Ye…es, Handy, in fact in my Bible, Mary says 'Hey, how can this be, since my hymen is still intact?"
Cecil has also weighed in. He believes that, upon the sum of the evidence, Jesus existed.
It seems to me that it’s the other way around. If you do believe in the Christian God, the question is meaningless. It’s only a valid question if you assume that Jesus’s birth was not divinely concieved.
If you buy the whole idea that there was a god (and I don’t), and you accept the Bible’s account of the birth, what’s there to question.
On the other hand, if you take the view that the whole story is a myth, but Jesus likely existed, then you have to wonder who his father was. We don’t have much evidence. The Bible says Joseph thought it couldn’t be him. That doesn’t carry much weight with me, because the Bible says many things that I think are made-up. It’s plausible that it could have been Joseph, but it’s also plausible that Mary could have had a sexual relationship with someone else. I don’t know.
What I’m surprised about is the number of people posting on this thread who accept the divine explanation. Is this still the Straight Dope site?
So, to sum up the answer:
If you believe Jesus was the son of G-d, as most Christian denominations were, G-d is.
If you believe Jesus was just a person and there was no divine element in his conception or birth, his father would either be Joseph, or somebody else, but we have no way to be 100% sure, lacking genetic testing and that the people of Nazareth weren’t famous or written much about.
If you don’t believe Jesus existed, the question is meaningless.
Does that cover every possibility?
Aw, man! Don’t tell me you’re relying on THAT GUY as authority! 
Just wanted to put in my own two cents. (Note: the following is NOT Catholic doctrine – I’m not Catholic and don’t pay attention to it).
-
The Virgin Mary was not a nun but did grow up in the temple, which was quite common for children in those days. Joachim and Anna gave her to the temple when she was 3, as they had promised.
-
When time came for the VM to get married (around age 13), she flat-out refused, saying she was only going to live for God. Her parents were long dead and the temple didn’t know what else do to with her. They found Joseph, an old man (not young as Catholics say), who was a distant relative of hers (they both came from the line of David) . He was “betrothed” to her, which was Jewish law at the time – otherwise she couldn’t live with him (remember that at that time, if a woman’s husband died, his brother had to marry her).
-
If the VM had not been married, but had been pregnant, she would’ve been stoned to death. Period. They took that kind of thing very seriously in those days, no exceptions. The angel later appeared to Joseph, telling him he had to marry her; he refused at first but realized the necessity of it.
-
The notion that Christ had brothers and sisters is ridiculous, really. The term “brothers and sisters” has the same meaning as “coworkers”, “classmates”, “those born the same year as you.” etc. (I’m always amazed how people take English translations so literally).
So who was Christ’s father? Biologically, the Creator. BY LAW, Joseph the Carpenter.
At any rate, agree or disagree, personally I think the above makes a heck of a lot more sense than most of what I’ve heard.
That is a reasonable assumption, however there are many scholars that do not agree. A quick Google search revealed several sources, one of which is The Jesus Seminar
Not even close.
What did Jesus or for that matter Paul have to say about the virgin birth?
[sub]I personally believe [ul][li] in God[/li][li] that Jesus was in some way devine (but not 1/3 of God)[/li][li] that the virgin birth is a sign of the Hellinistic influence on the Gospels.[/li][li] that is is fun to argue even if this is CQ and not GD[/li] that no one else necessarily is required to believe any of these things.[/ul][/sub]
That is different only in rhetorical form from Bda’s offensive remark. Has it occurred to you that we might have good reason, based on our own investigation and experience, to accept the divine explanation? Is there some reason that those of us who don’t hold your opinions are ignorant?
Just wanted to put in my own two cents. (Note: the following is NOT Catholic doctrine – I’m not Catholic and don’t pay attention to it).
-
The Virgin Mary was not a nun but did grow up in the temple, which was not uncommon for children in those days. Joachim and Anna gave her to the temple when she was 3, as they had promised.
-
When time came for the VM to get married (around age 13), she flat-out refused, saying she was only going to live for God. Her parents were long dead and the temple didn’t know what else do to with her. They found Joseph, an old man (not young as Catholics say), who was a distant relative of hers (they both came from the line of David) . He was “betrothed” to her, which was Jewish law at the time – otherwise she couldn’t live with him (at that time, if a woman’s husband died, his brother had to marry her. The brother would be “betrothed” to his dead brother’s wife, not marry her while his own wife was still living). Betrothal did not necessarily lead to marriage.
-
If the VM had not been married, but had been pregnant, she would’ve been stoned to death. Period. They took that kind of thing very seriously in those days (not like the Sodom & Gomorrah lifestyles we lead now). The angel later appeared to Joseph, telling him he had to marry her; he refused at first but realized the necessity of it.
-
The notion that Christ had brothers and sisters is ridiculous, really. The term “brothers and sisters” has the same meaning as “coworkers”, “classmates”, “those born the same year as you.” etc. (I’m always amazed how people take English translations so literally).
So who was Christ’s father? Biologically, the Creator. BY LAW, Joseph the Carpenter.
Just food for thought.
Uh, Vorona?
Not only is your post NOT Catholic doctrine, it’s not ANYONE’S doctrine. It’s not Scriptural (Anna and Joachim are never mentioned anywhere in Scripture, incidentally), it’s not historical, it’s not part of any Christian sect’s oral tradition.
So, care to tell me where you got any of it?
Yeah, I know about the Jesus Seminar, and I have the same problem with them. But I haven’t read enough about them to know what they’re basing their decisions on.
**
Not so. People did not “give their children” to the temple. It is true that Samuel’s mother did this sort of thing. However, no where is it recorded that this was a “common” phenomenon. In fact, I can think of no other example.
**
OK, time for a quick primer on Jewish marriage law.
There are two stages in a Jewish marriage.
(1) k’dushin (“betrothal”). During this stage, the bride is mostly married. She is forbidden to anyone else under the penalty of adultery. However, she is also forbidden to her husband. If they were “betrothed”, Joseph could not live with Mary.
(2) n’suin (“marriage”). At this point, the couple become full-fledged husband and wife. While today these two stages are done together, back in Jesus’ time, there was often a wait of a year or more between the two stages.
Lastly, the brother marriage only applied if the decedent had no descendants AND if both parties (the widow and the brother-in-law) wanted the marriage.
**
There is no k’dushin for a levirate marriage. And secondly, polygamy being permitted when Jesus was alive, there was no obligation to wait until his own wife died.
**
Period NOT. The death penalty only applied to a MARRIED woman. An unmarried woman never merited the death penalty for a sexual affair (unless, of course, it was an incestuous relationship with a forbidden relative). Not only that, there would have been no stigma of mamzerus (bastard) attached to her child. That also only applies to a married woman or a forbidden incestuous relationship.
Well, on the latter part of your statement, you are on solid ground in Jewish law (not in the former part, obviously). Without evidence to the contrary, a child is assumed to be the mother’s husband’s.
Zev Steinhardt
Looks like I’m the only one around here who believes in God’s Holy Invisible Schlong. Oh well.
Astorian: I’m afraid you’re wrong on my post not being any Christian opinion. It happens to be Eastern Orthodox doctrine.
Zev_steinhardt: I’ve actually heard different interpretations of Jewish law over the years; I will keep your version in mind (gotta admit I have a hard time with the unmarried woman not being stoned – rather frisky bunch, then, weren’t they?)
I’m going to have to ask you for your source on other interpretations.
There is no verse in the Bible, and no law in the Talmud or later writings that indicate that an unmarried woman who has sex is liable to the death penalty (provided, of course, that the affair isn’t forbidden for other reasons [incest, etc.]). Trust me on this one DarkVorona; I’ve been studying Jewish law for over 20 years.
BTW, welcome to the boards. 
Zev Steinhardt
You are about 1,600 years off. The second-century writer Celsus claimed in his work Alethes Logos that Jesus was actually the illegitimate son of a Roman centurion named Panthera.
Joseph fathered Jesus. Every reason to think so. No reason to think anything else.
Yeepers, a ghost from the past.
Well, I think that there is no shortage of God threads in GD, so I’ll just close this one up.