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

[Moonwood]

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.

Thank you for replying.

I’m not raising the question to defend any particular tradition. I’m looking at the textual logic of Luke 1. My point is simply that if Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, then the narrative should reflect that expectation. But in Luke’s account, both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention.

Mary does not say, “This will make sense once I am married.” She says “I do not know man,” and asks how, not when. If She expected future marital relations, then 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.

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 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?

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

 

[JimKnox]

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.

OH!!!
I see your problem now!
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned ". (1 Cor 2:14 KJV)
The Bible is a spiritual book and can only be understood by they who have been born again of God.
You have repeatedly rejected EVERY answer given to you because you do not have the Spirit of God. That's got to be your problem.

 

[Moonwood]

OH!!!
I see your problem now!
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned ". (1 Cor 2:14 KJV)
The Bible is a spiritual book and can only be understood by they who have been born again of God.
You have repeatedly rejected EVERY answer given to you because you do not have the Spirit of God. That's got to be your problem.

But 1 Corinthians 2:14 doesn’t address the question I’m raising. I’m not questioning the miraculous conception or the power of God. I’m asking about the narrative logic in Luke 1 — specifically, why Mary responds as though conception is impossible under Her expected circumstances if She anticipated normal marital relations with Joseph.

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.

And Gabriel reinforces this by describing a miraculous, non‑sexual conception and citing Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that fits a scenario where Mary expects natural conception 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 how the text itself supports that expectation.

You have repeatedly rejected EVERY answer given to you because you do not have the Spirit of God. That's got to be your problem.

You said I have “rejected every answer” because I “do not have the Spirit of God.” But did you also notice why I rejected those answers? And did you notice that the answers I received all contradict each other — including yours? They cannot all be right. When people give mutually incompatible explanations, it is reasonable to examine them carefully.

If rejecting contradictory or insufficient answers means someone “does not have the Spirit,” then that would apply equally to everyone whose answers I rejected. Does that mean they do not have the Spirit of God? I don’t think that’s a fair or meaningful standard.

My concern is simply the textual logic in Luke 1. I’m asking why Mary and Gabriel both speak as though conception is impossible under Mary’s expected circumstances if She anticipated normal marital relations with Joseph. 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. Why?

 

[JimKnox]

But 1 Corinthians 2:14 doesn’t address the question I’m raising. I’m not questioning the miraculous conception or the power of God. I’m asking about the narrative logic in Luke 1 — specifically, why Mary responds as though conception is impossible under Her expected circumstances if She anticipated normal marital relations with Joseph.

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.

And Gabriel reinforces this by describing a miraculous, non‑sexual conception and citing Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that fits a scenario where Mary expects natural conception 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 how the text itself supports that expectation.



You said I have “rejected every answer” because I “do not have the Spirit of God.” But did you also notice why I rejected those answers? And did you notice that the answers I received all contradict each other — including yours? They cannot all be right. When people give mutually incompatible explanations, it is reasonable to examine them carefully.

If rejecting contradictory or insufficient answers means someone “does not have the Spirit,” then that would apply equally to everyone whose answers I rejected. Does that mean they do not have the Spirit of God? I don’t think that’s a fair or meaningful standard.

My concern is simply the textual logic in Luke 1. I’m asking why Mary and Gabriel both speak as though conception is impossible under Mary’s expected circumstances if She anticipated normal marital relations with Joseph. 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. Why?

You reject every answer given to you and you have a brand new account therefore you must be a troll.
Blocked in 5.....4.....3....

(Edited) ...2...1...done

 

[Moonwood]

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.

Thank you for the clarification.

But the issue isn’t whether ginosko can be rendered as “I am not at this time having sex.” The point is that Mary uses the biblical idiom “I do not know man,” which refers to sexual relations in general, not merely the present moment. The tense doesn’t change the idiom’s meaning.

And the narrative logic still stands:
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. She would say something like “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.

Speculating that the marriage was “far in the future,” or that Mary was overwhelmed, doesn’t explain why 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 fits a scenario where Mary expects natural conception 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?

 

[Grailhunter]

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.

I did not say that she was confused. betrothed is a little more serious than our engaged, but still she would know when the marriage would take place. She was not planning on having sex that day.

 

[Grailhunter]

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.

Already answered.
But still no indication that she was planning on having sex with Joseph that day. So her question of how is not unreasonable.

 

[Grailhunter]

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.

Already answered.
Exactly! All the more surprising, like it could happen at any time.

 

[Grailhunter]

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.

Already answered.
She only acting like it is impossible because is not in a sexual relationship, and no plans for marriage on that day.

 

[Grailhunter]

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.

Already answered.
Again and again and again and again....
The word miraculous is not assocated with Yeshua's conception.
Elizabeth’s problem was that she was barren. A problem that Yahweh had resolved with other women.

 

[Grailhunter]

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?

Already answered.
Miriam does not use the word impossible, as far as she knew highly possible after she got married. Just was not expecting it that day.

 

[Moonwood]

I did not say that she was confused. betrothed is a little more serious than our engaged, but still she would know when the marriage would take place. She was not planning on having sex that day.

But still no indication that she was planning on having sex with Joseph that day. So her question of how is not unreasonable.

Exactly! All the more surprising, like it could happen at any time.

She only acting like it is impossible because is not in a sexual relationship, and no plans for marriage on that day.

The word miraculous is not assocated with Yeshua's conception.
Elizabeth’s problem was that she was barren. A problem that Yahweh had resolved with other women.

Miriam does not use the word impossible, as far as she knew highly possible after she got married. Just was not expecting it that day.

Earlier you said Mary was “wondering how that is going to happen” because She was “not in a relationship.” That is a description of confusion about how conception could occur. Now you’re saying you did not say She was confused. I’m just trying to keep the focus on the text.

I also explicitly noted that Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive. Your reply about “not planning on having sex that day” doesn’t address that point. That detail isn’t stated in the text, and my question isn’t about the timing of intercourse. It’s about why Mary treats conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

If Mary was not confused, then Her question “How shall this occur?” makes no sense. A woman who expects future marital relations does not treat conception as impossible — only not yet. In that situation the natural question would be when, not how. Her question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

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. Why.

 

[Grailhunter]

Earlier you said Mary was “wondering how that is going to happen” because She was “not in a relationship.” That is a description of confusion about how conception could occur. Now you’re saying you did not say She was confused. I’m just trying to keep the focus on the text.

I also explicitly noted that Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive. Your reply about “not planning on having sex that day” doesn’t address that point. That detail isn’t stated in the text, and my question isn’t about the timing of intercourse. It’s about why Mary treats conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

If She anticipated normal marital relations with Joseph, then conception is not impossible — only not yet. In that situation the natural question would be when, not how. Her question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected circumstances.

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. Why.

 

[Grailhunter]

Earlier you said Mary was “wondering how that is going to happen” because She was “not in a relationship.” That is a description of confusion about how conception could occur. Now you’re saying you did not say She was confused. I’m just trying to keep the focus on the text.

I also explicitly noted that Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive. Your reply about “not planning on having sex that day” doesn’t address that point. That detail isn’t stated in the text, and my question isn’t about the timing of intercourse. It’s about why Mary treats conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

If Mary was not confused, then Her question “How shall this occur?” makes no sense. A woman who expects future marital relations does not treat conception as impossible — only not yet. In that situation the natural question would be when, not how. Her question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

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. Why.

Wondering is not confused......
I also explicitly noted that Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive.....All the more reason to wonder how.
If Mary was not confused, then Her question “How shall this occur?” makes no sense. Same answer.

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. Why.

The word impossible is not used.

 

[Moonwood]

Wondering is not confused......
I also explicitly noted that Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive.....All the more reason to wonder how.
If Mary was not confused, then Her question “How shall this occur?” makes no sense. Same answer.



The word impossible is not used.

I explicitly noted that Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive, only that She will.
That contradicts your reframing of my argument into Mary thinking She was going to conceive on the day of Gabriel’s visitation.

And earlier you said Mary was “wondering how that is going to happen” because She was “not in a relationship.” That is a description of confusion about how conception could occur.
Now you’re saying you did not say She was confused.

If Mary was not confused, then Her question “How shall this occur?” makes no sense — and that is exactly the point.
If She expected future relations with Joseph, conception is not impossible — only not yet. And since Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive, She would have even more reason to ask “When?” if this were simply a matter of pre‑consummation timing. Yet She does not ask “When,” but “How,” which only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

A timing question expects a schedule.
A mechanism question expects an explanation of impossibility.

And Gabriel reinforces that Her question is about impossibility by pointing to Elizabeth, who conceived despite natural impossibility.
Gabriel answers Mary’s “How?” with an example of God overcoming an impossible circumstance, not with a timeline.

Just to clarify: Scripture does not need to use the word “impossible” for a situation to be presented as impossible.
Narrative logic often conveys impossibility through the character’s response. Mary’s question functions as an impossibility question: 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. Her question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected circumstances.

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. Why.

 

[shepherdsword]

But 1 Corinthians 2:14 doesn’t address the question I’m raising. I’m not questioning the miraculous conception or the power of God. I’m asking about the narrative logic in Luke 1 — specifically, why Mary responds as though conception is impossible under Her expected circumstances if She anticipated normal marital relations with Joseph.

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.

And Gabriel reinforces this by describing a miraculous, non‑sexual conception and citing Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that fits a scenario where Mary expects natural conception 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 how the text itself supports that expectation.



You said I have “rejected every answer” because I “do not have the Spirit of God.” But did you also notice why I rejected those answers? And did you notice that the answers I received all contradict each other — including yours? They cannot all be right. When people give mutually incompatible explanations, it is reasonable to examine them carefully.

If rejecting contradictory or insufficient answers means someone “does not have the Spirit,” then that would apply equally to everyone whose answers I rejected. Does that mean they do not have the Spirit of God? I don’t think that’s a fair or meaningful standard.

My concern is simply the textual logic in Luke 1. I’m asking why Mary and Gabriel both speak as though conception is impossible under Mary’s expected circumstances if She anticipated normal marital relations with Joseph. 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. Why?

You are confusing "expectant" circumstances with CURRENT circumstances. She wasn't making some statement based on her never having relations in the future when it is time to consummate her marriage to Joseph. She was simply saying she has never been with a man and wondered how she could have a child. It is a FAR stretch of the text to claim she meant that she wasn't expecting to have future relations with her husband.

 

[Moonwood]

You are confusing "expectant" circumstances with CURRENT circumstances. She wasn't making some statement based on her never having relations in the future when it is time to consummate her marriage to Joseph. She was simply saying she has never been with a man and wondered how she could have a child. It is a FAR stretch of the text to claim she meant that she wasn't expecting to have future relations with her husband.

Thank you for replying.

But your answer doesn’t resolve the textual issues I’m raising.

Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive, only that She will.
That contradicts your claim that Mary is referring only to Her current circumstances rather than Her expected future circumstances.

And Mary wasn’t “making some statement,” but asking the question: “How will this be, since I know not man?”
That is not a declaration of current status; it is a request for an explanation of mechanism. If She expected future relations with Joseph, conception is not impossible — only not yet. And since Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive, She would have even more reason to ask “When?” if this were simply a matter of pre‑consummation timing. Yet She does not ask “When,” but “How,” which only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

A mechanism question expects an explanation of impossibility.

And Gabriel reinforces that Her question is about impossibility by pointing to Elizabeth, who conceived despite natural impossibility. Gabriel answers Mary’s “How?” with an example of God overcoming an impossible circumstance, not with a timeline.

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. Why.

 

[Lambano]

The point is that Mary uses the biblical idiom “I do not know man,” which refers to sexual relations in general, not merely the present moment.

It would be interesting if you could persuade one of the major translations to translate Luke 1:34 as "Mary said to the angel, 'How will this be, since I do not have sex with a man'". It would be quite popular with the LBGTQ and feminist crowds, though it would scandalize traditional Catholics.

Alas, I doubt Mary had any illusions that she could be given away in marriage, in that culture, and not be expected to fulfill marital duties.

 

[Lambano]

The NET translators picked up on this. Here is their translation of Luke1:34 with footnote:

Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?" (I note they translate the Present Active Indicative as a past tense here.)

The expression in the Greek text is a euphemism for sexual relations. Mary seems to have sensed that the declaration had an element of immediacy to it that excluded Joseph. Many modern translations render this phrase “since I am a virgin,” but the Greek word for virgin is not used in the text.

 

[Moonwood]

It would be interesting if you could persuade one of the major translations to translate Luke 1:34 as "Mary said to the angel, 'How will this be, since I do not have sex with a man'". It would be quite popular with the LBGTQ and feminist crowds, though it would scandalize traditional Catholics.

Alas, I doubt Mary had any illusions that she could be given away in marriage, in that culture, and not be expected to fulfill marital duties.

The NET translators picked up on this. Here is their translation of Luke1:34 with footnote:

Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?" (I note they translate the Present Active Indicative as a past tense here.)

The expression in the Greek text is a euphemism for sexual relations. Mary seems to have sensed that the declaration had an element of immediacy to it that excluded Joseph. Many modern translations render this phrase “since I am a virgin,” but the Greek word for virgin is not used in the text.

Thank you for the NET note.

But your response doesn’t address the textual issue I’m raising. The question is not how modern translators might render ginosko, nor cultural expectations about marriage.
The issue is why both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible under Mary’s expected future circumstances.

Mary does not say, “I am not having sex right now.” She uses the idiom “I do not know man,” which refers to sexual relations in general, not merely the present moment. And She does not make a statement — She asks a mechanism question: “How will this be?”

If Mary expected future relations with Joseph, conception is not impossible — only not yet. In that situation the natural question would be “When?” not “How?” And since Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive, She would have even more reason to ask “When?” if this were simply a matter of pre‑consummation timing. Yet She does not ask “When,” but “How,” which only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

The NET’s comment that Mary “sensed immediacy” simply restates the assumption that the conception was to occur before consummation. It does not explain why Mary asks a mechanism question rather than a timing question. If Mary understood immediacy, then the natural question would be “When will this occur?” not “How will this occur?” And again, Gabriel never provides a timeline.

The NET note also acknowledges that Joseph is excluded, which reinforces the point: Mary understands that natural conception through Joseph is not what Gabriel is describing. Gabriel confirms this by describing a miraculous, non‑sexual conception and by pointing to Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception. None of that fits a scenario where Mary expects natural conception through Joseph.

So the textual question remains:

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