A Textual Challenge to the “Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations” Position

[Moonwood]

Nothing says what Mary expected.

Mary asks what “she does not understand.”

Obvious, Mary Understood How, a Conception occurs between a human males seed fertalizing a human females egg, via an intercourse event, which she reveals she had not been a participant in such an event.

Already established…
Mary only Knew of Conception to occur, after intercourse between a male and female.

Mary’s Curiousity and Wonderment prompted her own Questions and Answer she received.

Elizabeth was older.
She had not had children.
She had no expectation to have children.
Yet … Mary was informed … Elizabeth unexpectedly (even in her older age) was expecting a child.

I simply understand, what humans do not think possible, IS possible through God, simply being regarded as A MIRACLE via God.

Mary Was NOT being TOLD any kind of “CONCEPTION” would occur.

Conception meaning…
The moment a male sperm fertalizes a female egg.

Mary Was expressly TOLD she would be “Conceived” IN “her womb”.

Conceived meaning…
Be Pregnant
AND..
For Mary specific…
The child would be:
* by Gods intervention…
* her FIRST born…
* the child would be a Boy…
* That one day…that Child would BE called …the Son of God.

Mary was according to mans law…
…Jesus’ legal mother.
Joseph was according to mans law…
…Jesus’ legal father.

According to Gods word…Jesus had no beginning / ending / mother / father

Mary’s role was her being a faithful servant…and rememberance of her being a faithful servant…
Holds no higher importance of remembrance than Other specifically Scripturally mentioned faithful servants…

Glory to God,
Taken

Thank you for replying.

But your answers don’t resolve the textual issues I’m raising.

When you say “Nothing says what Mary expected,” that doesn’t really address the point. If you believe Mary and Joseph would eventually consummate their marriage, then Luke does not need to say Mary expected that — it was the normal expectation of every betrothed Jewish couple.

And I’m not asking what Mary knew about biology.
I’m asking why She speaks as though conception is impossible if She expects normal marital relations with Joseph.

If She expects future relations, conception would not be impossible — only not yet. In that situation She would ask when, not how.

And Gabriel’s response reinforces the same point: He describes a miraculous, non‑sexual conception (“Holy Spirit will come upon you… power of the Most High will overshadow you”) and cites Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that makes sense if Mary’s conception is expected to be natural.

So the textual issue remains:

Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention if Mary expected normal marital relations?

 

[quietthinker]

Many here — including @Titus, @David in NJ, @Armour of God, @marks, @David Lamb, @sondring7, and @markalan — reject the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and instead assert that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus. The usual arguments are:

• Marriage is oriented toward procreation (Genesis 2).
• “To know one’s wife” means sexual relations.
• “Joseph knew Her not until She had given birth to a Son” (Matthew 1:25), therefore they must have had intercourse afterward.
• Paul teaches that spouses owe each other conjugal rights except for limited periods (1 Corinthians 7).

If this position is truly confident, scriptural, and well‑supported — and if those of us who disagree, including myself, @BreadOfLife, @Marymog, and @GodsGrace, are mistaken — then it should be able to withstand these simple, text‑based questions.

​

1. Mary’s Question to Gabriel (Luke 1:34)​

When Gabriel announces that Mary will conceive a son, Mary replies:

“How will this occur, since I do not know man (οὐ γινώσκω ἄνδρα)?”

The text shows Mary:

• betrothed (legally married under Jewish law; cf. Matthew 1:19–20) to Joseph (Luke 1:27),
• responding to the announcement of conception by asking how conception will occur (Luke 1:34)
• explaining Her confusion by stating that She “does not know man” (Luke 1:34)

So the question stands:

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why does She ask how conception will occur — and explain Her confusion by saying She "knows not man"?

​

2. Gabriel’s Answer (Luke 1:35–37)​

Gabriel answers Mary’s question by describing a conception brought about by divine action:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You.”
“Your kinswoman Elizabeth has conceived in her old age… for nothing will be impossible with God.”

The text shows Gabriel responding to Mary’s question with:

• a description of miraculous conception,
• an example of another woman whose conception was naturally impossible,
• and a statement that God overcomes what is impossible.

So the question stands:

If Mary expected to conceive naturally through Joseph, why does Gabriel respond with a description of miraculous, non‑sexual conception and reinforce it by citing Elizabeth — a woman whose conception was naturally impossible? What relevance would Elizabeth’s impossibility have if Mary’s conception were expected to be natural?


These questions arise directly from Luke’s narrative logic. If the text supports the expectation of normal marital relations, it should be possible to explain why Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention. I ask that responses address these questions directly, without shifting to unrelated topics or assumptions.

Tell me why this matter is sufficiently important to you, Moonwood.....which evidently it is as you've raised it before?

 

[Taken]

Thank you for replying.

But your answers don’t resolve the textual issues I’m raising.

When you say “Nothing says what Mary expected,” that doesn’t really address the point. If you believe Mary and Joseph would eventually consummate their marriage, then Luke does not need to say Mary expected that — it was the normal expectation of every betrothed Jewish couple.

And I’m not asking what Mary knew about biology.
I’m asking why She speaks as though conception is impossible if She expects normal marital relations with Joseph.

If She expects future relations, conception would not be impossible — only not yet. In that situation She would ask when, not how.

And Gabriel’s response reinforces the same point: He describes a miraculous, non‑sexual conception (“Holy Spirit will come upon you… power of the Most High will overshadow you”) and cites Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that makes sense if Mary’s conception is expected to be natural.

So the question remains:

Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention if Mary expected normal marital relations?

Until Mary was approached by an Angel… nothing indicates … Mary had Any thought of becoming “conceived” without engaging in “intercourse with a human man”.

It was NEW (and likely very surprising) information given her.

Similar… to an experiment conducted in the 1970’s whereby an extracted male sperm was used to Fertalize an extracted female egg in a petre dish in a science lab, and the Fertalization result induced into the females womb, and a successful Conception (pregancy) occured in the females Womb, that had nothing to do with the act of intercourse between the male and female (married couple).
That as well was News. And as well, a surprising event, new to the world.

 

[Taken]

Thank you for replying.

U R welcome.

So the question remains:

Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention if Mary expected normal marital relations?

Neither speak “as though” conception is impossible “without Devine Intervention”.

That Would Presume, men and women for centuries were ignorant of How a female becomes pregnant.

Mary was puzzled, mentioning, the natural way a female becomes pregnant, had not applied to her specific.

The Angel simply Gave Mary Notice that HER Specific First Pregancy “would be” by Divine Intervention, and she would deliver forth a MALE Child.

 

[Grailhunter]

Your answers still don’t resolve the textual issue I’m raising.

I’m not asking whether Mary is a virgin or “in a relationship.”
I’m asking why She speaks as though conception is impossible if She expects normal marital relations with Joseph.

Again you don't like the facts and I have resolved the textual issue, you just do not like the facts or what the scriptures say. Cut and pasted from 18
Because of what the Angel said.....31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.
Just that she will conceive.......She knows she is a virgin and she is not involved with a man. So she is wondering how that is going to happen.
She does not think conception is impossible, or it would be a miracle, she is questioning how it is possible since she is not in a relationship.
And then the Angel answered her question....The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. Question answered, just that simple.....three times.

When you say Mary is “not in a relationship,” you seem to mean She is betrothed but the marriage is not yet consummated. But in that case She still expects future relations with Joseph. And if She expects future relations, conception is not impossible — only not yet. In that situation She would ask when, not how.

If the Angel would have answered that it be from Joseph, she would have understood. It is all about how the Angel put it....."you will conceive" She could have answered How, I have never had sex with anyone and I am not in a sexual relationship now.

The Angel Gabriel absolutely does not describe non-sexual conception. All he is describing is who. "Luke's narrative logic" has no suggestion of non-sexual conception. What is non-sexual conception? A miracle? Miriam's egg miraculously become an embryo. Then we are back to Yeshua not being the Son of God. You are fighting the whole theme of the New Testament. Yeshua is the real Son of Yahweh. A fact that He himself testifies to. Again you want to come up with your own story.

Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention if Mary expected normal marital relations?

Why wouldn't Miriam be thinking of normal marital relations? Gabriel does not say that she cannot conceive without divine intervention. Gabriel then explains that her conception will be with the divine. No intervention, another word that is only in your mind, not the scriptures.

You are a perfect example of how powerful false beliefs are. They set up a filter and you cannot even read the scripture because the filter says.....NO! NO! It is something else! It is not what the scriptures say! You must believe this false belief! And so this is how false beliefs control the mind.

False beliefs start from men, not scripture. False beliefs are so powerful they can deceive millions of people, even change the understanding of history. To the point that scriptures cannot penetrate that false belief filter. A good example; In the 5th century St. Jerome came up with the Latin word for fornicate and it developed into the English word fornication that came to have a few meanings. Its not Biblical. But originally it had to do with the sin of sex with a prostitute. But it evolved and included the belief that two single people having sex was a sin.
So it lead people to believe that a wedding ceremony was always required to be married. They believed that people in the Bible were having wedding ceremonies. This false belief was so powerful it changes peoples understanding of history....Even the source material and some dictionaries. Look up the Marriage at Cana, odds are you will find that it is called the Wedding at Cana. The scriptures actually calls it the Marriage at Cana and there is no wedding ceremony.....The storyline picks up at what we would call the reception.

The Truth is for Jews and Christians for most of history....two single people having sex is how they got married, no sin. In most places even if you have a wedding ceremony, if you do not have sex, you can get the marriage annulled. Even now sex consummates the marriage.

For most of Christian history wedding ceremonies were voluntary. The Catholic Church would not even allow them inside their churches. In the 16th century the Protestants made church wedding ceremonies mandatory to be married. The Catholic Church soon followed suite and allowed them in their churches.

Anyway, you would be great case study of the power of false beliefs on the mind.

 

[David Lamb]

Thank you for replying.

My questions are not about “doctrines of man” — they come directly from Luke’s narrative.

Could you please answer the two specific textual questions I asked?

1. Why does Mary ask how conception will occur if She expects normal marital relations?
2. Why does Gabriel respond with a description of miraculous conception rather than simply telling Her it will happen through Joseph?

Your reply didn’t address either of these, and they are the core of the discussion.

1. She was only betrothed to Joseph at the time. Although betrothal was far more definite and binding than our "engagement", I understand that the betrothed couple would have no direct contact, let alone sexual relations, during their betrothal period, which lasted about a year. We don't know how far through that time Mary was when Gabriel visited her. It seems quite natural for Mary to ask what she did.

2. Because Jesus was not to be Joseph's biological Son. If, as the Bible tells us, Jesus is the Son of God, why should God's messenger, Gabriel, tell Mary something different?

 

[Lambano]

If She expects future relations, conception would not be impossible — only not yet.

What I find curious about Mary's response is that while the Angel is talking about a future event, Mary responds with her current situation, as indicated by the Present Active Indicative tense of ginosko. "I am not currently having sex with a man." Apparently, her arranged marriage to Joseph is so far in the future that it is not on her radar at this time. Maybe Joseph had one of those 7-year installment plan payment arrangements with Mary's parents like Jacob did with Laban.

Or, maybe Mary is a typical young teenager who is understandingly overwhelmed by an angelic visitor and not thinking that far ahead.

 

[Titus]

Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention if Mary expected normal marital relations?

Mary did not speak as if she was barren.
A women who knows she cannot get pregnant having intercourse with a man does not say:
Luke 1:34,
- then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be , seeing I know not a man

That's not the response of a barren women.
This is:
Genesis 18:10-12,
- now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women
- therefore Sarah laughed within herself saying After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also

Both Sarah and Mary cannot humanly have child under their circumstances.
However Sarah would conceive with her husband but only by the intervention of the Lord.
Mary would also miraculously conceive by the Holy Spirit.
That is why Mary says how can this be? I've not been with a man?

 

[Moonwood]

Tell me why this matter is sufficiently important to you, Moonwood.....

Thank you for replying.

It’s important to me because I’m trying to understand the internal consistency of the position many here hold — that Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph.

If that expectation is correct, then Luke’s narrative should reflect it. But in Luke 1, both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention. Mary asks how conception will occur, not when, and explains Her confusion by saying She “does not know man.” Gabriel responds with a description of miraculous, non‑sexual conception and cites Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception.

So my interest is simply in the textual logic: If Mary expected normal marital relations, why does the narrative present conception as something that cannot occur without divine action?

 

[Moonwood]

Until Mary was approached by an Angel… nothing indicates … Mary had Any thought of becoming “conceived” without engaging in “intercourse with a human man”.

It was NEW (and likely very surprising) information given her.

Similar… to an experiment conducted in the 1970’s whereby an extracted male sperm was used to Fertalize an extracted female egg in a petre dish in a science lab, and the Fertalization result induced into the females womb, and a successful Conception (pregancy) occured in the females Womb, that had nothing to do with the act of intercourse between the male and female (married couple).
That as well was News. And as well, a surprising event, new to the world.


Neither speak “as though” conception is impossible “without Devine Intervention”.

That Would Presume, men and women for centuries were ignorant of How a female becomes pregnant.

Mary was puzzled, mentioning, the natural way a female becomes pregnant, had not applied to her specific.

The Angel simply Gave Mary Notice that HER Specific First Pregancy “would be” by Divine Intervention, and she would deliver forth a MALE Child.

Your explanation still doesn’t resolve the textual issue I’m raising.

You say Mary had no thought of becoming pregnant without intercourse. I agree — that is exactly why Her question is so striking. If She expects future marital relations with Joseph, then conception is not impossible, only not yet. In that situation the natural question would be when, not how.

And this is where the narrative becomes clear:

Impossibilities in Scripture are tied to physical obstructions — barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband. Mary has none of these. Under Her circumstances, natural conception through Joseph is entirely possible. Yet She speaks as though conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

Gabriel never tells Mary when she will conceive — only that she will. If Her confusion were simply about being a virgin until consummation, She would ask when, not how. Her question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

That is why She says, “I do not know man,” not “I am not married yet.”

And Gabriel’s response reinforces the same point: He describes a miraculous, non‑sexual conception (“Holy Spirit will come upon you… power of the Most High will overshadow you”) and cites Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that makes sense if Mary’s conception is expected to be natural.

So the textual issue remains:

Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention if Mary expected normal marital relations?

 

[Moonwood]

Again you don't like the facts and I have resolved the textual issue, you just do not like the facts or what the scriptures say. Cut and pasted from 18
Because of what the Angel said.....31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.
Just that she will conceive.......She knows she is a virgin and she is not involved with a man. So she is wondering how that is going to happen.
She does not think conception is impossible, or it would be a miracle, she is questioning how it is possible since she is not in a relationship.
And then the Angel answered her question....The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. Question answered, just that simple.....three times.




If the Angel would have answered that it be from Joseph, she would have understood. It is all about how the Angel put it....."you will conceive" She could have answered How, I have never had sex with anyone and I am not in a sexual relationship now.

The Angel Gabriel absolutely does not describe non-sexual conception. All he is describing is who. "Luke's narrative logic" has no suggestion of non-sexual conception. What is non-sexual conception? A miracle? Miriam's egg miraculously become an embryo. Then we are back to Yeshua not being the Son of God. You are fighting the whole theme of the New Testament. Yeshua is the real Son of Yahweh. A fact that He himself testifies to. Again you want to come up with your own story.



Why wouldn't Miriam be thinking of normal marital relations? Gabriel does not say that she cannot conceive without divine intervention. Gabriel then explains that her conception will be with the divine. No intervention, another word that is only in your mind, not the scriptures.

You are a perfect example of how powerful false beliefs are. They set up a filter and you cannot even read the scripture because the filter says.....NO! NO! It is something else! It is not what the scriptures say! You must believe this false belief! And so this is how false beliefs control the mind.

False beliefs start from men, not scripture. False beliefs are so powerful they can deceive millions of people, even change the understanding of history. To the point that scriptures cannot penetrate that false belief filter. A good example; In the 5th century St. Jerome came up with the Latin word for fornicate and it developed into the English word fornication that came to have a few meanings. Its not Biblical. But originally it had to do with the sin of sex with a prostitute. But it evolved and included the belief that two single people having sex was a sin.
So it lead people to believe that a wedding ceremony was always required to be married. They believed that people in the Bible were having wedding ceremonies. This false belief was so powerful it changes peoples understanding of history....Even the source material and some dictionaries. Look up the Marriage at Cana, odds are you will find that it is called the Wedding at Cana. The scriptures actually calls it the Marriage at Cana and there is no wedding ceremony.....The storyline picks up at what we would call the reception.

The Truth is for Jews and Christians for most of history....two single people having sex is how they got married, no sin. In most places even if you have a wedding ceremony, if you do not have sex, you can get the marriage annulled. Even now sex consummates the marriage.

For most of Christian history wedding ceremonies were voluntary. The Catholic Church would not even allow them inside their churches. In the 16th century the Protestants made church wedding ceremonies mandatory to be married. The Catholic Church soon followed suite and allowed them in their churches.

Anyway, you would be great case study of the power of false beliefs on the mind.

Your reply repeats the same claims, but it still doesn’t resolve the textual issue I’m raising.

You say Mary is confused because She is “not in a relationship.” But that simply means the marriage is not yet consummated. Betrothed Jewish women do expect future marital intercourse. Luke does not need to say Mary expected that; it was the normal expectation of every betrothed couple.

And this is where your explanation breaks down:

Impossibilities in Scripture are tied to physical obstructions — barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband. Mary has none of these. Under Her circumstances, natural conception through Joseph is entirely possible. Yet She speaks as though conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive — only that She will. If Her confusion were simply about being a virgin until consummation, the natural question would be when, not how. Her question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

I’m not asking whether Mary is a virgin or “in a relationship.”
I’m asking why She speaks as though conception is impossible if She expects normal marital relations with Joseph.

And Gabriel’s response reinforces the same point:
He describes a miraculous, non‑sexual conception (“Holy Spirit will come upon you… power of the Most High will overshadow you”) and cites Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that makes sense if Mary’s conception is expected to be natural.

Your theological claims about “Yahweh’s seed,” wedding customs, and false beliefs do not address Luke’s narrative logic. My question is about how Luke presents this specific scene.

So the textual issue remains:

Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention if Mary expected normal marital relations?

 

[Moonwood]

1. She was only betrothed to Joseph at the time. Although betrothal was far more definite and binding than our "engagement", I understand that the betrothed couple would have no direct contact, let alone sexual relations, during their betrothal period, which lasted about a year. We don't know how far through that time Mary was when Gabriel visited her. It seems quite natural for Mary to ask what she did.

2. Because Jesus was not to be Joseph's biological Son. If, as the Bible tells us, Jesus is the Son of God, why should God's messenger, Gabriel, tell Mary something different?

Thank you for replying.

But your answers don’t resolve the textual issue I’m raising.

You say Mary’s question is natural because She was only betrothed and had not yet had contact with Joseph. But if She expected future marital relations, then conception is not impossible, only not yet. In that situation the natural question would be when, not how. And She would explain Her confusion by saying “I am not married yet,” not “I do not know man.”

Impossibilities in Scripture are tied to physical obstructions — barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband. Mary has none of these. Under Her circumstances, natural conception through Joseph is entirely possible. Yet She speaks as though conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive — only that She will. If Her confusion were simply about being a virgin until consummation, the natural question would be when, not how. Her question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

Your second point simply restates theology (“Jesus was not to be Joseph’s biological son”), but it doesn’t explain the narrative logic. Gabriel answers Mary’s question with a description of miraculous, non‑sexual conception and reinforces it by citing Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that makes sense if Mary’s conception were expected to be natural.

So the textual issue remains:

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention?

 

[Moonwood]

What I find curious about Mary's response is that while the Angel is talking about a future event, Mary responds with her current situation, as indicated by the Present Active Indicative tense of ginosko. "I am not currently having sex with a man." Apparently, her arranged marriage to Joseph is so far in the future that it is not on her radar at this time. Maybe Joseph had one of those 7-year installment plan payment arrangements with Mary's parents like Jacob did with Laban.

Or, maybe Mary is a typical young teenager who is understandingly overwhelmed by an angelic visitor and not thinking that far ahead.

Thank you for replying.

Yes — ginosko is Present Active Indicative. But the tense does not mean “I am not currently having sex.” It means “I do not know man,” which is the standard biblical idiom for sexual relations. The issue is not the tense — it is the logic of Mary’s response.

If Mary expected future marital relations, then conception is not impossible, only not yet. In that situation the natural question would be when, not how. And She would explain Her confusion by saying something like “I am not married yet,” not “I do not know man.” The Greek tense does not change this narrative logic.

Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive — only that She will. If Her confusion were simply about being a virgin until consummation, the natural question would be when, not how. Her question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

Speculating that Joseph’s marriage was “far in the future,” or that Mary was overwhelmed, does not explain why both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention. Gabriel answers Her question with a description of miraculous, non‑sexual conception and reinforces it by citing Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that makes sense if Mary’s conception were expected to be natural.

So the textual issue remains:

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention?

 

[Moonwood]

Mary did not speak as if she was barren.
A women who knows she cannot get pregnant having intercourse with a man does not say:
Luke 1:34,
- then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be , seeing I know not a man

That's not the response of a barren women.
This is:
Genesis 18:10-12,
- now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women
- therefore Sarah laughed within herself saying After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also

Both Sarah and Mary cannot humanly have child under their circumstances.
However Sarah would conceive with her husband but only by the intervention of the Lord.
Mary would also miraculously conceive by the Holy Spirit.
That is why Mary says how can this be? I've not been with a man?

Thank you for replying.

But your answer doesn’t address the textual issue I’m raising.

I agree that Mary is not barren. That is exactly the point: a young, betrothed woman who expects future marital relations does not treat conception as impossible. In that situation conception is not impossible, only not yet. The natural question would be when, not how.

Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive — only that She will. If Her confusion were simply about being a virgin until consummation, the natural question would be when, not how. Her question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

Your comparison to Sarah actually reinforces this. Sarah was barren and past childbearing age, so her situation made conception naturally impossible. But Mary is not barren, not old, and not past childbearing age. Under Her circumstances, conception through Joseph would be natural, not impossible.

Yet both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention. Gabriel describes a miraculous, non‑sexual conception and cites Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that makes sense if Mary expected to conceive naturally through Joseph.

So the textual issue remains:

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention?

 

[quietthinker]

Thank you for replying.

It’s important to me because I’m trying to understand the internal consistency of the position many here hold — that Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph.

If that expectation is correct, then Luke’s narrative should reflect it. But in Luke 1, both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention. Mary asks how conception will occur, not when, and explains Her confusion by saying She “does not know man.” Gabriel responds with a description of miraculous, non‑sexual conception and cites Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception.

So my interest is simply in the textual logic: If Mary expected normal marital relations, why does the narrative present conception as something that cannot occur without divine action?

I don't find anything questionable or impossible with Mary conceiving by the Spirit. God does what is impossible for man.
We also have the accounts of Elizabeth as mentioned but also Sarah, Abraham's wife bearing children when barrenness was assumed.

None of this indicates that Mary didn't have a normal marriage relationship with Joseph after Jesus birth.
One can however spin it any way one wants If one wants to do 'virgin' worship ....as adopted in its various forms by pagan religions.

 

[Titus]

Thank you for replying.

But your answer doesn’t address the textual issue I’m raising.

I agree that Mary is not barren. That is exactly the point: a young, betrothed woman who expects future marital relations does not treat conception as impossible. In that situation conception is not impossible, only not yet. The natural question would be when, not how.

Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive — only that She will. If Her confusion were simply about being a virgin until consummation, the natural question would be when, not how. Her question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

Your comparison to Sarah actually reinforces this. Sarah was barren and past childbearing age, so her situation made conception naturally impossible. But Mary is not barren, not old, and not past childbearing age. Under Her circumstances, conception through Joseph would be natural, not impossible.

Yet both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention. Gabriel describes a miraculous, non‑sexual conception and cites Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that makes sense if Mary expected to conceive naturally through Joseph.

So the textual issue remains:

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention?

To answer your question again, they don't speak ever as if natural conception is impossible.

Luke 1:34,
- then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be , seeing I know not a man

Mary knows she can bear children if she is with a man.
If she thought it was impossible she would not have made it clear that once she sleeps with Joseph she can get pregnant. -seeing I know not a man
Mary identifies the problem, she has not had sex with a man.

The only thing Mary questions is becoming pregnant without intercourse.

There is no conflict here.

 

[JimKnox]

Many here — including @Titus, @David in NJ, @Armour of God, @marks, @David Lamb, @sondring7, and @markalan — reject the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and instead assert that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus. The usual arguments are:

• Marriage is oriented toward procreation (Genesis 2).
• “To know one’s wife” means sexual relations.
• “Joseph knew Her not until She had given birth to a Son” (Matthew 1:25), therefore they must have had intercourse afterward.
• Paul teaches that spouses owe each other conjugal rights except for limited periods (1 Corinthians 7).

If this position is truly confident, scriptural, and well‑supported — and if those of us who disagree, including myself, @BreadOfLife, @Marymog, and @GodsGrace, are mistaken — then it should be able to withstand these simple, text‑based questions.

​

1. Mary’s Question to Gabriel (Luke 1:34)​

When Gabriel announces that Mary will conceive a son, Mary replies:

“How will this occur, since I do not know man (οὐ γινώσκω ἄνδρα)?”

The text shows Mary:

• betrothed (legally married under Jewish law; cf. Matthew 1:19–20) to Joseph (Luke 1:27),
• responding to the announcement of conception by asking how conception will occur (Luke 1:34)
• explaining Her confusion by stating that She “does not know man” (Luke 1:34)

So the question stands:

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why does She ask how conception will occur — and explain Her confusion by saying She "knows not man"?

​

2. Gabriel’s Answer (Luke 1:35–37)​

Gabriel answers Mary’s question by describing a conception brought about by divine action:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You.”
“Your kinswoman Elizabeth has conceived in her old age… for nothing will be impossible with God.”

The text shows Gabriel responding to Mary’s question with:

• a description of miraculous conception,
• an example of another woman whose conception was naturally impossible,
• and a statement that God overcomes what is impossible.

So the question stands:

If Mary expected to conceive naturally through Joseph, why does Gabriel respond with a description of miraculous, non‑sexual conception and reinforce it by citing Elizabeth — a woman whose conception was naturally impossible? What relevance would Elizabeth’s impossibility have if Mary’s conception were expected to be natural?


These questions arise directly from Luke’s narrative logic. If the text supports the expectation of normal marital relations, it should be possible to explain why Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention. I ask that responses address these questions directly, without shifting to unrelated topics or assumptions.

Much ado about nothing.
The RCC doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity has been debunked for centuries.
What is your motive for raising it (yet again) in this forum?
Matt 1:18-20 answers this non issue.
Besides which, we find later in the gospel narrative that Mary had other children.
James, the brother of Jesus, being one of the many children she had.

 

[Lambano]

But the tense does not mean “I am not currently having sex.” It means “I do not know man,” which is the standard biblical idiom for sexual relations.

To clarify: Your understanding is that Mary is not saying "I am not at this time having sex with a man" (which is a permissible translation, since Greek does not have an indirect article); she was effectively saying, "I do not have sex with men".

Well, well. I see.

Okay; I know some women who would say that.

 

[Moonwood]

I don't find anything questionable or impossible with Mary conceiving by the Spirit. God does what is impossible for man.
We also have the accounts of Elizabeth as mentioned but also Sarah, Abraham's wife bearing children when barrenness was assumed.

None of this indicates that Mary didn't have a normal marriage relationship with Joseph after Jesus birth.
One can however spin it any way one wants If one wants to do 'virgin' worship ....as adopted in its various forms by pagan religions.

I agree that God can do what is impossible for man. That isn’t the issue I’m raising. I’m not questioning the miraculous conception — I’m asking about the narrative logic in Luke 1.

You say nothing here indicates that Mary didn’t have a normal marriage after Jesus’ birth. But my question is about what Mary expected before the conception. And the text itself presents conception as something Mary sees as impossible under Her expected circumstances.

Mary says “I do not know man,” not “I am not married yet.” If She expected future marital relations, then conception is not impossible, only not yet. In that situation the natural question would be when, not how.

Impossibilities in Scripture are tied to physical obstructions — barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband. Mary has none of these. Under Her circumstances, natural conception through Joseph is entirely possible. Yet She speaks as though conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive — only that She will. If Her confusion were simply about being a virgin until consummation, the natural question would be when, not how. Her question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

And Gabriel reinforces this by describing a miraculous, non‑sexual conception and citing Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that makes sense if Mary expected to conceive naturally through Joseph.

So the textual issue remains:

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention?

My interest is simply in understanding how the text supports that expectation.

 

[Moonwood]

To answer your question again, they don't speak ever as if natural conception is impossible.
Luke 1:34,
- then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be , seeing I know not a man
Mary knows she can bear children if she is with a man.
If she thought it was impossible she would not have made it clear that once she sleeps with Joseph she can get pregnant. -seeing I know not a man
Mary identifies the problem, she has not had sex with a man.

The only thing Mary questions is becoming pregnant without intercourse.

Your answer still doesn’t address the textual issue I’m raising.

You say Mary “knows she can bear children if she is with a man.” I agree — Mary is not barren. But that is exactly why Her response is so striking. A young, betrothed woman who expects future marital relations does not treat conception as impossible. In that situation conception is not impossible, only not yet. The natural question would be when, not how.

Impossibilities in Scripture are tied to physical obstructions — barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband. Mary has none of these. Under Her circumstances, natural conception through Joseph is entirely possible. Yet She speaks as though conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

Mary does not say, “Once I am married, this will make sense.” She says “I do not know man,” which is the biblical idiom for sexual relations. If Her only concern were that She had not yet consummated the marriage, She would say something like “I am not married yet,” not “I do not know man.”

Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive — only that She will. If Her confusion were simply about being a virgin until consummation, the natural question would be when, not how. Her question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

Your comparison to Sarah actually highlights the problem. Sarah was barren and past childbearing age, so her situation made conception naturally impossible. Mary is not barren, not old, and not past childbearing age. Under Her circumstances, conception through Joseph would be natural, not impossible.

Yet both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention. Gabriel describes a miraculous, non‑sexual conception and reinforces it by citing Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that makes sense if Mary expected to conceive naturally through Joseph.

So the textual issue remains:

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention?