If Mary, the mother of Jesus was a virgin the whole time she was married to Joseph,?...?
369028
The Catholic church claims Mary is still a virgin.\n\nBut I think they're just trying to keep God from being charged with rape. No penetration, no rape.
783066
OK..\nIt does not matter if James had a son or whatever because Mary was a virgin so she didn't use Joseph to have Jesus...\ntherefore no one is related to Jesus\nBut in the bible says that we humans were made by his image..\nwould you like to visit my church?\nI would glady explain everything to you....
823390
As one opens a New Testament, he or she cannot get past the first page without confronting the doctrine of the virgin birth. The writer Matthew says: "When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:18). Joseph, perplexed over the fact that his wife-to-be was pregnant, was given this explanation by an angel in a dream: "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 1:20).\n\nAnother Gospel writer tells of Mary's pregnancy from her perspective. He tells how the angel Gabriel appeared to her to help prepare this young girl for the great event which would occur in her life. He told her, "And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus" (Luke 1:31). Startled at such a thing, for she was a virgin, the angel continued: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God " (Luke 1:35).\n\nAll four of the Gospels assume the doctrine of the virgin birth; two of them give de- tails about it. And it is all the more amazing that one of these writers (i.e., Luke) is a physician whose training and experience would incline him to deny the possibility of such a birth. Careful historian that we know Luke to have been, he investigated thoroughly and affirmed without hesitation that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin.\n\nSome seven hundred or more years before the birth of Jesus, the Holy Spirit had moved the prophet Isaiah to foretell the miraculous birth of the Messiah. "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). Skeptics have tried to eliminate the phenomenon of predictive prophecy from the Bible, but this and many other divinely revealed predictions - all of which came to pass - make their efforts futile.\n\nIsaiah predicted the virgin birth, New Testament writers recorded its occurrence, and it stands as a sign from God as to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God and Savior of the world.
105390
LOL!!\n\nI seriously had not considered this.  Absolutely!  Had she remained celibate or at least refused her husband that night... things would certainly be different.
405841
Would it be so wrong if he loved Mary Magdelene and had her child?  I don't think so.  Jesus was supposed to be the perfect human being.  Wouldn't the perfect man want a wife and family?  I think the fear is that if there was a child then Jesus' bloodline has been passed on and just as the pharasees were afraid of Jesus's judgment and what he stood for back then,  Religious leaders today know they may be no better off perhaps even worse off.
483372
it's so funny. how can this be a serious question in a normal world.\n\nwhich VIRGIN was the MOTHER of.....\n\nLOL !!!
836033
The Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, the mother of God. \nFundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine. \n\nA woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3). \n\nSince Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ. \n\nAlthough Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ. \n\nTo avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God. \n\nThe Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the church he founded has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do. \n\nSince denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God\n\n\nTHE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION\n\nRegarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it . The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem. \n\nThe belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the boo
23169
The Roman Catholic Church for some reason felt that they had to protect Mary's virtue as the mother of Jesus by teaching that after she gave birth to the Lord she remained a virgin for the rest of her life. The Holy Scriptures do not in any way support this notion. The Catholics seem to want to portray her as eternally sexually pure in order to preserve her honor. What they don't seem to understand, however, is that even without her virginity, she is still a pure and honorable woman. She was undoubtedly a wonderful mother and a faithful and loving wife. In fact, the idea that such a woman would deprive her husband of his marital rights for the rest of his life is a notion that I see as offensive and insulting to this dear lady.
325135
i would say she was a virgin up to the moment where GOD sent her an angel that took a human form to give her the baby Jesus Christ... in all cases i am not sure if there's evidence that an intercourse took place between her and the angel.. because GOD simply tells a thing to be and it is
287872
Both Islam and Christianity agree that Mary conceived Jesus when she was a virgin. She was chaste (throughout her life) and after the conception and birth of Jesus she gave birth to more children, who were Jesus's brothers and sisters.\nSo naturally she is remembered for the her having conceiving Jesus without marrying or the agency of a man.\nThat in essence is what the Virgin conception is all about.
765399
My own viewpoint---------I think it would be horrible if both the man and the woman are virgins on their wedding night.  Neither would know what they are doing, and, well----it'd just be tough.  They do not give classes in this matter----at least, I am sure the Christian church doesn't.  Maybe the man could get a copy of the KAMA SUTRA beforehand?
765030
Mary is Ever Virgin\nExodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.\n\nExodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.\n\nEzek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.\n\nMark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.\n\nLuke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times. \n\nLuke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings. \n\nJohn 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers. \n\nJohn 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.\n\nJohn 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary. \n\nMatt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."\n\nMatt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.\n\nMark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.\n\nMatt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.\n\n Jesus' "Brothers" (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen\nLuke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin." \n\nLuke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.\n\nActs 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.\n\nActs 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.\n\nRom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.\n\nGen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to desc
600412
There would be nothing wrong with Jesus having a wife and even children. He would not have violated His perfectness because marriage then was a very sacred thing. Most marriages at that time were arranged and it is quite possible that to hold with the customs of the time Jesus may have had an arranged marriage.\n\nWhether or not He was married to Mary Magdeline is a topic that will be discussed for many years. There is some evidence in the Gospel of Mary that she may have been because Jesus told her things that He did not tell the other disciples. It also says (indicates) Jesus kissed her on the mouth, not done except to a wife at that time.\n\nThose who were chosen to assemble the Bible as we have it today had hundreds of letters and gospels to choose from. Because they wanted to make the Bible masculine they choose mainly those books that carried out this wish of the early mainly Catholic church. They required all the other writtings to be destroyed. Thank goodness they are slowly finding some of the copies that did not get destroyed such as the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and now the most recent Gospel of Judas.\n\nAlthough the De Vinci Code is basically a fictional story, I beleive the reason, especially the Catholic Church is so opposed, the occurances depicted is because it is closer to the truth than they want the people to know. The church has always tried to control the people by fear; something that I have always disliked. By making many things that were not sin into sin they could make the people pay to have forgiveness of these "sins". The church was able to fill their coffers easily in this way and some churches still do this today.\n\nTo me Jesus is a very real person and He is my Savior, but I do not hold with any church because of they way they have lied to their people over the years. You don't have to go to a church to be a Christian...All it requies is a belief and a love for Jesus. there is no other requirement.
179033
According the the story, God caused Mary to conceive, thus being his father.  Mary did not have sex with Joseph.  He was like a surrogate father to Jesus. OK?
744287
ereyes:  Catholics don't believe that Jesus and Mary Magdelene were married.  Wherever you get your information, you need to replace it with credible sources.\n\nIt wouldn't change my belief.  If Jesus was both fully human and fully devine, then I would expect the fully human portion of him to have been in love.  \n\nHe still would have died on the cross and rose on the 3rd day.  THAT's what Christianity is about.  Not whether or not Jesus was married.  \n\nIt actually would answer a lot of questions.  Men back then got married at an early age...what was Jesus doing at 30 unmarried?  The community must have been thinking there was something strange about that.
109438
That was Mary Magdalen.  Some people believe she was actually the wife of Jesus.
937741
This was during the Crucifixion.\n\nGenerally considered that Joseph was dead and, thusly, Mary was a widow.\n\nJesus, being thoughtful of His mother, was asking that the beloved disciple, John, take care of her.  So, "woman, behold thy son; son, behold thy mother"\n\nApparently a way of speaking, in that age and culture, (and when words were at a great premium)  whereby Jesus said to Mary, now John will be like a son to you; taking care of you. And to John He said, take care of Mary just as you would your own mother.