If Mary was a virgin, how long had she & Joseph been married, when she got pregnant by god ?

She was Bethrothed to Joseph and this usually was a 1 year engagement process, unlike what we in the Western world understand, and may be still practiced in the history of the Middle East till now.

There were a lot of protocol and purity involved in this, where the condition of the female could be proven, unproven and laws applied to the female, the male and even family members.

Young people nowadays, take these things lightly, but it was a kind of legal issue, where if the individual was deemed impure, they could be publicly vilified and stoned to death, according to the custom, thank God for Jesus Christ, who showed mercy and compassion and love, and do not abide by strictness and the 'no room for human error or fault.' especially in a fallen state of the Garden of Eden.

We see snippets of this practice in 21st century Indian/Arabic/Islamic/Middle Eastern culture, where, the marriages are not only arranged, but the intended husband and wife, may have only seen each other, at the bethrothal ceremony, and once at the actual wedding day ceremony, usually accompanied by a gazillion neighbors, friends, well wishers, old people, elder, that makes sure, everything is 'kosher' for the wedding vow/night Litmus Test.

The Family Name, Value, and Honor is usually at stake, where no 21st century values would never thrive in or even exist for so many generations, of this practice by the practisers of this system, that is time tried, and proven- however, brutal it may see, the exception to the rule will be stoned to death-clearly brutal and avoidable.

She was not marred to Joseph but engaged to him when she was blessed by the Holy Spirit with conceiving Jesus. She and Joseph married right after they were told by an angel that she was carrying the son of God.

The stories about the birth of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are obvious fabrications--pious frauds, is the term.

The belief in the virgin birth was one of the myths that developed about Jesus after his death on the cross. And it was a relatively late one at that, because it is not known in the earlier Christian documents.

When Matthew wrote his gospel he tried to find something in the scriptures to support the idea of a virgin birth. As a Greek speaker, he used the Septuagint translation of the scriptures, but that translation often did not convey the sense of the original Hebrew. Furthermore, the idea of a virgin birth would have been foreign to the Hebrews of the Old Testament time (it was essentially a pagan concept), and the only passage Matthew could come up with was Isaiah 7:14.

The prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-16 was about an event that would take place in the near future from the time it was given, not hundreds of years in the future. Furthermore, the woman spoken of was not referred to as a virgin (which is bethuwlah in the original Hebrew), but rather a young woman (almah in the original Hebrew) and there was nothing unusual about the birth. As the prophecy said, by the time the child who was to be born would be able to refuse evil and choose the good, the land would be forsaken of both of its kings--again, an event that would take place in the near future.

But the point that needs to be emphasized is that Isaiah used the Hebrew word for virgin (bethuwlah) in several other places in his book (23:12, 37:22, 47:1, and 62:5), so why didn't he use it in 7:14 if the woman was supposed to be a virgin? The answer is that the young woman was not supposed to be a virgin as is clear from the context.

Also, Jesus was not called Immanuel, which is what Isaiah said the child would be called.

What it all boils down to is that Matthew was trying to fabricate a prophecy about the virgin birth (which, again, was itself just a myth that arose in the years after the death of Jesus) from the Hebrew Scriptures. But He got tripped up by the Septuagint translation, for in that translation the Hebrew word for young woman got translated into Greek with a word that was more ambiguous and could have been taken as meaning virgin.

Also, in several other places in the New Testament, the idea of a virgin birth is negated. In Romans 1:3 and Acts 2:30, for example, Jesus is described as being of the seed of David "according to the flesh," which would rule out the idea of a virgin birth.

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are also fabrications. Both of those writers wanted to show that Jesus was descended from David, so they separately made up the respective genealogies. That is why they contradict each other.

They each provided their fabricated genealogies as showing the descent from David through Joseph, which would have been according to the legal descent, since Joseph was the husband of Mary.

Since the genealogies are contradictory, some Bible apologists try to say that the genealogy in Luke is actually that of Mary. However, Mary is not even mentioned in that genealogy. If that genealogy was that of Mary, why doesn't her name appear in it?

That is especially relevant because Luke mentions Mary in the birth stories much more than Matthew does. For example, instead of Joseph, it is Mary who the angel appears to concerning the coming birth of Jesus. There are also several other narratives about Mary, indicating the importance that Luke gave her. In that case, why wouldn't he have mentioned Mary in the genealogy if he intended it to be hers?

In any case, according to Luke, Mary was Elizabeth's cousin (suggenes in the original Greek, which indicates a blood relative). Since Elizabeth was of the priestly tribe of Levi, Mary would also have been of that descent and could therefore not have been a descendant of David. That is, if you believe what Luke says.

It should be noted that Mary's name does appear in Joseph's genealogy in Matthew, where it states that Joseph was the husband of Mary.

Those who say that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's therefore have no basis for saying that other than wishful thinking.

Furthermore, the stories of the birth of Jesus in the gospels of Luke and Matthew are also fabrications because they are totally incompatible with each other. See my answer here for a full description of the incompatibilities.

/question/index?qid=20131...

Mary got pregnant with Jesus before she got married to God.

Whatever context of God's word, that is what will manifest for the person who accepts it.

Concerning Mary, she accepted the words of the angel about the birth of the Messiah.

The Holy Spirit hovered over her, as the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters in Genesis, as the Holy Spirit hovered over Jesus when he was baptized in water.

She did not, as you so vulgarly put it, get pregnant by God.

-Juelrei

Joseph got duped. The immaculate conception story was Mary s way of concealing an out-of-wedlock affair.

They weren't married yet. Joseph married her after she was impregnated. He actually got angry at her because he thought she was cheating on him, and then an angel appeared to Joseph and said to take her as his wife anyway, just don't consummate the marriage until after the baby is born.

the Bible I read did not marry Mary and Joseph.

apparently he abandoned her and married some

queen in Africa or something like that.

so Mary raised her son alone with her fortune.

which Bible did you read?

I've read like 4/5/6 different ones.

she was pregnant before her and Joseph got married.

She wasn't pregnant when Gabriel told her the news.