Was Mary really a virgin, was it a misinterpretation, or was it a cover-up?

Question

I suppose we all are familiar with the story of the birth of a man named Jesus to a Jewish couple some 2000-odd years ago.

This produces three possibilities that I can think of:

First, the Bible is true and accurate and Mary was indeed a virgin, conceiving via the Holy Spirit and giving birth to the Son of God as prophesied by Gabriel.

Second, the word "virgin" was mistranslated through Greek from a Hebrew word meaning "young woman", or that the word "virgin" did not mean what it does now. Another way, the word was either translated incorrectly or had its meaning interpreted incorrectly.

Third, Mary was NOT a virgin when she birthed J.C., but had indeed had either extramarital or premarital intercourse that was frowned upon and became pregnant the same way anyone other woman does. Mary (regardless of whether Joseph knew or did not know the truth), came up with the immaculate conception story to avoid being ostracized from society and possibly killed.

Any thoughts?

I'm sure this isn't the first time this question has been asked.

But this is my 5 points. Do what you want with yours.

I guess I should have added that an explanation of your opinion is in order. I'm receiving a number of useless answers either way.

"wontworry__girl": Your argument would carry more weight if I read the Bible and its words in the original languages, without interpretations or translations.

But unfortunately, I can't read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. That doesn't help much.

"poopsywickle": I'm aware of the stories that Jesus had siblings, I'm not disputing that.



I'm also not disputing that there did exist a woman named Mary that was married to a man named Joseph, or that a Jew named Jesus did exist, or any of the prophets. I'm just unconvinced that all these miracles occurred precisely as written down decades after they were supposed to have happened.

Answer 1

She WAS a virgin. Luke, the PHYSICIAN who tells us the most about the story makes that very clear to his GREEK audience. Luke was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' ministry, but interviewed numerous witnesses to those events. Since Mary was well known among the first Christians, it is easy enough to read that account, which includes MARY'S THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS and assume that either directly or indirectly, Luke got THAT information from her.

By the time of his writing, most of the witnesses familiar with Jesus' early life would have likely died with Mary herself dying within a few years of the writing.

Technical background: Luke states in his prologue that the Gospel was a RESEARCH effort:
Luke 1:1 Many people have attempted to write about the things that have taken place among us. 2 Reports of these things were handed down to us. There were people who saw these things for themselves from the beginning and then passed the word on.
3 I myself have carefully looked into everything from the beginning. So it seemed good also to me to write down an orderly report of exactly what happened. I am doing this for you, most excellent Theophilus. 4 I want you to know that the things you have been taught are true.

The next point is a bit more esoteric. There are 2 different spellings for Jerusalem in the Greek language, one is its common spelling, and the other is a spelling based on or influenced by Aramaic, the local language of Palestine at the time. Luke uses these spellings alternately, switching between them a few times. My assertion is that when we see the Aramaic-like spelling, Luke got that information from an Aramaic source. Luke's record of what is presumed to have been Jesus' bar mitzvah (2:41-52) is an instance of the alternate spelling.

The statements like Luke 2:19 "But Mary kept all these things like a secret treasure in her heart. She thought about them over and over." indicate some direct involvement of Mary in relating the described events. Either it was her being interviewed personally by Luke, or another previous writer whose work was not preserved, but was quoted by Luke, or it is the description of someone else who heard these stories from Mary's mouth, Jesus half-siblings being likely guesses.

Answer 2

Yes, she was a virgin with child. It means the same thing in the Bible as it means now. Read the first chapter of Luke. When the angel tells her of the forthcoming birth, she ask how it could be. She ask this because she had knew not a man. The angel then told her that which would be born to her would be of the Holy Ghost.

Answer 3

Virgins can have babies today because of invitro fertilization. 2000 years ago it was impossible even though a lot of people today believe it happened.

The virgin birth didn't get added to the religion until long after Mary would have been dead. The Council of Nicea decided she would be a virgin in the 4th Century.... more than 300 years after Mary and Jesus would have been dead and gone anyway.

Answer 4

My thoughts on this are -
I believe that Mary's conception was a miracle.
I believe it was prophesied.
I do not believe that there was a mistranslation nor a cover up or what have you.

Your question is an interisting one, yes.
But, I do believe that what we are taught in the BIBLE is the truth.
I firmly stand my ground on this.
It is not above us to question these things, though if you begin to question this, then what is there to believe? Then you will likely begin questioning the entire preface of the truth.

Answer 5

If I recall..there are somewhere on the order of 63 "virgin birth" myths from all sorts of different cultures. I don't think it was plagiarism so much as an archtypical myth that surfaces with amazing similarity and frequency. I highly recommend the Joseph Campbell works on myth creation

Answer 6

I don't believe in the notion of the virgin birth, but it boggles my mind what people can and will believe.

Then again, I'm still wondering how an rodent like Mickey Mouse can have a dog like Pluto as a pet which, incidentally, cannot talk like Mickey's other doggy friend Goofy.

Answer 7

I know NOT a Man -


God’s word is true from the beginning (Ps.119.160 below), therefore, I believe that when Mary declared, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?, that Mary’s statement is to be believed. (Lk.1:27, 30, 34, 38 below)


Ps.119.160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Lk. 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.

Lk. 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

Lk. 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Lk. 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.


Pat (ndbpsa (c))

Answer 8

its not really known it could have been an exaduration written in by monks who translated the bible to make the story more interesting and fit previous prophesies i also heard a theory on the history channel that she may have been raped by a roman soldier although i dont know what info they have to back it up

Answer 9

Virgin birth = commonly used religious metaphor to describe the enlightenment experience of a person. It was used, for example, for both the Buddha and Jesus. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Mary, mothers, or literal virgin birth. Do you see what happens when people take a metaphor and treat it literally? It goes crazy!

Answer 10

well,Mary as far as the bible can tell us that Mary is was not a virgin (as it is defined now).some how false religion used virgin in a wrong way.Jesus hand many other sisters and brothers.The bible called them half - brothers.the bible is the only source we have ,as of ,right now.