Apparently, 'Virginal Births' were quite common back in that time period. The woman (or girl) would claim she conceived immaculately so as not to disgrace herself or her family. What do you think?
2006-12-17 17:44:21 · 23 answers · asked by Krisma 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Joseph was supposed to be the descendant of David. If she was a virgin Jospeh's DNA would not be involved. Having Jospeh's sperm was required for the prophecy to be fulfilled. So we sit with a catch-22. Either she wasn't a virgin and the baby is a descendant of David or she was a virgin and the baby is not a descendant of David.
2006-12-17 19:07:53 · answer #1 · answered by Rabble Rouser 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not in the sense we say these days. Virgin just used to mean unmarried. She wasn't married to Joseph.
The Church declared the Immaculate Conception (both of Mary and Jesus) in the 4th Century.
This was about setting up an impossible role-model for women: you can be a virgin or a mother, but in reality you can't be both.
2006-12-18 02:04:30 · answer #2 · answered by Ms Piggy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally, no. I don't see that happening. Ancient scriptures actually pose a few different theories on this.
One New Testament theory presents Jesus’ birth as the consequence of an intervention of a holy spirit (by an unspecified mechanism) since Mary had not had sexual relations with a man. That is the explanation of Luke’s Gospel most emphatically (Luke 1:34-35), seconded less straightforwardly by the Gospel according to Matthew (Matthew 1:18-25).
A second explanation, expressed by Philip in John’s Gospel after he had become Jesus’ disciple, maintains that Jesus was in fact the son of Joseph (John 1:45), and it is -- emphatically and rather oddly -- repeated both by John’s "Jews" in the synagogue at Capernaum (John 6:42) and by Luke’s congregation in Nazareth (Luke 4:22). Although the latter references are or may be dismissive, Philip’s is not, and it is difficult to see how the genealogies of Jesus, variously presented by Matthew (1:1-17) and Luke (3:23-38), can have been developed except on the supposition of this second theory. (Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 try to finesse the issue, but these adjustments seem to be post hoc). Further, Jesus’ identity as David’s son – recognized by the Gospels (Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 31; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47, 48; Luke 18:38, 39) as well as by Paul and later sources (Romans 1:3, cf. 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 22:16) implicitly invokes this theory since only Joseph (himself called David’s son in Matthew 1:20, cf. Luke 1:27, 32; 2:4) can have mediated that pedigree to Jesus.
Finally, in John’s Gospel opponents appear to taunt Jesus with being born of "fornication" (porneia; John 8:41), and such an accusation is often seen as standing behind the pointed omission of Joseph, together with reference to his mother and siblings, in the identification of Jesus in Mark 6:3. At that juncture, Matthew’s reference to Jesus as the son of the workman (Matthew 13:55) has been construed to imply Joseph’s paternity (but also saying in a Semitic idiom that Jesus belonged to the class of such workers). But Luke 4:22, the apparent analogue of Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55, has the people in Nazareth say unequivocally that Jesus is Joseph’s son and this story might lay behind John 6:42.
I've also heard a certain Roman soldier mentioned...
2006-12-18 02:05:33 · answer #3 · answered by Pythonette 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She was a Virgin, PBUH(peace be upon her), and one of the best creations of God, as told to Us in the Quran and the Bible. Others peoples might have claimed to be virgins but babies did not use to talk in cradles back then, actually they still don't. The problem is that it hard for us to contemplate how can someone be Born from a virgin mother, but we forget its not hard for God since Adam and Eve were created without both parents.
2006-12-18 02:02:17 · answer #4 · answered by Abdullah r 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes Mary was a virgin. Mary was the immaculate conception , not Jesus. Immaculate means free from the stain of the original sin.
2006-12-18 01:50:37 · answer #5 · answered by tebone0315 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes I believe because of the life her son lived. The miracles he worked. His teachings, He was crucified because he did not deny being God. On the cross the darkness that decended,the graves that opened and emptied. In the temple the curtain was rent in half. He arose on the 3rd day, many witnesses, stayed for 40 days, lots of people say Him. He ascended into the heavens lots of people saw Him.His disciples became wimps until the Holy spirit came to them. And the Holy Spirit still comes to people who want Him. There are none like Jesus. He was formed in the likeness of man. But fully God and fully human. Never had happened before.
2006-12-18 01:58:16 · answer #6 · answered by swamp elf 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mary was not the" Mother of God". God is a trinity; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Mary was the mother of
Jesus, but not the Father or the Spirit. Also, God is eternal, and has no beginning, therefore Mary would have to have pre-existed God, and that would make Mary eternal and God finite! Actually, it would be calling Mary God! To call her the mother of God is theologically unsound, at best; if not idolatry and blasphemy.
2006-12-18 01:52:13 · answer #7 · answered by revulayshun 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No! I do however believe that Mary was a virgin and was the Mother of Jesus....not God
2006-12-18 01:53:35 · answer #8 · answered by GraycieLee 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The original text did not mean virgin, but young girl, or young woman
2006-12-18 01:47:07 · answer #9 · answered by sematlock77 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know the history. Yes, I think that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and is.
2006-12-18 01:49:13 · answer #10 · answered by tonks_op 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋