyfriend's." Would you believe her?

Just go read the gospels, and then believe them or not as you see fit. This was already explained by a PP.

Not helpful. One poster said unmarried, one eluded to her being married, one said virgin may not mean virgin. I'm on my phone so searching for the gospels is not that easily done right know. Should not be surprised that a request for information is meet with resistance when it comes to religion.

I thought she was married. Wouldn't a married woman have had sex with her husband. Thought the bible encouraged sexual relations in a marriage. Didn't see an answer to the would you believe your daughter.

Mary was betrothed (engaged) to Joseph at the time of conception. Therefore not married, and by belief, a virgin. An angel appeared to Joseph and told him Mary would have the son of God.

Isn't it more likely that Joseph and Mary had some premarital sex. Joseph made up a story that he was visited by an angel to distract scorn, and Mary said she was a virgin? It seems so bizarre to me, to make up an entire religion based in no small part on what was almost certainly a lie by a young couple experimenting together.

If Jesus was just another person, then no religion would have been created. But he performed miracles.
If you don't believe that Jesus was the son of God and was an ordinary person, that's fine. I don't care what your religion is.
I believe Jesus is the son of God. I believe he came to deliver us from sin.
I believe Buddha was a wise man, and millions of people believe in him. But I don't discount their religion by referring to him as the big fat dude in a diaper. It's disrespectful. Please have the same respect for Christians.

+1. Please note, Jeff created the religious forum to be a place where religion could be discussed respectfully, and he explicitly asks for it. If you want to be crass, provocative, rude or obnoxious, take it to off-topic.

Who's being disrespectful? I'm sorry if others trying to use logic to explain things is "disrespectful" to you, but if your sensibilities are that delicate, you should probably avoid forums that include a wide variety of positions and viewpoints. That's why there's a cautionary message to try and not be easily offended, when it comes to this forum. Talking about Mary and Joseph having sex, and the union of his sperm and her egg as being a likely logical reason for Jesus's being, isn't "disrespectful" - it's a historical approach to understanding where a baby might come from. If this is "respectfulness" or crass or provocative or obnoxious to you, that's on you. For those that believe in a historical Jesus, Jesus was a mortal born of a human male and female. Really, you think that's provocative? Maybe your faith isn't as strong as you thought it was, if talking about where babies come from is difficult for you.

You're trolling. The question under discussion is what Christians believe about Mary, not "what do atheists believe about Mary."

FYI, not everyone that carries a position contrary to yours, is "trolling."

Believe it or not, many Christians do not believe Jesus was born of a virgin mother. That isn't to say most Christians do, but many feel secure in their faith to not deny a logical possibility. Try not to be so closed minded.

Cites or it didn't happen.

You haven't been talking from a Christian perspective. You've been talking from an atheist perspective about what YOU (as an atheist) believe. No one cares. This isn't a discussion about atheism. Butting into this conversation just to evangelize atheism is as annoying as the Evangelical wingnut who wanted to say what Catholics believe.

Try reading some of the many, many apocryphal texts that weren't canonized in the Bible. There are lots of variations on mainstream Christian theology.

I've read them. Please cite to your evidence.

Don't have any? Didn't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm Catholic and know Mary was an unmarried woman known as a virgin. Why are you people so obsessed with what anyone believes ?

She was married to Joseph. They had other children as well. This was removed from the books to enhance the story. Since she was married and Jesus had older bros it is highly unlikely that she was a virgin.

How do you get from "other children" to "older brothers?" I believe Jesus had brothers, based on the texts, but the evidence is for younger brothers.

Cites, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christians or Catholics? Catholics definitely yes. Can't speak for all Christians.

I thought Catholics were Christian too

They are but they don't like to be called Christians. They are "Catholic".

Educate yourself. I am Catholic and happily call myself a Christian.

I heard this from other Catholics. Glad to hear differently from you.

I am a cradle Catholic. Catholics are Christians, but they often don't use the label "Christian" because in the US that tends to be a label used pretty aggressively by evangelicals. Many Catholics don't want to be confused with evangelicals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Mary married? Why would she be a virgin as a married woman? Or was she supposed to have been impregnated before she was married?

Why would anyone have believed her? If your daughter came to you & said, "Guess what mom, I'm pregnant and it is God's baby not my boyfriend's." Would you believe her?

Just go read the gospels, and then believe them or not as you see fit. This was already explained by a PP.

Not helpful. One poster said unmarried, one eluded to her being married, one said virgin may not mean virgin. I'm on my phone so searching for the gospels is not that easily done right know. Should not be surprised that a request for information is meet with resistance when it comes to religion.

I thought she was married. Wouldn't a married woman have had sex with her husband. Thought the bible encouraged sexual relations in a marriage. Didn't see an answer to the would you believe your daughter.

Mary was betrothed (engaged) to Joseph at the time of conception. Therefore not married, and by belief, a virgin. An angel appeared to Joseph and told him Mary would have the son of God.

Isn't it more likely that Joseph and Mary had some premarital sex. Joseph made up a story that he was visited by an angel to distract scorn, and Mary said she was a virgin? It seems so bizarre to me, to make up an entire religion based in no small part on what was almost certainly a lie by a young couple experimenting together.

If Jesus was just another person, then no religion would have been created. But he performed miracles.
If you don't believe that Jesus was the son of God and was an ordinary person, that's fine. I don't care what your religion is.
I believe Jesus is the son of God. I believe he came to deliver us from sin.
I believe Buddha was a wise man, and millions of people believe in him. But I don't discount their religion by referring to him as the big fat dude in a diaper. It's disrespectful. Please have the same respect for Christians.

+1. Please note, Jeff created the religious forum to be a place where religion could be discussed respectfully, and he explicitly asks for it. If you want to be crass, provocative, rude or obnoxious, take it to off-topic.

Who's being disrespectful? I'm sorry if others trying to use logic to explain things is "disrespectful" to you, but if your sensibilities are that delicate, you should probably avoid forums that include a wide variety of positions and viewpoints. That's why there's a cautionary message to try and not be easily offended, when it comes to this forum. Talking about Mary and Joseph having sex, and the union of his sperm and her egg as being a likely logical reason for Jesus's being, isn't "disrespectful" - it's a historical approach to understanding where a baby might come from. If this is "respectfulness" or crass or provocative or obnoxious to you, that's on you. For those that believe in a historical Jesus, Jesus was a mortal born of a human male and female. Really, you think that's provocative? Maybe your faith isn't as strong as you thought it was, if talking about where babies come from is difficult for you.

You're trolling. The question under discussion is what Christians believe about Mary, not "what do atheists believe about Mary."

FYI, not everyone that carries a position contrary to yours, is "trolling."

Believe it or not, many Christians do not believe Jesus was born of a virgin mother. That isn't to say most Christians do, but many feel secure in their faith to not deny a logical possibility. Try not to be so closed minded.

Cites or it didn't happen.

You haven't been talking from a Christian perspective. You've been talking from an atheist perspective about what YOU (as an atheist) believe. No one cares. This isn't a discussion about atheism. Butting into this conversation just to evangelize atheism is as annoying as the Evangelical wingnut who wanted to say what Catholics believe.

Try reading some of the many, many apocryphal texts that weren't canonized in the Bible. There are lots of variations on mainstream Christian theology.

I've read them. Please cite to your evidence.

Don't have any? Didn't think so.

You've read ALL the apocryphal texts? LOL. I don't think so.

In any case, just check out Matthew. Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, according to the genealogical history presented (which was only done for genetic offspring, not "step" children, adopted, or non blood sons).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm Catholic and know Mary was an unmarried woman known as a virgin. Why are you people so obsessed with what anyone believes ?

She was married to Joseph. They had other children as well. This was removed from the books to enhance the story. Since she was married and Jesus had older bros it is highly unlikely that she was a virgin.

How do you get from "other children" to "older brothers?" I believe Jesus had brothers, based on the texts, but the evidence is for younger brothers.

Cites, please.

Not PP. Jesus had full biological younger siblings, and half biological other siblings via his father Joseph. Joseph was married to Salome, and they were together for 49 years (he is believed to have married her at 40). They had several children. At 90, he married young Mary, and had Jesus (and other children)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm Catholic and know Mary was an unmarried woman known as a virgin. Why are you people so obsessed with what anyone believes ?

Because it is a little scary if people believe these weird things, without thinking them through. If she was a virgin, did Jezus only get her DNA? That is rather revolutionary.

Would be great if we can recreate this: imagine all the possibilities this would open up to infertile couples? No donor-sperm needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm Catholic and know Mary was an unmarried woman known as a virgin. Why are you people so obsessed with what anyone believes ?

Because it is a little scary if people believe these weird things, without thinking them through. If she was a virgin, did Jezus only get her DNA? That is rather revolutionary.

Would be great if we can recreate this: imagine all the possibilities this would open up to infertile couples? No donor-sperm needed.

Of all the "weird things" Christians believe, the virgin birth really doesn't strike me as high up there. If you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the universe and did all the other things in the Bible, your problems with Christianity start way earlier than the Nativity story. Considering what we know about artificial insemination, the virgin birth is more plausible than we one believed it was. We know you don't need "sex" to produce a child, you need egg and a sperm. Who says that Jesus didn't have God's dna?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm Catholic and know Mary was an unmarried woman known as a virgin. Why are you people so obsessed with what anyone believes ?

Because it is a little scary if people believe these weird things, without thinking them through. If she was a virgin, did Jezus only get her DNA? That is rather revolutionary.

Would be great if we can recreate this: imagine all the possibilities this would open up to infertile couples? No donor-sperm needed.

From a genetics standpoint, I'd be interested in figuring out what Jesus's DNA is made of. Does the "father" (god) have DNA? Isn't Jesus technically also god, so does he have 100% of God's DNA, and none of Mary's? Or does he have 100% of Mary's, and none of God's? Where did he get his Y chromosome from? Does he have half human DNA (from Mary), and half something else? Muslims don't believe Jesus was god but they do believe in the immaculate conception - so where did Jesus's other genetic half come from?

I'm not Christian or Muslim (though I was raised Muslim) or some smaller branch religion, so I obviously don't believe in Jesus being divinely inspired (as a god or prophet), nor do I believe in immaculate conception or Mary's virginity when it comes to conceiving Jesus. But from a religious standpoint, I'd be curious how Christians, Muslims, or other smaller groups explain the genetic background of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Somewhat related:

Virgin births claimed by nearly 1 per cent of American women

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//life/health-and-fitness/health/virgin-births-claimed-by-nearly-1-per-cent-of-american-women-studied/article16022966/?cmpid=rss1&click=dlvr.it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Mary married? Why would she be a virgin as a married woman? Or was she supposed to have been impregnated before she was married?

Why would anyone have believed her? If your daughter came to you & said, "Guess what mom, I'm pregnant and it is God's baby not my boyfriend's." Would you believe her?

Just go read the gospels, and then believe them or not as you see fit. This was already explained by a PP.

Not helpful. One poster said unmarried, one eluded to her being married, one said virgin may not mean virgin. I'm on my phone so searching for the gospels is not that easily done right know. Should not be surprised that a request for information is meet with resistance when it comes to religion.

I thought she was married. Wouldn't a married woman have had sex with her husband. Thought the bible encouraged sexual relations in a marriage. Didn't see an answer to the would you believe your daughter.

Mary was betrothed (engaged) to Joseph at the time of conception. Therefore not married, and by belief, a virgin. An angel appeared to Joseph and told him Mary would have the son of God.

Isn't it more likely that Joseph and Mary had some premarital sex. Joseph made up a story that he was visited by an angel to distract scorn, and Mary said she was a virgin? It seems so bizarre to me, to make up an entire religion based in no small part on what was almost certainly a lie by a young couple experimenting together.

If Jesus was just another person, then no religion would have been created. But he performed miracles.
If you don't believe that Jesus was the son of God and was an ordinary person, that's fine. I don't care what your religion is.
I believe Jesus is the son of God. I believe he came to deliver us from sin.
I believe Buddha was a wise man, and millions of people believe in him. But I don't discount their religion by referring to him as the big fat dude in a diaper. It's disrespectful. Please have the same respect for Christians.

+1. Please note, Jeff created the religious forum to be a place where religion could be discussed respectfully, and he explicitly asks for it. If you want to be crass, provocative, rude or obnoxious, take it to off-topic.

Who's being disrespectful? I'm sorry if others trying to use logic to explain things is "disrespectful" to you, but if your sensibilities are that delicate, you should probably avoid forums that include a wide variety of positions and viewpoints. That's why there's a cautionary message to try and not be easily offended, when it comes to this forum. Talking about Mary and Joseph having sex, and the union of his sperm and her egg as being a likely logical reason for Jesus's being, isn't "disrespectful" - it's a historical approach to understanding where a baby might come from. If this is "respectfulness" or crass or provocative or obnoxious to you, that's on you. For those that believe in a historical Jesus, Jesus was a mortal born of a human male and female. Really, you think that's provocative? Maybe your faith isn't as strong as you thought it was, if talking about where babies come from is difficult for you.

You're trolling. The question under discussion is what Christians believe about Mary, not "what do atheists believe about Mary."

FYI, not everyone that carries a position contrary to yours, is "trolling."

Believe it or not, many Christians do not believe Jesus was born of a virgin mother. That isn't to say most Christians do, but many feel secure in their faith to not deny a logical possibility. Try not to be so closed minded.

Cites or it didn't happen.

You haven't been talking from a Christian perspective. You've been talking from an atheist perspective about what YOU (as an atheist) believe. No one cares. This isn't a discussion about atheism. Butting into this conversation just to evangelize atheism is as annoying as the Evangelical wingnut who wanted to say what Catholics believe.

Try reading some of the many, many apocryphal texts that weren't canonized in the Bible. There are lots of variations on mainstream Christian theology.

I've read them. Please cite to your evidence.

Don't have any? Didn't think so.

You've read ALL the apocryphal texts? LOL. I don't think so.

In any case, just check out Matthew. Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, according to the genealogical history presented (which was only done for genetic offspring, not "step" children, adopted, or non blood sons).

I've read a lot of them.

Clearly, you haven't read any because you can't provide cites.

The problem with interpreting Matthew as saying Jesus was the son of Jospeh is that Matthew specifically says that Mary was with child by way of the Holy Ghost. See Matthew 1:18-25.

You're just trolling.