Who impregnated Mary?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Who impregnated Mary?

Post #1

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Who impregnated Mary?

If Jesus was “the son of god�, then “god� must be the father – and must have impregnated her.

However, doesn’t “scripture� say that Mary was impregnated by “the holy spirit�? Aren’t “god the father� and “the holy spirit� supposed to be DIFFERENT parts of the triad?

Wouldn’t that make Jesus the “son of the holy spirit�?

Was there an “angel� involved?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
whirlwind
Banned
Banned
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Post #11

Post by whirlwind »

goat wrote:
whirlwind wrote:
goat wrote:
joeyknuccione wrote:From the OP:
Zzyzx wrote: Who impregnated Mary?
She and Joseph both swear up and down it wasn't him. Who else had access to this young lady? Surely in a town this small we can find the daddy. All y'all yonder to Settler's Bridge last Saturday 'tween 7 and 11, y'all need to go to the county nurse there and get your test, and shots if ya caught it, it seems our Miss Mary may have had multiple encounters.
Or, if you really want to complicate things, it wasn't until oh, 70 years or so later than this story came about. Could it be that it was made up? After all, one of the restrictions about going into the temple is that a mamzer (or person who's father was not married to his mother) was unclean for 10 generations.. and would not be allowed to go into synagogues or the temple. Yet, we have stories of Jesus amazing the Rabbi's in the houses of worship as a child. This is in direct contradiction with Joseph not being Jesus' father.

So, it would be entirely reasonable to assume that Jesus, if he existed at all, had as his biological father to be Joseph.
You are mistaken....
Deuteronomy 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Bastard # 4464 ~ mamzer to alienate: a mongrel, i.e. born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother.
A mamzer is one of mixed race.
I don't know where you got that from, but, well, it's frankly incorrect. There are a number of ways someone can be a mamzer.... but 'born of a jewish father and a heathen mother' is not one of them. Strong is wrong.

From http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... 13122.html

Definition

"If she cannot contract a legally valid marriage to this man, but can contract a legally valid marriage to others, her offspring [from the former] is a mamzer. Such is the case when a man has sexual relations with any of the ervot ["forbidden"; see *Incest] in the Torah" (Kid. 3:12; cf. Yev. 4:13). Thus, a mamzer is the issue of a couple whose sexual relationship is forbidden according to the Torah and punishable by *karet or death. Because of this a marriage between them is void (Sh. Ar., EH 4:13), and thus, for example, the issue of a union between brother and sister or between a man and a woman validly married to another at the time is a mamzer


Now, one thing I will point out is that an offspring of an unwed mother is not a mamzer, but since Josesph was married to Mary, that makes any child that is not his offspring a mamzer.

The definition wasn't incorrect Goat. In Hebrew it means one of mixed heritage. In Greek it is given as an illegitimate child. To a Jew...marrying out of their tribes was a practice not to be accepted and would be...illegitimate.

In the context where the word is used in [Deuteronomy 23:2] it is about other races. It is more difficult to tell in Zechariah, which says....[9:6] And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.

Joseph and Mary were married before the birth of Christ in a "legally valid marriage." Mamzer is not applicable even in your definition.
Luke 2:4-5 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
Espoused = married. Not merely betrothed.
Luke 3:23 And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
As was supposed = as reckoned by law. To lay down a thing as law; to hold by custom or usage; to reckon correctly, take for granted.
Legally, in the eyes of the Jews, Jesus was the Son of Joseph.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #12

Post by Goat »

whirlwind wrote:
goat wrote:
whirlwind wrote:
goat wrote:
joeyknuccione wrote:From the OP:
Zzyzx wrote: Who impregnated Mary?
She and Joseph both swear up and down it wasn't him. Who else had access to this young lady? Surely in a town this small we can find the daddy. All y'all yonder to Settler's Bridge last Saturday 'tween 7 and 11, y'all need to go to the county nurse there and get your test, and shots if ya caught it, it seems our Miss Mary may have had multiple encounters.
Or, if you really want to complicate things, it wasn't until oh, 70 years or so later than this story came about. Could it be that it was made up? After all, one of the restrictions about going into the temple is that a mamzer (or person who's father was not married to his mother) was unclean for 10 generations.. and would not be allowed to go into synagogues or the temple. Yet, we have stories of Jesus amazing the Rabbi's in the houses of worship as a child. This is in direct contradiction with Joseph not being Jesus' father.

So, it would be entirely reasonable to assume that Jesus, if he existed at all, had as his biological father to be Joseph.
You are mistaken....
Deuteronomy 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Bastard # 4464 ~ mamzer to alienate: a mongrel, i.e. born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother.
A mamzer is one of mixed race.
I don't know where you got that from, but, well, it's frankly incorrect. There are a number of ways someone can be a mamzer.... but 'born of a jewish father and a heathen mother' is not one of them. Strong is wrong.

From http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... 13122.html

Definition

"If she cannot contract a legally valid marriage to this man, but can contract a legally valid marriage to others, her offspring [from the former] is a mamzer. Such is the case when a man has sexual relations with any of the ervot ["forbidden"; see *Incest] in the Torah" (Kid. 3:12; cf. Yev. 4:13). Thus, a mamzer is the issue of a couple whose sexual relationship is forbidden according to the Torah and punishable by *karet or death. Because of this a marriage between them is void (Sh. Ar., EH 4:13), and thus, for example, the issue of a union between brother and sister or between a man and a woman validly married to another at the time is a mamzer


Now, one thing I will point out is that an offspring of an unwed mother is not a mamzer, but since Josesph was married to Mary, that makes any child that is not his offspring a mamzer.

The definition wasn't incorrect Goat. In Hebrew it means one of mixed heritage. In Greek it is given as an illegitimate child. To a Jew...marrying out of their tribes was a practice not to be accepted and would be...illegitimate.

In the context where the word is used in [Deuteronomy 23:2] it is about other races. It is more difficult to tell in Zechariah, which says....[9:6] And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.

Joseph and Mary were married before the birth of Christ in a "legally valid marriage." Mamzer is not applicable even in your definition.
Luke 2:4-5 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
Espoused = married. Not merely betrothed.
Luke 3:23 And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
As was supposed = as reckoned by law. To lay down a thing as law; to hold by custom or usage; to reckon correctly, take for granted.
Legally, in the eyes of the Jews, Jesus was the Son of Joseph.

No.. you have no comprehension about what the Jewish laws are at all. Bloodlines go with the biological father, not an adoptive father. If Mary was married to Joseph, and was pregnant by someone other than him, it would be considered an illicit child.

I do wish for once Christians would not misrepresent what Jewish law is.

If you want to see how the laws apply in this case, look at the Jewish law for adoption. The blood line of the child is not the bloodline of the adoptive father, it is the bloodline of the biological father.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
whirlwind
Banned
Banned
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Post #13

Post by whirlwind »

goat wrote: No.. you have no comprehension about what the Jewish laws are at all. Bloodlines go with the biological father, not an adoptive father. If Mary was married to Joseph, and was pregnant by someone other than him, it would be considered an illicit child.

I do wish for once Christians would not misrepresent what Jewish law is.

If you want to see how the laws apply in this case, look at the Jewish law for adoption. The blood line of the child is not the bloodline of the adoptive father, it is the bloodline of the biological father.

May I ask....did the Jewish folks know Jesus was the Son of God? Did they know Joseph wasn't the father?
Matthew 1:19, 24 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. (24) Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the LORD had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called his name Jesus.
It doesn't sound as if he ran through the synagogue proclaiming that Mary was pregnant. Consider too...
Luke2:21-22 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, His name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before He was conceived in the womb. And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

2:23-25 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

2:27-33 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

2:36-37 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

2:41-42 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

If He was considered a mamzer would that have taken place?

User avatar
Lux
Site Supporter
Posts: 2189
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:27 pm

Post #14

Post by Lux »

goat wrote: Or, if you really want to complicate things, it wasn't until oh, 70 years or so later than this story came about. Could it be that it was made up? After all, one of the restrictions about going into the temple is that a mamzer (or person who's father was not married to his mother) was unclean for 10 generations.. and would not be allowed to go into synagogues or the temple. Yet, we have stories of Jesus amazing the Rabbi's in the houses of worship as a child. This is in direct contradiction with Joseph not being Jesus' father.

So, it would be entirely reasonable to assume that Jesus, if he existed at all, had as his biological father to be Joseph.
That's a very interesting thought. Indeed it doesn't make sense that Jesus received special treatment before his true "powers" started to show.

Flail

Post #15

Post by Flail »

I don't think anyone ever admitted paternity. Evidentially Joseph was convinced it wasn't his kid. Perhaps Mary was too ashamed to identify the father or was unsure?

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #16

Post by Zzyzx »

.
I knew a young woman who got pregnant "out of wedlock" and claimed that she'd never had intercourse. Should we have believed her and accepted that a "spirit" that had made her pregnant?

WHO was in a position to KNOW if Mary was a virgin?

Who, exactly, claims that she was?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #17

Post by Goat »

whirlwind wrote:
goat wrote: No.. you have no comprehension about what the Jewish laws are at all. Bloodlines go with the biological father, not an adoptive father. If Mary was married to Joseph, and was pregnant by someone other than him, it would be considered an illicit child.

I do wish for once Christians would not misrepresent what Jewish law is.

If you want to see how the laws apply in this case, look at the Jewish law for adoption. The blood line of the child is not the bloodline of the adoptive father, it is the bloodline of the biological father.

May I ask....did the Jewish folks know Jesus was the Son of God? Did they know Joseph wasn't the father?
In the Jewish culture and tradition of the time, the term 'son of God' had a very specific meaning, and that is someone who is righteous and exulted by God. It has nothing to do with being a 'literal son' of God, that is very greek/roman, Not Jewish.

An example of this in the Tanakh is Psalm 2:7, where David became the 'Son of God' when he became King.
Matthew 1:19, 24 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. (24) Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the LORD had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called his name Jesus.
This demonstrates that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew was not an expert on Jewish law, and did not understand the attitude of the importance of blood lines were to the Jewish culture of that time frame.


It doesn't sound as if he ran through the synagogue proclaiming that Mary was pregnant. Consider too...
Luke2:21-22 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, His name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before He was conceived in the womb. And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

2:23-25 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

2:27-33 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

2:36-37 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

2:41-42 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
Like I said, this demonstrates that the writer of the Gospel of Luke, writing well over 8 decades after the alleged birth of Jesus, did not understand Jewish law, and the importance of blood lines to the Jewish culture at the time.
If He was considered a mamzer would that have taken place?[/quote]

1) He would be not allowed to marry anybody but another mamzer.
2) He would not be allowed in the synagogues or the temple.
3) He would have been disqualified for being any kind of Messiah.

The Jewish Messiah was expected to be from the 'seed of david'. This means that he was through an unbroken male line from David through Solomon, father to son.
If Jesus was a 'virgin birth', he would not be of the 'seed of david'.


Funny how these stories didn't come out until after 70 c.e., which is over 60 years after the alleged events... and not before.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Slopeshoulder
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post #18

Post by Slopeshoulder »

I think that i read once (Crossan maybe?) that the mamzer situation is why some Christian scholars suggest that Mary was either impregnated out of wedlock, out of the faith, out of the community or town, possibly by a Roman, and possibly via rape. This was interpreted theologically as consistent with the theme of Jesus being an outsider, and the friend of outsiders and the marginalized. there's more to it, but it's interesting.
The virgin birth story picked up on others like it to make of this mamzer, after he had lived, a god-man, an incarnation.

User avatar
whirlwind
Banned
Banned
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Post #19

Post by whirlwind »

Flail wrote:I don't think anyone ever admitted paternity. Evidentially Joseph was convinced it wasn't his kid. Perhaps Mary was too ashamed to identify the father or was unsure?

Joseph knew who the Father was. Mary wasn't ashamed for she too knew who the Father was.
Matthew 1:18-24 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, 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 Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Around 650 years before the birth of Christ the prophecy was made....
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.

Flail

Post #20

Post by Flail »

whirlwind wrote:
Flail wrote:I don't think anyone ever admitted paternity. Evidentially Joseph was convinced it wasn't his kid. Perhaps Mary was too ashamed to identify the father or was unsure?

Joseph knew who the Father was. Mary wasn't ashamed for she too knew who the Father was.
Matthew 1:18-24 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, 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 Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Around 650 years before the birth of Christ the prophecy was made....
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.
Perhaps this is where Mary got the idea? ...or perhaps the fictional author used one tale to concoct another?

Post Reply