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

[Moonwood]

The Bible wants us to know & clearly teaches a VIRGIN CONCEIVED - only a fool would dispute that.

If the Bible wanted us to know PERPETUAL VIRGINITY, it would teach it but it doesn't unless you RC torture text in a vain attempt to support a dogma

You're treating two different questions as though they were the same. We all agree that Scripture teaches the virginal conception. The question is whether the interpretation that Mary and Joseph later had marital relations adequately accounts for how Luke presents that virginal conception. In other words, my challenge is not:

"Does Luke teach the virgin birth?"

Everyone here agrees that it does. My challenge is:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore future conception through Joseph, why does She explain Her difficulty by saying, "I know not man"? Why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude, "For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Simply saying:

"Luke teaches the virgin birth"

does not answer that question. It restates the very passage under discussion.

The issue is whether the interpretation asserting future marital relations between Mary and Joseph adequately explains Luke's narrative. If it does, then please explain how Mary's appeal to "I know not man," Gabriel's answer, Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and "nothing shall be impossible with God" fit together with the claim that Mary expected future conception through Joseph. If it does not, then that is evidence that the interpretation may need to be reconsidered, even if that alone does not conclusively prove perpetual virginity.

 

[Dryhn]

You're treating two different questions as though they were the same. We all agree that Scripture teaches the virginal conception. The question is whether the interpretation that Mary and Joseph later had marital relations adequately accounts for how Luke presents that virginal conception. In other words, my challenge is not:

"Does Luke teach the virgin birth?"

Everyone here agrees that it does. My challenge is:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore future conception through Joseph, why does She explain Her difficulty by saying, "I know not man"? Why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude, "For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Simply saying:

"Luke teaches the virgin birth"

does not answer that question. It restates the very passage under discussion.

The issue is whether the interpretation asserting future marital relations between Mary and Joseph adequately explains Luke's narrative. If it does, then please explain how Mary's appeal to "I know not man," Gabriel's answer, Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and "nothing shall be impossible with God" fit together with the claim that Mary expected future conception through Joseph. If it does not, then that is evidence that the interpretation may need to be reconsidered, even if that alone does not conclusively prove perpetual virginity.

Sorry moon I don't do the RC left right left right left right march that you are duped into doing nor do I need man-made catechism & magisterium to interpret the Bible for me

 

[Moonwood]

Sorry moon I don't do the RC left right left right left right march that you are duped into doing nor do I need man-made catechism & magisterium to interpret the Bible for me

That's an argument about me, not about Luke 1. I'm asking a textual question. The answer to a textual question is found by addressing the text, not by discussing the denomination of the person asking it. So I'll simply repeat the question:

How does your interpretation reconcile Mary's appeal to "I know not man," Gabriel's explanation of divine conception, Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and "For with God nothing shall be impossible" with the claim that Mary expected future conception through Joseph?

 

[Dryhn]

That's an argument about me, not about Luke 1. I'm asking a textual question. The answer to a textual question is found by addressing the text, not by discussing the denomination of the person asking it. So I'll simply repeat the question:

How does your interpretation reconcile Mary's appeal to "I know not man," Gabriel's explanation of divine conception, Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and "For with God nothing shall be impossible" with the claim that Mary expected future conception through Joseph?

Virgin conception Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son
No sex after birth >>>> insert verses here <<<< :)

 

[Moonwood]

Virgin conception Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son
No sex after birth >>>> insert verses here <<<< :)

We already agree on the virginal conception.

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son."

Nobody in this thread is disputing that.
What you're doing is changing the question from:

"Can the later-relations interpretation be reconciled with Luke 1:34-37?"

to:

"Can you show a verse that explicitly says Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth?"

Those are different questions.
My challenge is not:

"Prove perpetual virginity from a single verse."

My challenge is:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She explain Her difficulty by saying, "I know not man," when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur?

And why does Gabriel answer with divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude, "For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Simply asking me for a verse about Mary's later life does not reconcile your interpretation with Luke's narrative.

The challenge remains: How does your interpretation account for Mary's statement, Gabriel's answer, Elizabeth's conception, and "For with God nothing shall be impossible" if future conception through Joseph was already Mary's expected explanation?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Then we're making progress, because that's precisely the distinction I've been trying to make. I agree that Luke 1 is not directly discussing Mary's sex life after Jesus' birth. What it is discussing is the virginal conception. And my point has never been that Luke 1 directly proves perpetual virginity. My point has been that the interpretation asserting future marital relations between Mary and Joseph must still account for Luke's presentation of the virginal conception. Those are two different questions.

If that interpretation cannot adequately account for Luke's account of the virginal conception, then that is evidence against the interpretation, even if it does not by itself prove perpetual virginity.

I have said that all along, you have not been paying attention. What rules of grammar do you use in saying that the Luke account MUST account for the virgin birth. NOthing ion the passage even remotely speaks of future relations, but the one act of God.

No one without a preconceived insdoctrination would read anything like that in the Luke passage and you know that!

Gabriel never says:

"You are conceiving right now."

He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

Under your interpretation, Mary's lack of sexual activity was temporary because She expected future marital relations with Joseph.
So why does She present:

"I know not man"

as the reason for Her difficulty?

And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

And Mary never said- " I will never know a man" That is what your Romanist doctrine has gotten you to believe she said.

I cannot give you a definitive answer for the bible doesn't say! but I can give you many possible and plausible answers. Mostly, Mary was a virgin and not expecting to have sex for approximately 6 months. Given that Gabriel visited her and gave her that news, she may have assumed it was going to be in teh near future, though he did not give a date- that is the logical and widely accepted thought to this.

You have to go from "I know not man" to "I am going to stay a virgin".

You can make all the philosophical and eisegetical arguments you wish, but you must answer Matt, 1:25. there were no contingencies in the statement . Nor anything in the context that even remotely assumes they remained abstinent.

Anytime until is a conclusion, the context shows it.

Example: " I will not vote for a democrat until hell freezes over" We know from SCripture hell will never freeze over so they will not vote democrat. or if you wish to be more biblical. Michal bore no children until her death. Now only the most severely mentally handicapped know death is final so the context shows until has an end point.

Show that in Matt. 1 or recant. There isnothing in the bible that even remotely hints at perpetual virginity.

 

[Moonwood]

Nothing ion the passage even remotely speaks of future relations, but the one act of God.

That's precisely my point.
You say:

"Nothing in the passage even remotely speaks of future relations, but the one act of God."

Correct. Luke's focus is the virginal conception.

The question I've been asking is why Luke presents that virginal conception the way he does if, as you assert, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and future conception through Joseph.
You say:

"No one without a preconceived indoctrination would read anything like that in the Luke passage."

But I'm not reading future relations into Luke's passage.
You are the one asserting future relations.
My challenge is whether that assertion can be reconciled with Luke's narrative.
Under your position:

• Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph.
• Mary expected future conception through Joseph.

Yet Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur. He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

And Mary's response is not:

"When?"

Nor:

"How can Joseph father such a child?"

Instead She says:

"I know not man."

Gabriel then responds with:

• divine conception,
• Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception,
• and "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

So the question remains:

If future conception through Joseph was already Mary's expected explanation, why does Luke present not knowing man as the obstacle, and why does Gabriel answer with divine intervention rather than by referring to the future marital relations your interpretation says Mary expected?

That is the textual challenge.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That's precisely my point.
You say:

"Nothing in the passage even remotely speaks of future relations, but the one act of God."

Correct. Luke's focus is the virginal conception.

The question I've been asking is why Luke presents that virginal conception the way he does if, as you assert, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and future conception through Joseph.
You say:

"No one without a preconceived indoctrination would read anything like that in the Luke passage."

But I'm not reading future relations into Luke's passage.
You are the one asserting future relations.
My challenge is whether that assertion can be reconciled with Luke's narrative.
Under your position:

• Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph.
• Mary expected future conception through Joseph.

Yet Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur. He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

And Mary's response is not:

"When?"

Nor:

"How can Joseph father such a child?"

Instead She says:

"I know not man."

Gabriel then responds with:

• divine conception,
• Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception,
• and "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

So the question remains:

If future conception through Joseph was already Mary's expected explanation, why does Luke present not knowing man as the obstacle, and why does Gabriel answer with divine intervention rather than by referring to the future marital relations your interpretation says Mary expected?

That is the textual challenge.

You end with a big if that neither you nor I can answer.

Mary did not respond with "I will never know a man" which is the Romanist position.

Lukes narrative has nothing to do with any future relations with Joseph or not! YOu trying to do so is foolishness.

You are reading future relations into the Luke passage or rather the lack thereof. You make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Moonwood]

You end with a big if that neither you nor I can answer.

But that "if" is not my assumption. It's yours.

Throughout this thread you have repeatedly argued that Mary and Joseph later had marital relations and that this was the normal expectation of marriage. Therefore, under your position, Mary would have expected future marital relations with Joseph and future conception through Joseph.

So the question is not whether the "if" is true. The question is whether your own position can be reconciled with Luke's account of the virginal conception.

Mary did not respond with "I will never know a man" which is the Romanist position.

Again, you're arguing from what you think Mary would have said rather than explaining what She did say.

The text does not say:

"I will never know a man."

Nor does it say:

"I do not yet know a man."

It says:

"I know not man."

My question is why Mary appeals to not knowing man as the explanation for Her difficulty, and why Gabriel responds as he does.

You say:
"Luke's narrative has nothing to do with any future relations with Joseph or not."

That's exactly why the challenge exists.
You are the one introducing future marital relations into the discussion, not Luke.
Luke gives us:

• "I know not man."
• Divine conception.
• Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception.
• "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

You then add:

• future marital relations,
• future conception through Joseph.

My challenge is whether those additions can be reconciled with the way Luke presents the annunciation narrative.

That's the question I've been asking from the beginning.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

But that "if" is not my assumption. It's yours.

Throughout this thread you have repeatedly argued that Mary and Joseph later had marital relations and that this was the normal expectation of marriage. Therefore, under your position, Mary would have expected future marital relations with Joseph and future conception through Joseph.

So the question is not whether the "if" is true. The question is whether your own position can be reconciled with Luke's account of the virginal conception.

And again you are trying to make an apple an orange! The Luke passage doesn't address futre realtions, Matthew does. You are trying to force something in Luke that is simply not there. There is no need to reconcile for there is nothing to reconcile betwen the two passages. another fail on your part.

My question is why Mary appeals to not knowing man as the explanation for Her difficulty, and why Gabriel responds as he does.

You say:
"Luke's narrative has nothing to do with any future relations with Joseph or not."

That's exactly why the challenge exists.
You are the one introducing future marital relations into the discussion, not Luke.
Luke gives us:

Well as SCripture doesn't answer this, we shou;ld not either. But as it is in the present, that tells us all we need to know about her response. Once again yopu are forcing the future into the present. Another fail.

No it is Matthew who told us that Joseph and Mary had future marital relations. Luke doesn't broach the subject at all! so why do you make such a fuss over Luke. YOu are making a false position where one does not exist!! Stop it!

You then add:

• future marital relations,
• future conception through Joseph.

My challenge is whether those additions can be reconciled with the way Luke presents the annunciation narrative.

That's the question I've been asking from the beginning.

And you are trying to force the annunciation narrative a a catch all for all future relations which it doesn't. I have told you from the beginning, the virgin birth and future marital relations are separate accounts in separate gospels and need no reconciliation! they are separate events with separate outcomes. You are trying to force some issue that does not exist.