Do Christians really believe Mary was a virgin?

[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:

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.

Here's the thing about crying "troll" - it's like farting. S/he who first called it, is probably the culprit.

Whether you want to think that the Matthew genealogy is basically false, is up to you. The bible is riddled with inconsistencies, so you're free to pick and choose which ones you believe, and which ones you don't. Or you can reconcile them any way you want. But according to the Bible, Jesus is Joseph's biological son. That's pretty clearly spelled out. If you want to ignore it, you can--but it's still in there.

[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:

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.

Here's the thing about crying "troll" - it's like farting. S/he who first called it, is probably the culprit.

Whether you want to think that the Matthew genealogy is basically false, is up to you. The bible is riddled with inconsistencies, so you're free to pick and choose which ones you believe, and which ones you don't. Or you can reconcile them any way you want. But according to the Bible, Jesus is Joseph's biological son. That's pretty clearly spelled out. If you want to ignore it, you can--but it's still in there.

I take it back. You're not a troll. You're just stupid. The Bible has lots of inconsistencies between texts, but we're talking about what a specific single text says. You insist that Matthew says that Jesus is Joseph's biological son because it includes the geneology. You are drawing an inference based on the text. I pointed you to the exact passage where Matthew says explicitly the exact opposite.

Between an inference and explicit statement, the correct way to interpret meaning is to go with the explicit statement.

Dude, you're a fucking idiot. Did you graduate high school?

[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:

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.

Here's the thing about crying "troll" - it's like farting. S/he who first called it, is probably the culprit.

Whether you want to think that the Matthew genealogy is basically false, is up to you. The bible is riddled with inconsistencies, so you're free to pick and choose which ones you believe, and which ones you don't. Or you can reconcile them any way you want. But according to the Bible, Jesus is Joseph's biological son. That's pretty clearly spelled out. If you want to ignore it, you can--but it's still in there.

I take it back. You're not a troll. You're just stupid. The Bible has lots of inconsistencies between texts, but we're talking about what a specific single text says. You insist that Matthew says that Jesus is Joseph's biological son because it includes the geneology. You are drawing an inference based on the text. I pointed you to the exact passage where Matthew says explicitly the exact opposite.

Between an inference and explicit statement, the correct way to interpret meaning is to go with the explicit statement.

Dude, you're a fucking idiot. Did you graduate high school?

Wow you're really angry. It kind of sucks for you to react that irrationally upset when someone points out your own faith to you. That's very telling.

May you one day reconcile the issues you're dealing with.

[Anonymous]

Are you Catholic? Then you're obligated to believe that Mary remained physically a virgin "before, during, and after childbirth."

Some weird shit there.

[Anonymous]

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you Catholic? Then you're obligated to believe that Mary remained physically a virgin "before, during, and after childbirth."

Some weird shit there.

I don't know why that is so hard to believe ... most posters in the Relationship threads are married to spouses that are virgins during and after childbirth.

Lighten up Francis ... It's Christmas time.

[Anonymous]

Someone explain to me why it is necessary to challenge/correct another man's personal beliefs with regards to religion.

I mean if you wake and walk outside and see what you believe to be a bright blue sky that makes you smile, why do you feel it necessary to oppose and object to your neighbor's belief that it is a bright orange sky?

Your smiling...
He's smiling...
What difference does it make if the sky is blue or orange - and how can you prove/disprove what color the sky is?
You see what you see.
He sees what he sees.
What's wrong with that?

I figure as long as people treat each other with compassion and respect - who gives a shit what color the sky is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

So the onus is on him to prove that a person was not conceived by an angel? This is the exact reason why I am not catholic anymore. The answer to every question is "you must have faith".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone explain to me why it is necessary to challenge/correct another man's personal beliefs with regards to religion.

I mean if you wake and walk outside and see what you believe to be a bright blue sky that makes you smile, why do you feel it necessary to oppose and object to your neighbor's belief that it is a bright orange sky?

[...]

I figure as long as people treat each other with compassion and respect - who gives a shit what color the sky is.

The problem with people believing irrational things is three-fold.

One: often beliefs have consequences. Whether is it female circumcision, believe in the rapture, drinking poisonous cool-aid or otherwise, many beliefs are actually harmful to the believers and society as a whole.
Two: they often poison children's minds. Children of people with irrational beliefs have no protection, no rationality to defend themselves, and will start believing in these seems irrational beliefs.
Third: almost all religions state that "belief" or "faith" by itself is a virtue: it is morally good to "just belief in the Bible". That is actually a harmful thing since blind faith is the opposite of the inquisitive mindset that is required for a scientific worldview. Blind faith cannot be reasoned with, not be argued with.

[Anonymous]

Most episcopalians whom I know well think and believe in metaphors, and accept the books of the Bible as products of their time, place and people, and not as literal texts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

So the onus is on him to prove that a person was not conceived by an angel? This is the exact reason why I am not catholic anymore. The answer to every question is "you must have faith".

I don't think you were a very good Catholic if you thought Jesus was conceived by an angel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone explain to me why it is necessary to challenge/correct another man's personal beliefs with regards to religion.

I mean if you wake and walk outside and see what you believe to be a bright blue sky that makes you smile, why do you feel it necessary to oppose and object to your neighbor's belief that it is a bright orange sky?

[...]

I figure as long as people treat each other with compassion and respect - who gives a shit what color the sky is.

The problem with people believing irrational things is three-fold.

One: often beliefs have consequences. Whether is it female circumcision, believe in the rapture, drinking poisonous cool-aid or otherwise, many beliefs are actually harmful to the believers and society as a whole.
Two: they often poison children's minds. Children of people with irrational beliefs have no protection, no rationality to defend themselves, and will start believing in these seems irrational beliefs.
Third: almost all religions state that "belief" or "faith" by itself is a virtue: it is morally good to "just belief in the Bible". That is actually a harmful thing since blind faith is the opposite of the inquisitive mindset that is required for a scientific worldview. Blind faith cannot be reasoned with, not be argued with.

Ok, it's pretty obvious how female circumcision is harmful, but how is believing in the Virgin birth harmful? Your argument is basically "I don't believe in this, therefore it is harmful" stated three different ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most episcopalians whom I know well think and believe in metaphors, and accept the books of the Bible as products of their time, place and people, and not as literal texts.

So do most modern Catholics, including me.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, to go along with 22:04 & 22:39, I would not assume everyone who identifies as Christian wholeheartedly accepts every word of Christian doctrine. Some denominations discourage skepticism, while others happily engage with it. Some people belong to a church for social, cultural, or other reasons that are more important to them than the specifics of doctrine. I'd wager just about every individual who identifies as Christian "really believes" something different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think you were a very good Catholic if you thought Jesus was conceived by an angel.

Do you know what it means? Why don't you explain it to us then. Explain what "immaculate" refers to and what "virgin" refers to because my catechism taught me about Gabriel and the Holy Spirit. Most Catholics have NO idea what the Church actually teaches and most nuns have very little ability to deliver the message. So please, enlighten us with your "good" catholic knowledge.