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

[Ronald Nolette]

If Mary expected marital relations with Joseph in the future, why does She explain Her question by saying "I do not know man"? And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception instead of referring to the marital relations your position says She expected?

Simple because Maaaary did not know a man to that point, and it is implied she would not know Joseph for at least6-9 months.

This is one scenario and thought.

Matthew 1:24-25 King James Version​

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

This is a separate scenario with a separate action irrelevant of what Gabriel told Mary.

Joseph was told in a dream, married Mary and did not have sex with her until after Jesus was born! Common practice of abstinence in later stages of pregnancies in those days!

 

[Moonwood]

Simple because Maaaary did not know a man to that point, and it is implied she would not know Joseph for at least6-9 months.

This is one scenario and thought.

Matthew 1:24-25 King James Version​

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

This is a separate scenario with a separate action irrelevant of what Gabriel told Mary.

Joseph was told in a dream, married Mary and did not have sex with her until after Jesus was born! Common practice of abstinence in later stages of pregnancies in those days!

Matthew 1:24-25 occurs later and does not explain the question-and-answer exchange between Mary and Gabriel in Luke 1.

And the "when" of Mary's conception is irrelevant for several reasons:

1. Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur.
2. Under your position, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore would have expected any future conception to occur through Joseph.
3. Gabriel does not answer Mary's question by referring to future relations with Joseph. He answers by explaining a miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit.

Yet when Mary is told only that She will conceive, before any mechanism is given and without any timing being specified, She asks:

How will this occur, since I know not man?

That's the difficulty with your position.

If Mary expected marital relations with Joseph in the future, then future conception was already possible through ordinary means. Appealing to "I know not man" would not explain why She needed an answer about how conception would occur.

And the difficulty becomes even greater when we look at Gabriel's full response.

He not only explains conception by the Holy Spirit, but immediately points to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception and concludes:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

Elizabeth's conception required divine intervention because of barrenness and old age.

So why does Gabriel place Mary's case alongside Elizabeth's and conclude with a statement about God's power over impossibilities if Mary's only point is that She had not yet had relations with Joseph?

If Mary expected marital relations with Joseph in the future, why does She explain Her question by saying "I know not man," why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, and why does he reinforce that answer by appealing to Elizabeth's impossible conception and God's power to accomplish what is otherwise impossible?

 

[GodsGrace]

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. 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. I ask that responses address these questions directly, without shifting to unrelated topics or assumptions.

Good morning moonwood
Just saw the above...I think the alerts get erased after a certain amount of days.

I must clarify and state that I am not Catholic although I do know Catholic doctrine.
The perpetual virginity of Mary is tough to confirm.

Some Protestant theologians would agree that Mary had no other children and and some Catholic theologians could agree that Jesus did have brothers, but probably from only Joseph.
Here are some:
Source: Gemini

• • John Wesley (1703–1791): The founder of Methodism affirmed in his writings that Mary continued to be a pure and unspotted virgin after the birth of Christ. [1, 2]
  • Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–1528): The influential Anabaptist leader explicitly taught the perpetual virginity of Mary in his Christian Catechism (Eine Christliche Lehrtafel). [1]
  • Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556): The leader of the English Reformation and first Archbishop of Canterbury maintained the doctrine for the early Church of England based on ancient Christian tradition

The following is the statement of John Calvin (I'm not reformed either) on Matthew 1:25

his passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ... Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.


My own personal opinion is that there is no real way to know for sure.
I depend on the Early Church Fathers for confirmation but there is none here since they did not all agree.

What they did agree on was the purity of Mary.
Will not comment further.

We also should remember that the NT was written about Jesus and Not about Mary.
She was not the subject of the NT writings.

I do want to say that Protestants do not offer Mary sufficient veneration.
Pastor Jonathan Shelley had his Sunday school students destroy a statue of Mary with a hammer.
This is abhorrent.

Catholics, on the other hand, go to extremes to prove the unproveable.

 

[GodsGrace]

Simple because Maaaary did not know a man to that point, and it is implied she would not know Joseph for at least6-9 months.

This is one scenario and thought.

Matthew 1:24-25 King James Version​

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

This is a separate scenario with a separate action irrelevant of what Gabriel told Mary.

Joseph was told in a dream, married Mary and did not have sex with her until after Jesus was born! Common practice of abstinence in later stages of pregnancies in those days!

Hi Ronald,,,
I just want to ask if you're aware that Mary and Joseph COULD have had relations in the bethrothal period.
This was allowed under Jewish Law and is why Joseph could have had her put to death for adultery.

It's interesting that he did require revelation from God to prove that Mary was not adulterous.
This goes a long way in proving the supernatural birth of Jesus (needless to say).

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

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.

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.

You’re shifting the discussion to theology, but my question is about Luke’s narrative logic, not biological speculation.

Gabriel’s explanation (“Holy Spirit will come upon you… power of the Most High will overshadow you”) is never used as a sexual description in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. It is consistently a divine‑presence term, not a physical act. And Gabriel reinforces this by citing Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception — a miracle, not intercourse.

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....
@Grailhunter is right...sorry I haven't read all the posts but saw his.


There is no discussion about how conception will/would be impossible.
Mary is just asking how she could be bearing a child if she has not had relations with her husband/ future husband in our parlance.

This proves that she has not had relations with Joseph UP TO THIS TIME.
So Gabriel explains to her HOW she will conceive this child the angel speaks of.

But I have a question for you?

Why is this so important?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Matthew 1:24-25 occurs later and does not explain the question-and-answer exchange between Mary and Gabriel in Luke 1.

It doesn't have to. It is a separate thought and separate incident only indirectly connectd.

And the "when" of Mary's conception is irrelevant for several reasons:

1. Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur.
2. Under your position, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore would have expected any future conception to occur through Joseph.
3. Gabriel does not answer Mary's question by referring to future relations with Joseph. He answers by explaining a miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit.

Yet when Mary is told only that She will conceive, before any mechanism is given and without any timing being specified, She asks:

How will this occur, since I know not man?

That's the difficulty with your position.

Only to you because you have been indoctrinated in RCC thought. People can read into Mary's answer all sorts of silliness. but the simple fact is, Mary did not know how she would conceive. Even today, if this happened to a young girl, her simple and accurate response would be, how can this happen as I am not sexually actice. Mary did not come up with a list of possibilities and what if's. The normal, natural and common sense reaction to the angelic announcement would be the how! simply because Mary was not sexually active.

If Mary expected marital relations with Joseph in the future, then future conception was already possible through ordinary means. Appealing to "I know not man" would not explain why She needed an answer about how conception would occur.

Yes it would to a normal way of thining and not to one who has been predisposed to think a certain way. If we could find soome young modest girls and pose this same announcement othem, you would find that the super majority if not all would answer the same way! "How can this be, since I am not sexually active yet".

And the difficulty becomes even greater when we look at Gabriel's full response.

He not only explains conception by the Holy Spirit, but immediately points to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception and concludes:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

No it becomes simpler! Gabriel doesn't answer with a when, but a how! Mary's thought process was she was not sexually active so she could not conceive and Gabriel tells her the how!

So why does Gabriel place Mary's case alongside Elizabeth's and conclude with a statement about God's power over impossibilities if Mary's only point is that She had not yet had relations with Joseph?

If Mary expected marital relations with Joseph in the future, why does She explain Her question by saying "I know not man," why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, and why does he reinforce that answer by appealing to Elizabeth's impossible conception and God's power to accomplish what is otherwise impossible?

You really don't know? Nothing in this conversation talks about a wehen. but a how! Mary was a virgin, hadn't had sex so how could she conceinve, not when it sould happen. So Gabriel tells her teh how and tells her about Elizabeth and her how as well!

It really is that simple

 

[Moonwood]

Mary was a virgin, hadn't had sex so how could she conceive, not when it should happen. So Gabriel tells her the how and tells her about Elizabeth and her how as well!

But that's precisely the point.

You keep saying Mary was focused on the fact that She was not sexually active.

Yet Gabriel did not tell Her that She was conceiving immediately. He simply told Her:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

Under your view, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore future conception through ordinary means.

So why does She immediately explain Her question by saying:

"I know not man"

rather than understanding the conception as something that would occur through the marital relations She expected in the future?

And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, then point to Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and conclude: "For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Elizabeth's example is the part you still haven't explained.

If Mary's only issue is that She is not sexually active yet, what relevance does Elizabeth's naturally impossible conception have to Gabriel's answer?

Why does Gabriel connect Mary's case to Elizabeth's and then conclude with God's power over impossibilities?

 

[Anchorite]

Thank you for the reply.

But that's precisely the issue.

You say Mary is asking how She could bear a child because She has not had relations with Joseph up to that point.

Yet Gabriel never says, "You will conceive once you begin marital relations with Joseph."

Why would Gabriel lie to Mary???

Instead, he explains a wholly different means of conception:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Holy Spirit will overshadow you."

Then he immediately points to Elizabeth's conception and concludes:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

So my question is this:

If Mary's point is merely that She had not yet had relations with Joseph, and if She nevertheless expected future marital relations and future conception through Joseph, why doesn't Gabriel answer by referring to those expected marital relations?

Because sex with Joseph was not how Mary would conceive Jesus.

Gabriel did not need to say that “it will not happen through Joseph”, he just explained how it would happen.

Why does he instead explain divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's naturally impossible and miraculous conception, and conclude with a statement about God's power over impossibilities?

In other words, how does "I know not man" logically lead to "The Holy Spirit will come upon you" if ordinary conception through Joseph remained an expected future possibility?

Because conception by way of Joseph was not how it would happen.

Because this discussion began with repeated assertions that Mary's perpetual virginity is unscriptural, while normal marital relations are supposedly the obvious reading of the text.

If that's true, then the position should be able to answer a straightforward question:

Why does Mary appeal to not knowing man, and why does Gabriel answer with divine conception, Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and God's power over impossibilities?

If the interpretation cannot account for those details, then its confidence may exceed what the text itself supports.

Mary was under the impression that the pregnancy was to happen very soon, so Gabriel’s announcement was puzzling to her.


Luke 1

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

 

[Moonwood]

Why would Gabriel lie to Mary???




Because sex with Joseph was not how Mary would conceive Jesus.

Gabriel did not need to say that “it will not happen through Joseph”, he just explained how it would happen.



Because conception by way of Joseph was not how it would happen.




Mary was under the impression that the pregnancy was to happen very soon, so Gabriel’s announcement was puzzling to her.


Luke 1

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

But that doesn't resolve the difficulty.

If Mary expected to have normal marital relations with Joseph, then Gabriel's announcement would not seem to require an explanation at all.

Gabriel says:

"Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son" (Luke 1:31).

A betrothed Jewish woman expecting a future marriage would ordinarily understand how children are conceived.

Yet Mary's response is:

"How will this occur, since I know not man?" (Luke 1:34).

Notice that She does not ask when this will happen.

She asks how it will happen.

And Gabriel responds by answering how:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Holy Spirit will overshadow you" (Luke 1:35).

In other words, Gabriel treats Mary's question as legitimate and provides a supernatural explanation for the conception.

If Mary's only concern was that She had not yet had relations with Joseph up to that moment, then a simple answer would have been:

"In due time, through your husband Joseph."

Instead, Gabriel explains an entirely different mode of conception.

That's why the question remains:

Why does Mary's statement, "I know not man," lead directly to an explanation of divine conception rather than an explanation involving Her future husband?

Simply saying, "Mary thought it would happen soon," doesn't answer that. It only restates that She was puzzled. The question is why She was puzzled in the first place if ordinary marital conception was already assumed.

 

[Anchorite]

But that doesn't resolve the difficulty.

If Mary expected to have normal marital relations with Joseph, then Gabriel's announcement would not seem to require an explanation at all.

Gabriel says:

"Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son" (Luke 1:31).

A betrothed Jewish woman expecting a future marriage would ordinarily understand how children are conceived.

Yet Mary's response is:

"How will this occur, since I know not man?" (Luke 1:34).

Mary was telling the truth.

Notice that She does not ask when this will happen.

She asks how it will happen.

And Gabriel responds by answering how:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Holy Spirit will overshadow you" (Luke 1:35).

In other words, Gabriel treats Mary's question as legitimate and provides a supernatural explanation for the conception.

If Mary's only concern was that She had not yet had relations with Joseph up to that moment, then a simple answer would have been:

"In due time, through your husband Joseph."

Again, why would Gabriel lie to Mary?

Instead, Gabriel explains an entirely different mode of conception.

That's why the question remains:

Why does Mary's statement, "I know not man," lead directly to an explanation of divine conception rather than an explanation involving Her future husband?

Again, because that is not how it would happen.

Simply saying, "Mary thought it would happen soon," doesn't answer that. It only restates that She was puzzled. The question is why She was puzzled in the first place if ordinary marital conception was already assumed.

Mary was puzzled because Gabriel told her that her child would not be a typical child.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

 

[Moonwood]

Mary was telling the truth.



Again, why would Gabriel lie to Mary?



Again, because that is not how it would happen.


Mary was puzzled because Gabriel told her that her child would not be a typical child.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

But that's not what the text says Mary's concern was.

Gabriel makes several extraordinary statements about the child:

• He will be called the Son of the Highest.
• He will sit on David's throne.
• His kingdom will have no end.

Yet Mary does not ask how any of those things are possible.

Instead, She asks:

"How will this occur, since I know not man?"

So according to Luke, Mary's question is connected specifically to conception, not to the future greatness of the child.

And Gabriel answers the question She actually asked:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."

Notice that Gabriel does not correct Mary and say, "You're misunderstanding me. I mean after you begin relations with Joseph."

Nor does he say, "The conception will occur in the normal way after your marriage is completed."

Instead, he explains a supernatural conception.

Therefore the question remains: if Mary expected ordinary conception through future marital relations with Joseph, why does She raise the fact that She "knows not man," and why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception rather than future relations with Joseph?

 

[Anchorite]

But that's not what the text says Mary's concern was.

Gabriel makes several extraordinary statements about the child:

• He will be called the Son of the Highest.
• He will sit on David's throne.
• His kingdom will have no end.

Yet Mary does not ask how any of those things are possible.

Instead, She asks:

"How will this occur, since I know not man?"

So according to Luke, Mary's question is connected specifically to conception, not to the future greatness of the child.

And Gabriel answers the question She actually asked:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."

Notice that Gabriel does not correct Mary and say, "You're misunderstanding me. I mean after you begin relations with Joseph."

Why would Gabriel lie? Why do you consider that an option?

You make no sense.

Nor does he say, "The conception will occur in the normal way after your marriage is completed."

Again, that would be a lie.

Instead, he explains a supernatural conception.

Therefore the question remains: if Mary expected ordinary conception through future marital relations with Joseph, why does She raise the fact that She "knows not man," and why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception rather than future relations with Joseph?

Because it was not going to happen by way of Joseph.

 

[Moonwood]

Why would Gabriel lie? Why do you consider that an option?

You make no sense.



Again, that would be a lie.


Because it was not going to happen by way of Joseph.

That's not the point in dispute.

Of course Jesus was not going to be conceived through Joseph. We both agree on that.

The question is why Mary responds as She does before Gabriel explains any of this.

Gabriel announces:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

Mary responds:

"How will this occur, since I know not man?"

Only then does Gabriel explain that the conception will be brought about by the Holy Spirit.

So my question remains:

If Mary expected future marital relations and future conception through Joseph, why does She explain Her question by appealing to not knowing man before Gabriel has revealed the miraculous means of conception?
And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, then appeal to Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and conclude:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Simply saying "it was not going to happen by way of Joseph" restates Gabriel's answer. It does not explain why Mary's statement "I know not man" leads to that answer.

 

[Anchorite]

That's not the point in dispute.

Of course Jesus was not going to be conceived through Joseph. We both agree on that.

The question is why Mary responds as She does before Gabriel explains any of this.

Gabriel announces:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

Mary responds:

"How will this occur, since I know not man?"

Only then does Gabriel explain that the conception will be brought about by the Holy Spirit.

So my question remains:

If Mary expected future marital relations and future conception through Joseph, why does She explain Her question by appealing to not knowing man before Gabriel has revealed the miraculous means of conception?
And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, then appeal to Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and conclude:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Simply saying "it was not going to happen by way of Joseph" restates Gabriel's answer. It does not explain why Mary's statement "I know not man" leads to that answer.

Mary said “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”

She is explaining that she was a virgin at that moment in time.

But it seems like she should have said “I will conceive? By my husband Joseph? How could he give me such an extraordinary child in my womb?”

So it is a bit mysterious.

 

[Moonwood]

Mary said “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”

She is explaining that she was a virgin at that moment in time.

But it seems like she should have said “I will conceive? By my husband Joseph? How could he give me such an extraordinary child in my womb?”

So it is a bit mysterious.

So your observation doesn't remove the difficulty; it highlights it.

The challenge is that your position requires Mary to have expected future marital relations with Joseph. If that were Her expectation, then the announcement that She would conceive would naturally be understood as occurring through Joseph.

Yet that is not how Mary responds. She does not say, "How can Joseph be the father of such a child?" Nor does She express any expectation that conception will occur through Joseph. Instead, She explains Her difficulty by saying, "I know not man."

So if Mary expected ordinary marital relations with Joseph and expected conception to occur through those relations, why does Her explanation appeal to not knowing man at all? Why does She speak as though the absence of relations with a man is itself the obstacle to the announced conception?

And the parallel with Elizabeth seems significant. Elizabeth's barrenness and old age were the reason her conception was naturally impossible. Gabriel then places Mary's case alongside Elizabeth's and concludes:
"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

If future conception through Joseph remained Mary's expected explanation, why is Her not knowing man presented as the obstacle, and why is Her case framed alongside Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception?

That is the tension I am asking people to explain. And if it cannot be explained within the framework of future marital relations between Mary and Joseph, then I think it is reasonable to reevaluate whether that framework is correct.

 

[Anchorite]

So your observation doesn't remove the difficulty; it highlights it.

The challenge is that your position requires Mary to have expected future marital relations with Joseph. If that were Her expectation, then the announcement that She would conceive would naturally be understood as occurring through Joseph.

Yet that is not how Mary responds. She does not say, "How can Joseph be the father of such a child?" Nor does She express any expectation that conception will occur through Joseph. Instead, She explains Her difficulty by saying, "I know not man."

So if Mary expected ordinary marital relations with Joseph and expected conception to occur through those relations, why does Her explanation appeal to not knowing man at all? Why does She speak as though the absence of relations with a man is itself the obstacle to the announced conception?

And the parallel with Elizabeth seems significant. Elizabeth's barrenness and old age were the reason her conception was naturally impossible. Gabriel then places Mary's case alongside Elizabeth's and concludes:
"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

If future conception through Joseph remained Mary's expected explanation, why is Her not knowing man presented as the obstacle, and why is Her case framed alongside Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception?

That is the tension I am asking people to explain. And if it cannot be explained within the framework of future marital relations between Mary and Joseph, then I think it is reasonable to reevaluate whether that framework is correct.

Why would Mary be espoused to her husband Joseph, but not anticipate ever having sex with him?

 

[Moonwood]

Why would Mary be espoused to her husband Joseph, but not anticipate ever having sex with him?

Good question, and it's not without an answer, but it's not the topic of this thread.

This thread is a textual challenge for those who assert that Mary and Joseph had marital relations.

The challenge is that your position requires Mary to have expected future marital relations with Joseph. If that were Her expectation, then the announcement that She would conceive would naturally be understood as occurring through Joseph.

Yet that is not how Mary responds. She does not say, "How can Joseph be the father of such a child?" Nor does She express any expectation that conception will occur through Joseph. Instead, She explains Her difficulty by saying:

"I know not man."

So if Mary expected ordinary marital relations with Joseph and expected conception to occur through those relations, why does Her explanation appeal to not knowing man at all? Why does She speak as though the absence of relations with a man is itself the obstacle to the announced conception?

The parallel with Elizabeth also seems significant. Elizabeth's barrenness and old age were the reason her conception was naturally impossible. Gabriel then places Mary's case alongside Elizabeth's and concludes:
"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

If future conception through Joseph remained Mary's expected explanation, why is Her not knowing man presented as the obstacle, and why is Her case framed alongside Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception?

That is the tension I am asking people to explain. If their position is truly confident, scriptural, and well supported, then it should be able to answer those simple, text-based questions. If those questions cannot be adequately answered within the framework of future marital relations between Mary and Joseph, then I think it is reasonable to reevaluate whether that framework is correct.

And I don't want anyone to interpret this challenge as an attempt to score points or humiliate those who disagree with me.

The fact that I am Catholic should not prevent people from hearing and evaluating the argument on its own merits.

If someone is willing to look past labels, engage the text honestly, and even reconsider a position they've held for years, I view that as something worthy of respect, not criticism.

My hope in raising these questions is not division, but mutual understanding and a shared pursuit of truth.

 

[Moonwood]

Good morning moonwood
Just saw the above...I think the alerts get erased after a certain amount of days.

I must clarify and state that I am not Catholic although I do know Catholic doctrine.

First, it is very nice to meet you, sister!

Second, thank you for taking the time not only to learn about what Catholics believe, but, more importantly, for approaching it with a sincere desire to understand. A person can know everything there is to know about the Church, but without goodwill and openness to God, the Holy Spirit cannot lead that knowledge into true wisdom.

It is through His wisdom that we are able to understand truth in its fullness. That is why I want to commend and thank you for your cooperation with the Holy Spirit through both your faith and your goodwill.

I have seen the Lord use you on this forum as a powerful voice among your Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ. Time and again, you have sought to encourage unity, charity, and mutual understanding. In a world where division often seems easier, your willingness to build bridges and remind fellow Christians of our shared love for Christ is a genuine blessing.

There is no discussion about how conception will/would be impossible.
Mary is just asking how she could be bearing a child if she has not had relations with her husband/ future husband in our parlance.

This proves that she has not had relations with Joseph UP TO THIS TIME.
So Gabriel explains to her HOW she will conceive this child the angel speaks of.

Thank you for the reply.

But that's precisely the issue.

You say Mary is asking how She could bear a child because She has not had relations with Joseph up to that point.

Yet Gabriel never says, "You will conceive once you begin marital relations with Joseph."

Instead, he explains a wholly different means of conception:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."

Then he immediately points to Elizabeth's naturally impossible and miraculous conception and concludes:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

So my question is this:

If Mary's point is merely that She had not yet had relations with Joseph, and if She nevertheless expected future marital relations and future conception through Joseph, why doesn't Gabriel answer by referring to those expected marital relations?

Why does he instead explain divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's naturally impossible and miraculous conception, and conclude with a statement about God's power over impossibilities?

In other words, how does "I know not man" logically lead to "The Holy Spirit will come upon you" if ordinary conception through Joseph remained an expected future possibility?

Why is this so important?

Because this discussion began with repeated assertions that Mary's perpetual virginity is unscriptural, while normal marital relations are supposedly the obvious reading of the text.

If that's true, then the position should be able to answer a straightforward question:

Why does Mary appeal to not knowing man, and why does Gabriel answer with divine conception, Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and God's power over impossibilities?

If the interpretation cannot account for those details, then its confidence may exceed what the text itself supports.

Some Protestant theologians would agree that Mary had no other children and and some Catholic theologians could agree that Jesus did have brothers, but probably from only Joseph.
Here are some:
Source: Gemini

• • John Wesley (1703–1791): The founder of Methodism affirmed in his writings that Mary continued to be a pure and unspotted virgin after the birth of Christ. [1, 2]
  • Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–1528): The influential Anabaptist leader explicitly taught the perpetual virginity of Mary in his Christian Catechism (Eine Christliche Lehrtafel). [1]
  • Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556): The leader of the English Reformation and first Archbishop of Canterbury maintained the doctrine for the early Church of England based on ancient Christian tradition

The following is the statement of John Calvin (I'm not reformed either) on Matthew 1:25

his passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ... Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.


My own personal opinion is that there is no real way to know for sure.
I depend on the Early Church Fathers for confirmation but there is none here since they did not all agree.

Thank you for sharing! Please check out my argument regarding the topic of Jesus's adelphoi (brothers):

Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

There are Christians who assume that because Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas are called Jesus’s adelphoi (“brothers”) in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, they must have been additional sons of Mary. But once the New Testament’s own data and the earliest Christian testimony are brought back into view...

www.christianityboard.com

I hope you find it illuminating!

I do want to say that Protestants do not offer Mary sufficient veneration.
Pastor Jonathan Shelley had his Sunday school students destroy a statue of Mary with a hammer.
This is abhorrent.

I saw that same video! Yes—abhorrent. My hope is that Pastor Shelley genuinely knew not what he was doing. It would be even more grievious if he knew what he was teaching and having those kids do was wrong and why, and chose to do it anyway. I join you in prayer for an increase of love and veneration for Jesus's Mother, and our spiritual Mother, Mary, from all souls across the world.

 

[Moonwood]

Mid‑Thread Summary and Restatement of the Textual Challenge

• @Armour of God
• @sondring7
• @markalan
• @David in NJ
• @Ronald Nolette
• @marks
• @Grailhunter
• @Taken
• @quietthinker
• @David Lamb
• @Lambano
• @Titus
• @JimKnox
• @shepherdsword
• @rwb

What I find most intriguing is not merely that multiple answers were offered for the same conclusion, but that the answers themselves vary substantially.

• Some argue that Mary's question refers only to Her present virginity.
• Some argue that Gabriel is simply answering Mary's question about how conception will occur.
• Others appeal primarily to Matthew 1:25.
• Others distinguish Christ's miraculous conception from Mary's later married life.

Yet all of these arguments are offered in support of the same conclusion: that Mary and Joseph later had marital relations.

More intriguing still is that I have repeatedly been told that the "plain meaning" of Scripture, especially Matthew 1:25, clearly establishes that conclusion. Yet we are now eleven pages into this discussion, and I have yet to see anyone reconcile that belief with the actual narrative flow of Luke 1:34-37:

• Mary's appeal to "I know not man."
• Gabriel's explanation of divine conception.
• Gabriel's appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception.
• His conclusion: "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

To be clear, I am not saying that no one has attempted an answer. Many have explained individual elements of the passage. The recurring answer has been that Mary asks how conception will occur because She is not sexually active, and Gabriel responds by explaining how conception will occur through divine action.

The question, however, is whether that explanation adequately accounts for the entire narrative.

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She present Her not knowing man as the obstacle to the announced conception when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur? And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude with God's power over impossibilities?

That remains, in my view, the central unresolved tension in the discussion. If your position is truly confident, scriptural, and well supported, then it should be able to answer those simple, text-based questions. If those questions cannot be adequately answered within the framework of future marital relations between Mary and Joseph, then I think it is reasonable to reevaluate whether that framework is correct.

And I don't want anyone to view an inability to answer this challenge, or a decision to reevaluate a long-held belief, as some kind of personal failure.
The purpose of this challenge is not to embarrass, ridicule, or humiliate anyone. Quite the opposite.
If anything, I have respect for those who are willing to set aside assumptions about my being Catholic and honestly engage the textual argument itself.
If someone carefully considers these questions and concludes that their current position should be reevaluated, I would see that not as a weakness but as an intellectual and spiritual strength.
My hope is not victory over other Christians, but greater understanding, greater honesty with the text, and ultimately greater unity among those who sincerely seek the truth.

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

Exactly! Mary needs a Savior because she is human who was chosen by God to be the mother of Jesus, who was fully human, destined to die like every other mortal human is, natural flesh and blood. Mary is NOT the mother of GOD. Because God has no mother! He is without beginning and without end IMMORTAL GOD everlasting to everlasting! Mary is the natural mother of Jesus, the man!

After this, I will respect Moonwood's request to avoid tangents on this thread. But just to be clear--

Jesus was also fully God. And Mary gave birth to a person, not a "human nature." That is, Mary gave birth to the God-man Jesus Christ. Ipso facto, she is the Mother of God. That title, you should know, was adopted of Mary to affirm these truths about Jesus amidst the christological controversies of the early church and to combat heresies about the identity of Jesus. Unwittingly, I'm sure, you are siding with ancient heresy by denying that Mary is the Mother of God.

When you worship and pray to Mary, a mortal human being especially chosen to give human birth to the Man, Jesus, you make her to be an idol, you are worshipping the created, which thing God forbids. God only is to be worshipped and our prayers lifted up to only Him. All who are born again of the Spirit of Christ together are of the family of God. This is what John meant when He writes Christ saying to Mary, "behold thy son" and to John, "behold thy mother." In a manner of speaking showing compassion and care one for another. All disciples of Christ (not only John) are brother, sister and mother together called the family/children/offspring of God through Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior.

Mt 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Mt 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mt 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

This is just a simple category error that I tried to explain before. Lots of Protestants get hung up on the terms "worship" and "pray to," but traditionally those terms had a much wider range than (1) the praise etc. we give to God alone and (2) our communications to God. So in the old English marriage rite the couple vows to "worship" each other with their bodies. And in Shakespeare people "pray to" each other all the time (asking others for requests).

We do not commit idolatry by "worshipping" Mary or "praying to" her. As I noted before, in fact, some of the most outspoken Marian church fathers also strongly condemned the heresy of Collyridianism, which is what you mistakenly accuse me and other Catholics of committing. We do not. But we *do* honor Mary as is appropriate given her God-given role in our lives (so we "worship" her in the older, traditional sense of the word I note above) and we "pray to" her in that we ask her intercession and make other requests of her, in the same way I'd ask my priest to pray for me or to do something for me.