The Virgin Mary - or was she?

[dingdongknockknock]

I have just watched the first part of documentary where an American geneologist is researching "The Real Family of Jesus". A number of new things came to my notice, but one of them was the most plausible idea that Jesus' mother Mary was not in fact a virgin. It was said that Jesus had a number of brothers and some sisters. From ossuary records and studies of the names of Jesus' brothers, it was determined that Mary must have been the mother of Judas and Simon also. Any thoughts about Mary and this idea please?

Mary was a virgin when she was given jesus in her womb.

 

[crystalonyx]

Christianity has always had its secrets: alas we may never know.

However the people who made the church only wanted to bring people together.

Not if you look at the history.

 

[Smoke]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Virgin Birth Fraud
The most colossal blunder of the Septuagint translators, the mistranslation of the original Hebrew text of Isaiah, 7.14, allowed deceitful early Christians to concoct their infamous prophecy that somehow the ancient Jewish text presaged the miraculous birth of their own godman.[/FONT]

It takes a tremendous leap of faith to construe the prophecy of Isaiah as referring to Jesus in the first place. Try reading through Matthew and noting the prophecies that he says Jesus fulfilled, then go back and read those "prophecies" in context. It's a real eye-opener. Matthew used the Septuagint without any concern at all for context and meaning.

Frankly, I don't think the error was that of the translators of the Septuagint in the first place. I'm not sure Isaiah was referring to his own wife, and it's certainly not necessary to construe the passage that way. Parthenos, meaning an unmarried woman or girl (it doesn't necessarily mean a technical virgin) was not an unreasonable word for the translators to use. What's unreasonable is to imagine that it applies to Mary.

Here is the prophecy in context:

Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.
​

The prophecy is intended as a warning for Ahaz, who entered into a disastrous alliance with the Assyrians, ending up as a vassal of Tiglath-Pileser III. How anybody in his right mind can construe this as a messianic prophecy is beyond me.

 

[gnostic]

Parthenos, meaning an unmarried woman or girl (it doesn't necessarily mean a technical virgin) was not an unreasonable word for the translators to use. What's unreasonable is to imagine that it applies to Mary.

Agreed.

Parthenos was applied as an epithet to the Greek goddess Athena, centuries before Mary.

 

[logician]

Of course Isaiah's prophesy was for his day and time, not hundreds of years into the future.

"The slip did not matter at the time, for in context, Isaiah’s prophesy – set in the 8th century BC but probably written in the 5th – had been given as reassurance to King Ahaz of Judah that his royal line would survive, despite the ongoing siege of Jerusalem by the Syrians. "

 

[kadzbiz]

Mary was a virgin when she was given jesus in her womb.

That is just one belief. It is not a fact. And it is often contested.

 

[Syphros]

Not if you look at the history.

I suppose I overlooked the Crusades and heretical executions. But that is another form of extremism that was allowed to happen due to the churches influence over Europeans.

It takes a tremendous leap of faith to construe the prophecy of Isaiah as referring to Jesus in the first place. Try reading through Matthew and noting the prophecies that he says Jesus fulfilled, then go back and read those "prophecies" in context. It's a real eye-opener. Matthew used the Septuagint without any concern at all for context and meaning.

I think I'll try that!

 

[gnostic]

In Matthew 1:25 it stated that Joseph didn't have sexual relation before Mary gave birth to Jesus, clearly indicate he did do so afterward should really kill of Mary being virgin for life.

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to her son. And Jesus named him Jesus.

It is clear that Catholic and all other churches that believed in Mary's perpetual virginity are based on propaganda. And if he Joseph did have sex with Mary after her first born.

As I stated earlier, Joseph's so-called 1st marriage is never mention, and no children of Joseph by 1st wife were ever mention during their travel to Bethlehem, to Egypt or to Nazareth, which strongly indicate that Joseph had no children until after Jesus.

Another silly Catholic concept is that they weren't Jesus' brothers, but his cousins are also baseless. There are word for cousins in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, but it was never used.

 

[kadzbiz]

In Matthew 1:25 it stated that Joseph didn't have sexual relation before Mary gave birth to Jesus, clearly indicate he did do so afterward should really kill of Mary being virgin for life......

Hmm, somebody should've posted that a lot earlier in the thread. Thanks.

 

[Francine]

In Matthew 1:25 it stated that Joseph didn't have sexual relation before Mary gave birth to Jesus, clearly indicate he did do so afterward should really kill of Mary being virgin for life.

I don't even want to hear the details of my own parent's sex life, let alone the sex life of Jesus' mother and his stepfather.

 

[logician]

Why is virginity or lack thereof sinful one way or the other?

 

[kadzbiz]

Why is virginity or lack thereof sinful one way or the other?

It's not.

 

[gnostic]

If sex was sinful, then why would God on the 6th day of creation (before Adam's Fall) say that human should "be fertile and multiply". He gave humans dominion over the other creature on earth, but in order to this mankind must populate the earth. And it sex is the only way to reproduce.

So how sex be sinful? Did he not tell Abraham that he would be father of the Semitic race? Babies certainly don't come from storks and test-tubes.....well, at least not until previous century.

 

[Smoke]

In Matthew 1:25 it stated that Joseph didn't have sexual relation before Mary gave birth to Jesus, clearly indicate he did do so afterward

Not really. It clearly indicates that they didn't have relations before Jesus was born, and says nothing at all about afterwards. When the Bible says the Michal had no child until the day of her death, it doesn't mean she had a child on the day of her death -- or after. When the Jesus says he will be with his disciples until the end of the age, it doesn't mean he will abandon them thereafter.

 

[gnostic]

But the verse indicate "more than likely" they did have sex and more children afterward. The whole gospel thing was only about Jesus, so any siblings Mary did have with Joseph would be pointless to the whole story, so therefore it was neglected.

 

[Smoke]

But the verse indicate more than likely they did have sex afterward.

It doesn't indicate anything of the kind.

I agree that it's reasonable to suppose Joseph and Mary had sexual relations, but a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary is every bit as reasonable as a belief in the virgin birth. If we're talking about what's likely to be true, it's far more likely that Mary was sexually abstinent after the birth of Jesus than that she was sexually abstinent before it.

 

[gnostic]

I don't even want to hear the details of my own parent's sex life, let alone the sex life of Jesus' mother and his stepfather.

I am only indicating that Mary might not be virgin afterward, and Jesus' siblings were the result of Mary and Joseph sexual relations. There may be a need for Mary's virginity before, but once Jesus was born, there was no longer any need for to remain as one.

 

[gnostic]

But there are no literal evidence of her perpetual virginity except through church tradition. Also there no literal evidence of Joseph being old man with children from his 1st marriage, except through some more church traditions.

And there's no evidences that these siblings were Jesus' cousins, and again only from tradition. It far easy for gospel authors to use "cousin" instead of "brother" because there is word for cousin, in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew.

Church traditions are no more than church propaganda, to glorify the saints.

 

[Smoke]

But there are no literal evidence of her perpetual virginity except through church tradition. Also there no literal evidence of Joseph being old man with children from his 1st marriage, except through some more church traditions.

And there's no evidences that these siblings were Jesus' cousins, and again only from tradition. It far easy for gospel authors to use "cousin" instead of "brother" because there is word for cousin, in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew.

Church traditions are no more than church propaganda, to glorify the saints.

The Bible is just part of church tradition; no tradition, no Bible.

 

[gnostic]

The Bible is just part of church tradition; no tradition, no Bible.

Technically there is no church tradition in the bible.

Especially the OT, where the bible were written by non-Christians.