So Joseph married Mary but didn’t have sex?

[Grailhunter]

Your reply still does not resolve the contradiction at the center of your argument. You are now claiming that Yahweh had literal sexual intercourse with Mary, while also claiming that Matthew 1:20 — “that which is conceived in Her is of the Holy Spirit” — does not deny sexual conception. But Matthew explicitly identifies the Holy Spirit as the agent of the conception. If the conception is “of the Holy Spirit,” then it is not the result of a sexual act involving a male. You have not explained how your claim that Yahweh physically impregnated Mary can stand alongside Matthew’s explicit statement that the conception was by the Spirit.

Repeating words like “begotten,” “conceived,” or “impregnate” does not help, because none of those terms imply sexual reproduction when the text itself gives the cause of the conception. You still have not produced a single instance where monogenes means “sexually generated,” and simply asserting that it is “obvious” is not evidence. Likewise, your appeal to “seed” is something you are importing into the text; Scripture never uses that language for Jesus’ conception.

Your comments on Isaiah also do not address Matthew’s hermeneutics. Matthew himself identifies Isaiah 7:14 as finding its fulfillment in Christ, following standard Second‑Temple typology. The prophetess of Isaiah 8:3 is never identified with the ‘almah of Isaiah 7:14, and the Septuagint translators — long before Christianity — rendered ‘almah as parthenos, “virgin.” Your argument does not engage the actual textual data.

Finally, your reply about heos does not address the linguistic point. The phrase “he did not know Her until She had borne a Son” marks the boundary relevant to Matthew’s claim that Joseph had no role in the conception. It does not imply a change afterward, just as “Michal, daughter of Saul, had no child until the day of her death” does not imply she began bearing children after she died. Simply repeating that “Scripture won’t go into sexual details” or saying you have “addressed this several times” does not engage that argument. Matthew’s concern is the divine origin of Jesus, not the scenario you keep insisting on.

None of your replies have addressed these textual issues. You are asserting a mechanism Scripture never states, denying the passages that contradict your claim, and replacing Matthew’s explanation with your own.

I have addressed every one of your statements.

 

[Moonwood]

LOL Do you believe that Yeshua is not the Son of Yahweh?
Does Yeshua ever identify Himself as the Son of the Holy Spirit?
I did show that Yahweh is the Father of Yeshua and all the associated words.
And you can call them all spirits.

The Incarnation of the Word was brought about by the Holy Spirit. That describes agency, not identity. Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father because God is one and Triune. The Spirit causes the conception; the Father is the Son’s eternal source. You’re collapsing those categories. So how can you claim the conception was caused by Yahweh having sex with Mary?

Boy you have got to be kidding! Basic understanding of the word imply sexual intercourse. LOL

You’re responding to something I didn’t say. I never claimed that words like “begotten,” “conceived,” or “impregnate” never imply sexual reproduction. My point was that they do not imply sexual reproduction in this context, because Matthew explicitly identifies the cause of the conception. When the text itself says the conception was “of the Holy Spirit,” the lexical range of those words is constrained by the explanation Matthew gives. You cannot override Matthew’s stated cause of the conception by appealing to a general dictionary sense of “begotten.” The issue is not what the words can mean in isolation, but what they mean when Matthew tells you how the conception occurred.

If you want to draw me into a discussion of the various words for virgin. That is quite the topic they have been debating the terms for virginity for a long time.....no one wins and the full topic is to explicit for this forum.
And here is a thought.....The Septuagint calls Danah a παρθένος (parthenos) after she was raped.

You’re responding to something I didn’t argue. I’m not trying to “draw you into a discussion of the various words for virgin.” I pointed out a specific textual fact: Matthew himself identifies Isaiah 7:14 as finding its fulfillment in Christ, and the ‘almah in Isaiah 7:14 is not the prophetess of Isaiah 8:3. Those are two different women in two different contexts, and the text never identifies them.

Your comment about Dinah being called parthenos in the Septuagint does not address that point. The meaning of parthenos in Genesis 34 has no bearing on how the Septuagint translators used parthenos in Isaiah 7:14. Words have different senses in different contexts, and Matthew is following the Isaiah 7:14 usage, not the Genesis 34 usage. None of this changes the fact that Matthew is applying Isaiah 7:14 typologically to Christ, and your argument has not engaged Matthew’s hermeneutics at all.

Boy you have got to be kidding! Basic understanding of the word imply sexual intercourse. LOL

You’re responding to something I didn’t say. I never claimed that words like “begotten,” “conceived,” or “impregnate” never imply sexual reproduction. My point was that they do not imply sexual reproduction in this context, because Matthew explicitly identifies the cause of the conception. When the text itself says the conception was “of the Holy Spirit,” the lexical range of those words is constrained by the explanation Matthew gives. You cannot override Matthew’s stated cause of the conception by appealing to a general dictionary sense of “begotten.” The issue is not what the words can mean in isolation, but what they mean when Matthew tells you how the conception occurred.

If you want to draw me into a discussion of the various words for virgin. That is quite the topic they have been debating the terms for virginity for a long time.....no one wins and the full topic is to explicit for this forum.
And here is a thought.....The Septuagint calls Danah a παρθένος (parthenos) after she was raped.

You’re responding to something I didn’t argue. I’m not trying to “draw you into a discussion of the various words for virgin.” I pointed out a specific textual fact: Matthew himself identifies Isaiah 7:14 as finding its fulfillment in Christ, and the ‘almah in Isaiah 7:14 is not the prophetess of Isaiah 8:3. Those are two different women in two different contexts, and the text never identifies them.

Your comment about Dinah being called parthenos in the Septuagint does not address that point. The meaning of parthenos in Genesis 34 has no bearing on how the Septuagint translators used parthenos in Isaiah 7:14. Words have different senses in different contexts, and Matthew is following the Isaiah 7:14 usage, not the Genesis 34 usage. None of this changes the fact that Matthew is applying Isaiah 7:14 typologically to Christ, and your argument has not engaged Matthew’s hermeneutics at all.

I am not sure what you are trying to imply? Joseph had no part in Yeshua's conception and Michal died before she could have children. Scriptures won't go into sexual details is just stating the facts. Every word connected to procreation is used. That is good enough for me.

You’re agreeing with points I never disputed. Yes, Joseph had no role in the conception, and yes, Michal died childless. Those are not the issues. The point you still have not addressed is the linguistic function of heos in Matthew 1:25. The phrase “he did not know Her until She had borne a Son” marks the boundary relevant to Matthew’s claim that Joseph had no part in the conception. It does not imply a change afterward, just as “Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until the day of her death” does not imply she began bearing children after she died. Saying “Scripture won’t go into sexual details” does not answer that argument, because the issue is not sexual detail — it is the meaning of heos in Koine Greek.

And your claim that “every word connected to procreation is used” is simply incorrect. Matthew uses ordinary non‑sexual language (“was found with child,” “did not know Her,” “of the Holy Spirit”), and none of those words imply sexual intercourse.

I have addressed every one of your statements.

You keep saying you’ve “addressed” my points, but you’re using “addressed” to mean that you’ve replied to them. What I mean is that you haven’t actually engaged or refuted the arguments themselves. In every case, you’ve responded to something different from what I said, or you’ve repeated your assumption instead of interacting with the textual evidence I presented.

 

[Grailhunter]

the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you

Sounds like the missionary position to me.
And again, do you think Yeshua is the Son of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Grailhunter]

You’re responding to something I didn’t say. I never claimed that words like “begotten,” “conceived,” or “impregnate” never imply sexual reproduction. My point was that they do not imply sexual reproduction in this context, because Matthew explicitly identifies the cause of the conception. When the text itself says the conception was “of the Holy Spirit,” the lexical range of those words is constrained by the explanation Matthew gives. You cannot override Matthew’s stated cause of the conception by appealing to a general dictionary sense of “begotten.” The issue is not what the words can mean in isolation, but what they mean when Matthew tells you how the conception occurred.

What do you mean by "in this context"
Yes I know what the scriptures say but the end result Yeshua was Yahweh's Son.
Next time you see them ask how the Holy Spirit was involved with Yeshua's conception. The scriptures are lean on deals.

 

[Grailhunter]

Your comment about Dinah being called parthenos in the Septuagint does not address that point. The meaning of parthenos in Genesis 34 has no bearing on how the Septuagint translators used parthenos in Isaiah 7:14. Words have different senses in different contexts, and Matthew is following the Isaiah 7:14 usage, not the Genesis 34 usage. None of this changes the fact that Matthew is applying Isaiah 7:14 typologically to Christ, and your argument has not engaged Matthew’s hermeneutics at all.

As I said no one has ever won this debate....
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=cfa6...yY2g_cT0rcGFydGhlbm9zJmZvcm09Q1NCUkFORA&ntb=1
Parthenos (παρθένος) is a Greek term meaning “virgin” or “maiden,” referring to an unmarried woman whose sexual purity is intact, and by extension, symbolizing spiritual or covenantal purity.

Meaning of “hā·‘al·māh” in Greek
In the Hebrew Bible, hā·‘al·māh (הָֽעַלְמָה) is a feminine noun meaning “young woman, maiden, virgin” It comes from the root meaning “to be full of vigour” or “to have reached puberty,” and in the ancient Near East context, it referred to a woman of childbearing age, often in the context of marriage. While the term can sometimes imply virginity, scholarly consensus notes that in most biblical uses it denotes fertility and marriageability rather than virginity

hā·‘al·māh is what appears in the Hebrew Bible for Isaiah 7:14

 

[Grailhunter]

And your claim that “every word connected to procreation is used” is simply incorrect.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Grailhunter]

What I mean is that you haven’t actually engaged or refuted the arguments themselves.

It is easy for me because the scriptures refute you.

 

[Moonwood]

And again, do you think Yeshua is the Son of the Holy Spirit?

What do you mean by "in this context"
Yes I know what the scriptures say but the end result Yeshua was Yahweh's Son.
Next time you see them ask how the Holy Spirit was involved with Yeshua's conception. The scriptures are lean on deals.

I had said, "The Incarnation of the Word was brought about by the Holy Spirit. That describes agency, not identity. Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father because God is one and Triune. The Spirit causes the conception; the Father is the Son’s eternal source. You’re collapsing those categories."

And “In this context” means in the specific passage where Matthew explicitly identifies the cause of the conception. When Matthew says the conception was “of the Holy Spirit,” that explanation governs how terms like “begotten,” “conceived,” or “impregnate” function in this passage. You can’t override Matthew’s stated cause by appealing to a general dictionary sense of those words.

Matthew says the conception was “of the Holy Spirit,” and Luke says “the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” Those passages describe divine action, not a sexual act by Yahweh. So how can you claim the conception was caused by Yahweh having sex with Mary?

As I said no one has ever won this debate....
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=cfa6...yY2g_cT0rcGFydGhlbm9zJmZvcm09Q1NCUkFORA&ntb=1
Parthenos (παρθένος) is a Greek term meaning “virgin” or “maiden,” referring to an unmarried woman whose sexual purity is intact, and by extension, symbolizing spiritual or covenantal purity.

Meaning of “hā·‘al·māh” in Greek
In the Hebrew Bible, hā·‘al·māh (הָֽעַלְמָה) is a feminine noun meaning “young woman, maiden, virgin” It comes from the root meaning “to be full of vigour” or “to have reached puberty,” and in the ancient Near East context, it referred to a woman of childbearing age, often in the context of marriage. While the term can sometimes imply virginity, scholarly consensus notes that in most biblical uses it denotes fertility and marriageability rather than virginity

hā·‘al·māh is what appears in the Hebrew Bible for Isaiah 7:14

You’re still not engaging the point I actually made. I’m not debating the entire semantic history of parthenos or ‘almah. I’m pointing out a specific textual fact: Matthew identifies Isaiah 7:14 as finding its fulfillment in Christ, and the ‘almah of Isaiah 7:14 is not the prophetess of Isaiah 8:3. Those are two different women in two different contexts, and the text never identifies them.

Your Dinah example and your link do not address that. The meaning of parthenos in Genesis 34 has no bearing on how the Septuagint translators used parthenos in Isaiah 7:14. Words have different senses in different contexts, and Matthew is following the Isaiah 7:14 usage, not the Genesis 34 usage.

You keep saying “no one has ever won this debate,” but that doesn’t answer the textual point. Matthew’s hermeneutics are clear: he applies Isaiah 7:14 typologically to Christ. Your argument still hasn’t engaged Matthew’s own interpretive move.

Absolutely correct.

You only responded to the last sentence and ignored the actual argument. The main point was the linguistic function of heos in Matthew 1:25. You agreed with two things I never disputed (Joseph had no role in the conception, and Michal died childless), but you still haven’t addressed how heos works in Koine Greek. “He did not know Her until She had borne a Son” marks the boundary relevant to Matthew’s claim; it does not imply a change afterward, just as “Michal had no child until the day of her death” does not imply she began bearing children after she died. Saying “Scripture won’t go into sexual details” doesn’t answer that, because the issue isn’t sexual detail — it’s the meaning of heos.

And your “Absolutely correct” doesn’t fix the fact that your claim about “every word connected to procreation” doesn’t match the text. Matthew uses ordinary, non‑sexual language: “was found with child,” “of the Holy Spirit,” and “did not know Her.” None of those are sexual terms, and none of them imply intercourse.

It is easy for me because the scriptures refute you.

Saying “the scriptures refute you” isn’t a refutation. It’s just a claim. A refutation requires you to show which premise is wrong, where the reasoning fails, or which passage contradicts the argument. You haven’t done any of that. You’ve only asserted disagreement.

 

[Grailhunter]

I had said, "The Incarnation of the Word was brought about by the Holy Spirit. That describes agency, not identity. Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father because God is one and Triune. The Spirit causes the conception; the Father is the Son’s eternal source. You’re collapsing those categories."

That is clear a mud. What do you mean by agency? Of which I don't think you know.

 

[Grailhunter]

And “In this context” means in the specific passage where Matthew explicitly identifies the cause of the conception. When Matthew says the conception was “of the Holy Spirit,” that explanation governs how terms like “begotten,” “conceived,” or “impregnate” function in this passage. You can’t override Matthew’s stated cause by appealing to a general dictionary sense of those words.

Matthew never explains what he meant.
Words and their definitions are what makes up the scriptures.....no smoke signals.

 

[Grailhunter]

And yes, Jesus is the Father's Son — but that refers to His eternal identity, not the mechanics of His conception. God is one and Triune. The Father is the Son’s eternal source; the Spirit is the agent of the Incarnation. You’re collapsing identity and agency.

Well that is where we disagree.
Can you think of any other words that define the process of procreation?

 

[Grailhunter]

Matthew says the conception was “of the Holy Spirit,” and Luke says “the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” Those passages describe divine action, not a sexual act by Yahweh. So how can you claim the conception was caused by Yahweh having sex with Mary?

No it sounds like the missionary position to me.

 

[Grailhunter]

You’re still not engaging the point I actually made. I’m not debating the entire semantic history of parthenos or ‘almah. I’m pointing out a specific textual fact: Matthew identifies Isaiah 7:14 as finding its fulfillment in Christ, and the ‘almah of Isaiah 7:14 is not the prophetess of Isaiah 8:3. Those are two different women in two different contexts, and the text never identifies them.

Two different women?

 

[Grailhunter]

Your Dinah example and your link do not address that. The meaning of parthenos in Genesis 34 has no bearing on how the Septuagint translators used parthenos in Isaiah 7:14. Words have different senses in different contexts, and Matthew is following the Isaiah 7:14 usage, not the Genesis 34 usage.

My point is that the scholars do not agree on the usage of the various words for virgin. They have been at it for centuries, nothing we will settle here. You have to look at the circumstance of how it is used in the storyline. Isaiah had sex with his wife and she had a baby. That is the context of that.

 

[Grailhunter]

You keep saying “no one has ever won this debate,” but that doesn’t answer the textual point. Matthew’s hermeneutics are clear: he applies Isaiah 7:14 typologically to Christ. Your argument still hasn’t engaged Matthew’s own interpretive move.

I agree with you that Matthew does. The reasoning for it is the question. Because he knew that Isaiah had sex with his wife and she had a baby.

 

[Grailhunter]

how heos works in Koine Greek

You mean you do not know?
In Koine Greek, the word ἕως (heós) is a conjunction, preposition, and adverb of continuance that expresses the idea of “until,” “till,” “as far as,” “up to,” or “while”. It marks a limit — the point up to which something continues.

 

[Grailhunter]

I had said, "The Incarnation of the Word was brought about by the Holy Spirit. That describes agency, not identity. Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father because God is one and Triune. The Spirit causes the conception; the Father is the Son’s eternal source. You’re collapsing those categories."

And “In this context” means in the specific passage where Matthew explicitly identifies the cause of the conception. When Matthew says the conception was “of the Holy Spirit,” that explanation governs how terms like “begotten,” “conceived,” or “impregnate” function in this passage. You can’t override Matthew’s stated cause by appealing to a general dictionary sense of those words.

Matthew says the conception was “of the Holy Spirit,” and Luke says “the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” Those passages describe divine action, not a sexual act by Yahweh. So how can you claim the conception was caused by Yahweh having sex with Mary?



You’re still not engaging the point I actually made. I’m not debating the entire semantic history of parthenos or ‘almah. I’m pointing out a specific textual fact: Matthew identifies Isaiah 7:14 as finding its fulfillment in Christ, and the ‘almah of Isaiah 7:14 is not the prophetess of Isaiah 8:3. Those are two different women in two different contexts, and the text never identifies them.

Your Dinah example and your link do not address that. The meaning of parthenos in Genesis 34 has no bearing on how the Septuagint translators used parthenos in Isaiah 7:14. Words have different senses in different contexts, and Matthew is following the Isaiah 7:14 usage, not the Genesis 34 usage.

You keep saying “no one has ever won this debate,” but that doesn’t answer the textual point. Matthew’s hermeneutics are clear: he applies Isaiah 7:14 typologically to Christ. Your argument still hasn’t engaged Matthew’s own interpretive move.



You only responded to the last sentence and ignored the actual argument. The main point was the linguistic function of heos in Matthew 1:25. You agreed with two things I never disputed (Joseph had no role in the conception, and Michal died childless), but you still haven’t addressed how heos works in Koine Greek. “He did not know Her until She had borne a Son” marks the boundary relevant to Matthew’s claim; it does not imply a change afterward, just as “Michal had no child until the day of her death” does not imply she began bearing children after she died. Saying “Scripture won’t go into sexual details” doesn’t answer that, because the issue isn’t sexual detail — it’s the meaning of heos.

And your “Absolutely correct” doesn’t fix the fact that your claim about “every word connected to procreation” doesn’t match the text. Matthew uses ordinary, non‑sexual language: “was found with child,” “of the Holy Spirit,” and “did not know Her.” None of those are sexual terms, and none of them imply intercourse.



Saying “the scriptures refute you” isn’t a refutation. It’s just a claim. A refutation requires you to show which premise is wrong, where the reasoning fails, or which passage contradicts the argument. You haven’t done any of that. You’ve only asserted disagreement.

Like I said I stick with the scriptures and the scriptures refute you. So go argue with them.

 

[Moonwood]

Two different women?

My point is that the scholars do not agree on the usage of the various words for virgin. They have been at it for centuries, nothing we will settle here. You have to look at the circumstance of how it is used in the storyline. Isaiah had sex with his wife and she had a baby. That is the context of that.

I agree with you that Matthew does. The reasoning for it is the question. Because he knew that Isaiah had sex with his wife and she had a baby.

That is clear a mud. What do you mean by agency? Of which I don't think you know.

Matthew never explains what he meant.
Words and their definitions are what makes up the scriptures.....no smoke signals.

In Koine Greek, the word ἕως (heós) is a conjunction, preposition, and adverb of continuance that expresses the idea of “until,” “till,” “as far as,” “up to,” or “while”. It marks a limit — the point up to which something continues.

Like I said I stick with the scriptures and the scriptures refute you. So go argue with them.

You’re still not engaging the actual arguments. Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 8:3 describe two different women in two different contexts. Isaiah 7:14 speaks of the ‘almah whose child is called Immanuel. Isaiah 8:3 speaks of the prophetess whose child is Maher‑shalal‑hash‑baz. The text never identifies these two women as the same person, and the children are not the same child. Saying “Isaiah had sex with his wife and she had a baby” simply describes Isaiah 8:3. It does not turn the prophetess of 8:3 into the ‘almah of 7:14, and it does not explain Matthew’s use of 7:14. Your reasoning only works if those two women are the same person — but the text gives no reason to think that, and every reason to think they are different.

Your appeal to “scholars disagree about the meaning of virgin” doesn’t address that distinction, because I’m not debating the entire semantic range of parthenos or ‘almah. I’m pointing out that Matthew applies Isaiah 7:14 typologically to Christ, and your explanation only works if you collapse Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 8:3 into one woman — something the text itself does not do.

Saying “I stick with the scriptures and the scriptures refute you” is not an argument, it’s just a conclusion. A refutation would require you to show which passage contradicts which claim I made, and where the reasoning fails. I’ve given you specific texts — Matthew 1, Luke 1, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 8:3 — and shown how your interpretation collapses categories those passages keep distinct. If you think Scripture refutes what I said, then quote the verse and show the contradiction. Simply asserting it doesn’t answer anything.

On the conception: “agency” means who performs the action. In Matthew and Luke, the Holy Spirit is the one Who performs the action of causing the conception. That’s agency. “Identity” means Who Jesus eternally is — the Son of the Father. You’re mixing those categories together. When I say “The Incarnation of the Word was brought about by the Holy Spirit,” I’m describing Who acted. When I say “Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father,” I’m describing Who He is. Those are not the same question.

Matthew says the conception was “of the Holy Spirit,” and Luke says “the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” Those passages describe divine action, not a sexual act by Yahweh. So I’ll ask the question again, since you haven’t answered it: how can you claim the conception was caused by Yahweh having sex with Mary when Matthew and Luke explicitly attribute the action to the Holy Spirit?

Matthew does explain what he means — he explains the cause of the conception. That explanation governs how terms like “begotten,” “conceived,” or “impregnate” function in this passage. You can’t override Matthew’s stated cause by appealing to a general dictionary definition. Context determines meaning; a dictionary only gives the range of possible senses.

Appealing to bare definitions doesn’t answer the argument. The issue is not what the words can mean in isolation, but what they do mean when Matthew tells you how the conception occurred.

The same problem appears in your use of heos. Quoting a dictionary definition (“marks a limit”) doesn’t address the actual linguistic point. Yes, heos marks a boundary — that’s exactly why Matthew uses it. The question is whether heos in Koine Greek implies a change after the limit. It doesn’t. “He did not know Her until She had borne a Son” marks the boundary relevant to Matthew’s claim that Joseph had no role in the conception. It does not imply that he “knew Her” afterward, just as “Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until the day of her death” does not imply she began bearing children after she died.

So the issue is not what heos can mean in isolation, but how it functions in Koine Greek when it marks a boundary without implying reversal. That’s the part you still haven’t addressed.

 

[Grailhunter]

You’re still not engaging the actual arguments. Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 8:3 describe two different women in two different contexts.

They are not two different women.
3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Isiaih 8:3

 

[Grailhunter]

7:14 speaks of the ‘almah whose child is called Immanuel. Isaiah 8:3 speaks of the prophetess whose child is Maher‑shalal‑hash‑baz

They are still Isaiah's children.