Question about Mary and Joseph

I was raised Catholic but my parents avoided the whole sex talk completely so we never really discussed the possibilities of 'Mother Mary' having sex I think the official view is that she died a virgin, but it seems kinda odd since in Catholic church they kinda push people to get a lot of kids (at least in the old days).. so that would mean that Mary and Joseph were a pretty lousy family with only one kid. Anyways.. my mom is kinda liberal and doesn't like rigid Roman Catholic church all that much so I'm sure she has her own views on the whole virginity thing.. and if you don't mind I'm not gonna debate it with her or my dad

I'm not a Catholic or a Christian myself anymore so I guess my views on this don't really matter anymore.. but yeah, seeing what is written in the Bible and what was thought of as 'good family life', as well as the natural ways between males and females I'd say heck yeah, they had sex and probably kids as well.

 

some christians believe amry died a virgin,but i dont believe this jesus did have brothers and sisters,and if jesus is the only son of god,id be right in saying that she did not die a virgin

 

the ancient church believed that those "brothers" were from Joseph, who according to Apostolic Tradition, was a widow and had other children by the time he was "betrothed" to Mary. this has been mentioned before, but thought I'd mention it again for arlia . The thing is if you believe that Jesus was God, can you imagine yourself as Joseph, having sex with the womb that bore the diety? I am saying this as a hypothetical. I don't believe this stuff per se, but it is interesting.

 

couln't He have brothers who were son of man by Joseph?

 

I was also thinking about Thomas, isn't he supposed to be a brother of Jesus? I'm not sure though... Might have something to do with his 'last name', Didimus, meaning twin.

 

& per the mainstream christian "virgin birth" scenario:
the hebrew word "almah" means "a young woman" (of israel shall bear a son and shall name him emmanual (which means "god is with us"))...
the greek word "parthenos" meant (at one time) a woman who spoke for herself (& thus required no man to be her legal representative)...
(cf the biological term "parthenogenic")

a god-man, born of a virgin, is a much more common motif in the pagan mythos than in hebrew traditions, mmmmmm?

oh, and that dead-sea scroll scholar dr shonfield (author of _the passover plot_) suggeted that the "joseph of arimethea" who supplied the tomb where the body of jesus lay after his crucifixion was in fact the father of jesus, the husband of mary...

 

Many people believe that Juda Thomas "Didymus" was either the twin of Mathew, or the word "didymus" was used to distinguish between Juda Thomas and Judas Iscariot, which were apparently confused from time to time in the early church. something like that.

Also, if he were Jesus' twin, don't you think that would have been mentioned in the nativity narrations in the gospels?

Again, I don't take all this too seriously. My beliefs and salvation are not hinged on Mary's perpetual virginity. I just find it an interesting topic.

 

Haha, meaning the marriage wasn't consummated till after the birth, if ever. Jesus was a bastard!

Um, but seriously though. First, who is to say Mary was Joseph's only wife? Polygamy existed in those days, was quite common. Maybe she is a later wife, and Joseph already had kids with his other wives. I doubt there is any scriptural evidence for it, but really, most of this thread is conjecture anyways, so I thought I'd toss that idea into the mix.

Funny thing is, if Jesus actually was of the line of David, Mary couldn't be a virgin, since the lind of David came through Joseph. For that prophesy to be fulfilled and for Jesus to be the messiah, Joseph would have to be the legitimate father. If Mary was a virgin, clearly Jesus wasn't of the line of David and thus couldn't be the Messiah.

Also interesting, and possibly supporting the polygamy idea. If Joseph WAS descended from King David, shouldn't he have had a lot of money? I mean, he's royalty, right? At least he was no mere carpenter, maybe a master artisan doing work for the upper classes and living large himself. And, people with lots of money back then had multiple wives, because they could afford it.

 

I found an interesting article about the virgin birth:

Beliefs of liberal Christian theologians and faith groups:
Religious liberals tend to approach passages in the Bible differently than do conservatives. Liberals do not view the Bible as inerrant; rather they consider the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) to be written by creative authors, often promoting the specific beliefs of their branch of the Christian movement. Liberals study verses in the light of non-Biblical Jewish and Christian writings, the culture of the time, the beliefs of surrounding Pagan societies, the evolving beliefs of the various Jesus movements, etc. Most liberals do not believe in the doctrine of the virgin birth. This is not a recent development, as evidenced by the 1823 quote by Thomas Jefferson at the top of this topic's menu: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." 1

Some common observations by religious liberals are:

St. Paul was Unaware of the Virgin Birth St. Paul does not mention the virgin birth anywhere in his writings. It would seem reasonable to assume that if Paul had known of the special conditions of Jesus' birth that he would have mentioned them in one of his epistles. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: he seems to have thought that the birth was natural and conventional: Between 49 and 55 CE, he recorded the first known reference to Jesus' birth. In Galatians 4:4, he writes:
"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law."

If he had been aware of the virgin birth, he would have undoubtedly replaced "woman" with "virgin", or made some other change to show that the birth was miraculous. This passage was written some 45 years before the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, and 55 to 62 years after Jesus' birth.

In about 57 CE, he wrote his only other reference to Jesus' birth. In Romans 1:1-3 he writes:
"I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

The phrase "of the seed of David" strongly indicates that Paul believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph, because Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy from David to Joseph. The phrase "according to the flesh" implies a natural, normal conception and birth.


The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable: Livy, a famous Roman historian, had written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely circulated in the first decades of the 1st century CE. In it, he explained that Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the original founders of the city of Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin. 2 Some Christian groups may have slightly modified this fable and adopted it as their own, in an attempt to show that Jesus was a person of very great importance -- an individual at least as important as the founders of Rome.
The virgin birth may have been copied from another religion 3 History records that: Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.
The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.
In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.
A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.
In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death.
The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus." 4
In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. An alternate myth is that he emerged from a rock.
Also in Persia, Zoroaster was also born of a virgin.
In India, there are two main stories of the birth of Krishna, one of the incarnations of Vishnu, and the second person within the Hindu Trinity. In one story, Krishna was said to have been born to his mother Devaki while she was still a virgin. In the other, he had a normal conception and birth.
Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.
One source 5 is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have: been male.
lived in pre-Christian times.
had a god for a father.
human virgin for a mother.
had their birth announced by a heavenly display.
had their birth announced by celestial music.
been born about DEC-25.
had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant
met with a violent death.
rose again from the dead.

Almost all were believed to have:

been visited by "wise men" during infancy.
fasted for 40 days as an adult.


Some historians and liberal theologians believe that many of the elements of Jesus' life were derived from the beliefs that earlier Pagan religions had about their gods.

However, there are two types of virgin births found in the world's religions. One type, as in the conception and birth of Jesus and Buddha, involves the Holy Spirit inducing the pregnancy in a virgin without engaging in intercourse. The other type involves an actual physical God interacting with a virgin in some way.

The virgin birth story was inspired by the Hebrew Scriptures: Throughout the Old Testament, we hear of the very unusual births 6 of Ishmael, Isaac, Samson and Samuel. Usually prior to the birth, an angel appears to an individual; the latter is afraid; the message of an upcoming birth is given; objections are raised; and a sign is given. Matthew and Luke could have replicated the essence of these stories, and added a virgin birth as proof that Jesus' birth was not only unusual, but was a miracle. This would establish Jesus at a much higher status than the four famous figures from the Hebrew Scriptures. Without a miraculous birth, Jesus might have been considered to be lower in stature to those heroes from the Hebrew Scriptures.
The virgin birth story was an honest mistake: Most liberal theologians believe that the author of the Gospel of Matthew (or someone who supplied the writer with source material) scanned an unknown ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. He found what he believed to be a reference to Jesus' birth. It was in Isaiah 7:14 (listed above). This has since become a famous passage; it is often recited at Christmas time. He simply copied it into Matthew (1:23) as a method of showing that prophecies in the Hebrew Testament were fulfilled in Jesus' life.
As it happens, the Greek translators had made a mistake. When they were translating the Hebrew writings into the Greek Septuagint and similar translations, they converted the Hebrew word "almah" as the Greek equivalent of our English word for virgin. "Almah" appears 9 other times in the Hebrew Scriptures; in each case it means "young woman". When the scriptures referred to a virgin (and they do over 50 times) they always used the Hebrew word "betulah". 7 So, Isaiah appears to have referred to a young woman becoming pregnant (a rather ordinary event).

Some English translators are accurate to the original Hebrew:

Revised English Bible: "...a young woman is with child..."
Revised Standard Version: "...a young woman shall conceive..."
James Moffatt Translation: "...a young woman with child..."
New Revised Standard Version: "...the young woman is with child..."

Other translations completely mistranslated the Hebrew and referred to the woman as both pregnant and a virgin; that is, a miracle had occurred. This avoids the conflict that would otherwise occur between Isaiah and Matthew 1:22-23. (The author of Matthew quoted Isaiah as describing a virgin who was pregnant before becoming sexually active):

New International Version: "...the virgin will be with child..."
The Living Bible: "...a child shall be born to a virgin..."
Contemporary English Version: "...a virgin is pregnant...". In a footnote, they say that the "Hebrew word did not imply a virgin birth". They give "young woman" as an alternate.

Other translations went part way. They mistranslated the Hebrew and said that the woman had been a virgin. However, they imply that the woman might have been a virgin, who engaged in sexual intercourse and then became pregnant:

American Standard Version: "...a virgin shall conceive..."
Amplified Bible: "...the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive..."
King James Version: "...a virgin shall conceive..."
New Living Translation: "...the virgin shall conceive a child..."
New Century Version: "...the virgin will be pregnant...". They also admit in a footnote that the original Hebrew word really means "a young woman".

Some versions are vague and can be interpreted in many ways:

New World Translation: "...the maiden herself will actually become pregnant..."
The Jerusalem Bible: "...the maiden is with child..."
Young's Literal Translation: "...the virgin is conceiving"

The birth being discussed in Isaiah 7:14 appears to be unrelated to Jesus. It describes the Syro-Ephraimite invasion of Judah and the siege of Jerusalem about 735 BCE. The child that was born to the young woman at the time was a sign from God that the siege would be lifted and that Jerusalem would continue as before. The prophecy was presumably completely fulfilled more than 700 years before the birth of Jesus. For King Ahaz circa 735 BCE, "the birth of the Messiah some seven hundred years later would have been of little consolation!" 8 For another analysis of this passage, see Reference 9.

The Writers of the Gospel of Q are Silent on the Virgin Birth: The Gospel of Q was an early gospel, which was written about 50 CE and later expanded. No copies have survived, but the original text has been pieced together through theological research. It says nothing about the virgin birth. This is a possible indicator that the early followers of Jesus did not hold that belief. If they knew of such an important miracle, they would probably have included some mention of it.
The Writer(s) of the Gospel of John imply a normal Birth: Some liberals believe that the Gospel of John was written by a group of authors. The writer(s) did not mention the virgin birth. They must have aware of the belief, since the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke would have been widely circulated for 5 to 15 years by the time that the Gospel of John was written. They seem to have rejected it as being a false teaching. In John 1:45 they refer to Jesus specifically as "the son of Joseph." John 6:42 has the townspeople: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" If the author(s) believed in the miracle of the virgin birth, he/they would undoubtedly have mentioned it somewhere in the gospel.
The Writer(s) of the Gospel of Thomas is Silent: Many theologians believe that this Gospel was originally written about the same time as Mark, about 70 CE. It was in wide use among various Christian communities at the time, but never made it into the official canon. It is also silent about any miracles associated with Jesus' birth. However, its silence is not proof that the virgin birth was unknown to the author(s). Thomas is a "sayings gospel" which deals primarily with the parables and conversations of Jesus.
The Improbability of a Virgin Birth: Some animal species can reproduce from an unfertilized ovum, in a process called parthenogenesis. The Webster's New World Dictionary mentions that this occurs in certain insects and algae. Although "it is the rule among rotifers and quite common in plants and insect, it does not appear above the plane of the amphibians." 1 A virgin birth is considered impossible for species as complex as the higher apes or man. An additional complexity would be that Jesus would have been female, since he would lack the Y chromosome normally contributed by a human father. However, there are at least two methods by which a virgin conception could have been produced. Researchers are currently experimenting with various medical cloning techniques. One involves taking the ovum from a mammal, removing its DNA, injecting the DNA from the cell of another animal of the same species and successfully inducing a pregnancy. Since God is normally conceived of as omnipotent, then he could have followed the same procedure with an ovum from Mary and a piece of DNA that he created or borrowed from a male human. Alternately, God could have created a single human sperm and caused the conception directly.
The possibility of conception without sexual intercourse: Joseph and Mary could have engaged in sexual activity short of actual sexual intercourse. Even without actual penetration, it is possible for a small amount of semen to be released and cause conception. We recalled reading that in 1st century Galilee, it was commonly for couples to live together and engage in sexual activity and intercourse before marriage. When a child was born to the couple, they got married. This might have happened to Joseph and Mary. Unfortunately, we have been unable to relocate the reference about 1st century customs in that area.

In conclusion the most likely scenario, as interpreted by many liberal Christians is:

The writer(s) of the Gospel of Q, circa 50 CE, seem to have been unaware of the virgin birth.
Paul (who was executed about 64 CE) was similarly unaware.
The writer of the Gospel of Mark, circa 70 CE hadn't heard of it either.
If any of the above writers knew of a virgin birth, they would almost certainly have realized that it was a miraculous event and would have incorporated it into their writings.
Sometime between 70 and 90 CE, a myth of the virgin birth was invented, probably to strengthen the authority of Jesus' teachings by claiming that his birth was miraculous. This was a time of great change, as the Roman Army had demolished Jerusalem and its temples and scattered many of the Jews throughout the Roman empire. There, they would come into contact with many stories of virgin births of various politicians and deities from Pagan religions. In fact, it would have been unusual if the developing story of Jesus' birth did not include many of the features found in mythical figures of other religions.
By the 90's, the belief was widespread. The authors of Luke and Matthew incorporated it into their Gospels.
The writer(s) of the Gospel of John likely knew of the story, but rejected it as being a false teaching that was not believed by his faith group within Christianity.

As J.S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ, wrote:

"In time, the virgin birth account will join Adam and Eve and the story of the cosmic ascension as clearly recognized mythological elements in our faith tradition whose purpose was not to describe a literal event but to capture the transcendent dimensions of God in the earthbound words and concepts of first-century human beings." 7

 

Very interesting.. didn't know that (the first) buddha (Sidharta Gautama) was believed to be of virgine birth? He was a normal human, although a rich prince.. hm.. gotta look into that.

And yeah.. I've read that the more original Bibletexts don't mention anything or a lot about the virgin birth.. it has probably been a way of the Church to incorporate heathen believes, as they did with LOT's of stuff (holy trinity, a lot of rituals, holidays, etc). Kinda like.. if you can't beat them, make it so they will join you And for the heathen godforsaken bastards that still won't listen: burn them

 

sorry for going slightly offtopic, butL the trinity a way of getting the attention of pagans?

 

no.. not of getting their attention.. or.. not only for that.. but completely taking over a pagan/heathen concept.. here.. read this: http://www.answering-christianity.com/at.htm

(and try to look past the horrible fonts and colors.. hehe)

 

Just browsing the web on the whole trinity stuff.. lots of info their.. and not surprisingly (as always with religion) kinda contradicting.. but there is a point that in the OT there is only mentioning of the One True God.. where does the whole trinity thing really come from? Interesting and complicated.

By the way.. with 'pagans' I ment 'heathens' in general.. although there seem to be little religions that carry a threefold diety.. wicca and other nature based believes usually use only two: the male and female. This does explain the whole Virgin Mary stuff of the Catholic (and early) Church though, because the heathens probably weren't too interested in having only one divine form, the male. So the Church embrassed Mother Mary as divine, since God chose her to give birth to his Son ..

etc.

 

I think the whole glorification of Mary thing came from a lot of different things. Sure the ancient Roman world was used to the Egyptian images of Isis with son, etc. Some of this may have made it easier to express with similar theological language. Some of it probably came from the diefication of Jesus. If Jesus was God, what does that make his mother? There were two eccumenical councils that dealt with this issue in the 5th C. Some people tried to split up or divide the human and divine natures of Christ to get around it. This guy Nestorius, bishop of constantinople (410?) believed that only the human Christ walked the Earth, so Mary could only be called "Christotokos" (Mother of Christ) and not "Theotokos" (Mother of God). A little latter this other dude, Euchytes, bishop of alexandria (450s?), believed that Jesus was entirely divine, or at least that his divine nature absorbed his human one. The mainstream churches found a comprimise saying that he had both human and divine natures, each one perfectly preserved, etc. The name Theotokos was preseved for Mary.

 

there have been suggestions that much of the "mariolatry" in europe did not occur historically until after the muslims broached europe (say, from the time of the battle of tours, tho' there were many different forays into the european contintent by muslims (& not all of them military, mmmkay?)prior to & following that "great victory for christendom") - this due supposedly to euro christians coming into contact with muslims who were into the "cult of fatima" (muhammed's daughter) & much of the following explosion of the various euro lodges, occult brotherhoods, & mystery schools was due to influences from sufi orders & dervish circles...
(in spain & portugal, the muslims just sorta took over the southern part of the iberian peninsula & ran it as a caliphate for several centuries (until 1492, when the last of the moors & jews were finally expelled)- so not all encounters were warlike...)


ur sumfin like dat, eh?

 

oh, and that dead-sea scroll scholar dr shonfield (author of _the passover plot_) suggeted that the "joseph of arimethea" who supplied the tomb where the body of jesus lay after his crucifixion was in fact the father of jesus, the husband of mary... gnrm23


Lucy_In_The_SkyI was also thinking about Thomas, isn't he supposed to be a brother of Jesus? I'm not sure though... Might have something to do with his 'last name', Didimus, meaning twin.


These are my conclusions too. It wraps up lots of loose ends.

Thomas means twin too.....and some paintings of the nativity in Orthodox churches show two babies, one in each parents arms. Also, in those days, identical twins would be a very unusual and miraculous event. And, finally, it is an Islamic belief that Jesus did not die on the cross, becuz another was made to look like him and went in his place. Guess who they think that other is? Thomas. It is by no means certain, but I think it fits well.

 

Ohww... I feel pity for Thomas if that's true.. imagine having a brother who is seen as the saviour and has followers (think Life of Brian) and all.. and you have to put up with that every day and eventually get killed because of him, in one of the most painfull ways?

Sheesh.. *holds a moment of silence*..

 

Most of these examples do indicate a change in condition.

This is not really comparable to the gospel passage in question. Here, "until" refers to the time the account was written. Mt. 1:18 & 1:25 are written in the past tense, indicating that Mary and Joseph did in fact have relations.

Something obviously changed on the day of her death; the possibility of having kids ceased forever.

I don't know this passage. I don't consider it biblical and can't comment on it.

This passage implies a time of solitude in the desert, which clearly changed at the start of his prophetic ministry.

Meaning: if he doesn't come soon, the child will die. Sounds like a change in condition.

See my comment on the Dt. passage.

See v. 24 & 28.

Again, there's clearly a change implied; they will receive further instruction when Paul arrives.

When Jesus comes, obedience will no longer be a struggle.

 

You don't know anything about the Catholic canon? Hmm.. so.. basically.. you're not looking further than everything that your Bible tells you? How do you expect to use good arguments when you don't even know the 'other' Bible? You know, the one that was used for a very long time untill the protestants decided to cut some things out?

Kinda narrowminded, if you don't mind me saying so.. you don't have to believe it or acknowledge it.. but some common knowledge about the (other versions of the Christian) Bible would be nice..

 

Liberal "Christianity" is thankfully in its death throes; it has nothing to offer:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/spong.html