Mary is not a virgin by the Bible accounts
September 18, 2016 at 5:42 am
(This post was last modified: September 18, 2016 at 5:47 am by Fake Messiah.)
So, which Christian denominations believe Jesus was born in a virgin birth by woman called Mary who remained virgin trough her life? Is it just Catholics?
Question is why when it seems the Bible does not support that. For starters virgin birth is completely outside the Jewish tradition and is not demanded by any of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah.
Out of all gospel writers only Matthew insists that Mary was a virgin, at least sometimes. So he writes:
Matthew 1:20. . . , But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
Reason only Matthew insist on virgin conception is because of passage in the Old Testament:
Isaiah 7:14 : Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
But in original Hebrew the word so translated is almah and this is actually used to refer to a young woman who might or might not be a virgin. The Hebrew language has a specific word (bethulah) for "virgin" but that is not used here. Even trough history Jews were not allowed to translate that word in their own Jewish Bibles on other languages in countries where they lived because they would get in trouble with the Inquisition. Of course it has led early translations of the Bible, including the King James Version, to make use of the word "virgin" in the Isaiah passage as well.
Matthew being Greek he knew versions of the Bible used the Greek word for "virgin" in the Isaiah quotation and it is quite possible that Matthew followed the Greek version rather than the Hebrew version in supporting the virgin birth, and that he did not deliberately misquote.
Other impulse to making her a virgin was at the time Roman historian Livy had written a history of Rome that proved enormously popular. There he wrote that Romulus and Remus were born of Silvia, who was a Vestal Virgin whose children were fathered by Mars. So there might have been the impulse to feel that if a virgin birth could be used to exalt the founders of the pagan city of Rome, how much more could one rightly be used to exalt the founding of the
kingdom of God.
Then genealogy of Jesus which goes according to Matthew: 1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
[...]
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
[...]
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
Matthew's emphasis on the virgin birth would seem to negate emphasis on the Davidic genealogy of Jesus. He shows that Joseph, the husband of Mary, was a descendant of David, but then goes on to show that this same Joseph was not the father of Jesus.
Jesus' bros and sises
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?
So yes if you read this you could easily come to conclusion that "historic Jesus" was the member of a large family, and that Joseph and Mary had five sons and several daughters. But Catholics usually defend Mary's perpetual virginity by saying that those might be kids from Joseph's earlier marriage, but then they would be half-brothers and half-sisters. Not to mention no such earlier marriage of Joseph is mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
Also Matthew himself indicated that Joseph and Mary indeed had sex, although not neccecerly before Jesus' birth:
Matthew 1:25. And [Josieph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn sons and he called his name Jesus.
There is nothing in this verse which would force us to believe that Joseph had no relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus, and that Mary might not have home a number of children in the normal manner who would then have been younger brothers and sisters to Jesus. One might even argue that a firstbon son implies at least a second-born son and possibly others. It would have been easy to say "only son" or even "only child" if Mary had had no more children.
And also Matthew mentions Mary with her children at the cross:
Matthew 27:56. Among which was . . Mary the mother of James and Joses...
Here we have a James and Joses who are the sons of Mary. Remember James and Joses were mentioned earlier as Jesus' brothers.
Mary wants to put him away
Matthew 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother?
Mark about the same event: Mark 3:21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
Mark makes no mention of Jesus' virgin birth or of the miracles attendant thereon, so he has no reason to suppose that Jesus' mother and brethren should more readily have faith in him than anyone else.
Question is why when it seems the Bible does not support that. For starters virgin birth is completely outside the Jewish tradition and is not demanded by any of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah.
Out of all gospel writers only Matthew insists that Mary was a virgin, at least sometimes. So he writes:
Matthew 1:20. . . , But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
Reason only Matthew insist on virgin conception is because of passage in the Old Testament:
Isaiah 7:14 : Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
But in original Hebrew the word so translated is almah and this is actually used to refer to a young woman who might or might not be a virgin. The Hebrew language has a specific word (bethulah) for "virgin" but that is not used here. Even trough history Jews were not allowed to translate that word in their own Jewish Bibles on other languages in countries where they lived because they would get in trouble with the Inquisition. Of course it has led early translations of the Bible, including the King James Version, to make use of the word "virgin" in the Isaiah passage as well.
Matthew being Greek he knew versions of the Bible used the Greek word for "virgin" in the Isaiah quotation and it is quite possible that Matthew followed the Greek version rather than the Hebrew version in supporting the virgin birth, and that he did not deliberately misquote.
Other impulse to making her a virgin was at the time Roman historian Livy had written a history of Rome that proved enormously popular. There he wrote that Romulus and Remus were born of Silvia, who was a Vestal Virgin whose children were fathered by Mars. So there might have been the impulse to feel that if a virgin birth could be used to exalt the founders of the pagan city of Rome, how much more could one rightly be used to exalt the founding of the
kingdom of God.
Then genealogy of Jesus which goes according to Matthew: 1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
[...]
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
[...]
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
Matthew's emphasis on the virgin birth would seem to negate emphasis on the Davidic genealogy of Jesus. He shows that Joseph, the husband of Mary, was a descendant of David, but then goes on to show that this same Joseph was not the father of Jesus.
Jesus' bros and sises
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?
So yes if you read this you could easily come to conclusion that "historic Jesus" was the member of a large family, and that Joseph and Mary had five sons and several daughters. But Catholics usually defend Mary's perpetual virginity by saying that those might be kids from Joseph's earlier marriage, but then they would be half-brothers and half-sisters. Not to mention no such earlier marriage of Joseph is mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
Also Matthew himself indicated that Joseph and Mary indeed had sex, although not neccecerly before Jesus' birth:
Matthew 1:25. And [Josieph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn sons and he called his name Jesus.
There is nothing in this verse which would force us to believe that Joseph had no relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus, and that Mary might not have home a number of children in the normal manner who would then have been younger brothers and sisters to Jesus. One might even argue that a firstbon son implies at least a second-born son and possibly others. It would have been easy to say "only son" or even "only child" if Mary had had no more children.
And also Matthew mentions Mary with her children at the cross:
Matthew 27:56. Among which was . . Mary the mother of James and Joses...
Here we have a James and Joses who are the sons of Mary. Remember James and Joses were mentioned earlier as Jesus' brothers.
Mary wants to put him away
Matthew 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother?
Mark about the same event: Mark 3:21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
Mark makes no mention of Jesus' virgin birth or of the miracles attendant thereon, so he has no reason to suppose that Jesus' mother and brethren should more readily have faith in him than anyone else.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
![[Image: nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWT...dc2a24480e]](https://external-preview.redd.it/nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWTNVY.jpg?width=216&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=7b11e8b38bea0eacc8797fc971574ddc2a24480e)
