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

[Crazy Ivan]

Right at the begining of Luke 1:27
In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,
to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary

If Joseph and Mary were to have a normal marriage, why a woman would be surprised to have a child born to her?

Easily understood if she thought Gabriel meant she would have a child SOON.

She grounds Her question in:

"I know not man."

That seems to make the absence of relations with a man the relevant obstacle, not the timing of the conception.

This suggested Mary knew right from the beginning she should remain a virgin, not knowing man!

It suggests nothing of the sort.

The Protoevangelium of James described the 'marriage' of Joseph and Mary wad not a usual marriage of 'lovers' type which 'husband' would consummate the marriage.

This was not told in the gospel of Luke and Matthew.

 

[beechan]

Easily understood if she thought Gabriel meant she would have a child SOON.



It suggests nothing of the sort.

Thank you for your brief and pointless response.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Thank you for your brief and pointless response.

Oh there was a point. Not my fault you missed it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Right at the begining of Luke 1:27
In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,
to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary

If Joseph and Mary were to have a normal marriage, why a woman would be surprised to have a child born to her?

She grounds Her question in:

"I know not man."

That seems to make the absence of relations with a man the relevant obstacle, not the timing of the conception.

This suggested Mary knew right from the beginning she should remain a virgin, not knowing man!

The Protoevangelium of James described the 'marriage' of Joseph and Mary wad not a usual marriage of 'lovers' type which 'husband' would consummate the marriage.

This was not told in the gospel of Luke and Matthew.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Once again with possibilities! Suggests? NO it does not. she simply said, I am not sexually active so how can I get pregnant.

If Mary knew she was to remain a virgin she would have said, " I will never know a man". YOu and moonwood take a simple easy to undetrstand statement and load it with so much maybe's and possiblies and suggests as to make you sound ridiculous.

also, you did get right what was teh obstacle in Mary's mind. she was not sexually active yet! But Scripture says after Jesus was born she was , just as Scripture shows to all who are not indoctrinated by Romanist philosophy. Perpetual virginity is a construct of men and not in Scripture.

BTW the protoevangelium of James was written at the end of the 2nd century so is not a valid source . Need I remind you that at the end of the 2nd century the church was battling the influx ofpagan Greek philosophy. Do not forget Origen and Arius.

 

[Moonwood]

...Mary assumed that Gabriel meant that she was SOON to have a child.

...Because if she thought that 10 years from now is when she'd get pregnant, she would probably assume that by then she'd be married to Joseph and would have a baby how every other woman had a baby.

But why would Mary assume conception would occur before the marital relations that, according to your interpretation, She expected with Joseph?

Gabriel does not say:

"You are about to conceive."

or:

"You will conceive immediately."

He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

As a betrothed woman who, according to your position, expected future marital relations with Joseph, why would Mary's first assumption be that conception would occur prior to consummation rather than through the marital relations She expected in the future?

Instead of appealing to Joseph as the expected explanation, She explains Her difficulty by saying:

"I know not man."

That is why I still find the exchange significant.

And it is also why I find Gabriel's appeal to Elizabeth noteworthy. Elizabeth's conception was naturally impossible because of barrenness and old age. But under your interpretation, Mary had no comparable natural obstacle if future conception through Joseph remained Her expected explanation. So why is Mary's case framed alongside Elizabeth's and concluded with:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

You agree Mary's comparable natural obstacle was Her virginity. But according to your own position, that virginity was temporary, and at the time Mary asked Her question, She had not yet been given any reason to think the announced conception would occur prior to those future marital relations. So why does She appeal to "I know not man" as the explanation for Her difficulty rather than assume the announced conception would occur through those expected marital relations?

That is the difficulty I keep coming back to. Your explanation requires Mary to assume that the conception would occur prior to the marital relations She expected, even though Gabriel never says that and Mary Herself gives no indication that timing is Her concern. Instead, She grounds Her question in the fact that She "knows not man."

 

[Moonwood]

What I wrote is the natural and normal response of people.

You say Mary's response was simply the natural and normal response of a virgin who had not yet had relations with Joseph. But why would Mary assume conception would occur before the marital relations that, according to your interpretation, She expected with Joseph?

Gabriel does not say:

"You are about to conceive."

or:

"You will conceive immediately."

He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

As a betrothed woman who, according to your position, expected future marital relations with Joseph, why would Mary's first assumption be that conception would occur prior to consummation rather than through the marital relations She expected in the future?

Instead of appealing to Joseph as the expected explanation, She explains Her difficulty by saying:

"I know not man."

And this becomes even more significant when Gabriel responds with divine conception, appeals to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and concludes:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

You agree Mary's obstacle was Her virginity. But according to your own position, that virginity was temporary, and at the time Mary asked Her question, She had not yet been given any reason to think the announced conception would occur prior to those future marital relations. So why does She appeal to "I know not man" as the explanation for Her difficulty rather than assume the announced conception would occur through the future marital relations that you argue She expected with Joseph?

That is the difficulty I keep coming back to. Your explanation requires Mary to assume that conception would occur before the marital relations She expected, even though Gabriel never says that and Mary Herself gives no indication that timing is Her concern.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

But why would Mary assume conception would occur before the marital relations that, according to your interpretation, She expected with Joseph?

Gabriel does not say:

"You are about to conceive."

or:

"You will conceive immediately."

He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

Could have been Gabriel's tone. Or it could have been that given the suddenness of the announcement, she naturally thought that this would be somewhat immediate. It would be a totally normal thing to think.

And if she DID think that, as it turns out, she would have been 100% correct in that thought.

As a betrothed woman who, according to your position, expected future marital relations with Joseph, why would Mary's first assumption be that conception would occur prior to consummation rather than through the marital relations She expected in the future?

Just answered that.

Instead of appealing to Joseph as the expected explanation, She explains Her difficulty by saying:

"I know not man."

That is why I still find the exchange significant.

And it is also why I find Gabriel's appeal to Elizabeth noteworthy. Elizabeth's conception was naturally impossible because of barrenness and old age. But under your interpretation, Mary had no comparable natural obstacle if future conception through Joseph remained Her expected explanation. So why is Mary's case framed alongside Elizabeth's and concluded with:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

You agree Mary's comparable natural obstacle was Her virginity. But according to your own position, that virginity was temporary,

I have taken no position whatsoever on whether Mary's virginity was temporary or permanent. I've just tried to answer the questions the OP is asking.

and at the time Mary asked Her question, She had not yet been given any reason to think the announced conception would occur prior to those future marital relations. So why does She appeal to "I know not man" as the explanation for Her difficulty rather than assume the announced conception would occur through those expected marital relations?

Because clearly she thought that this announcement meant that she would be pregnant even though she hasn't had sex. There's literally no reason whatsoever to think that she would assume that this meant she would NEVER have sex.

That is the difficulty I keep coming back to. Your explanation requires Mary to assume that the conception would occur prior to the marital relations She expected, even though Gabriel never says that and Mary Herself gives no indication that timing is Her concern. Instead, She grounds Her question in the fact that She "knows not man."

Right - you've repeated this numerous times now but the answer is still the same. I'm sorry you're finding the explanation so difficult to process.

 

[Moonwood]

I have taken no position whatsoever on whether Mary's virginity was temporary or permanent. I've just tried to answer the questions the OP is asking.

Well, then perhaps I've misunderstood your aim.

As made clear in the opening post, the challenge is specifically directed at those who assert that Mary expected ordinary marital relations with Joseph and that Joseph and Mary later had marital relations after the birth of Jesus. In other words, it is directed at those who understand Mary's virginity to be temporary.

So when you attempted to answer the challenge, I naturally assumed you were defending that position.

Moreover, your explanation seems to presuppose that Mary expected future ordinary marital relations with Joseph. After all, your explanation is that Mary was puzzled because She understood conception would normally occur through those future relations and therefore interpreted Gabriel's announcement as referring to a conception that would occur beforehand.

If that's not the expectation you're appealing to, then I'm not sure what future expectation is supposed to explain Mary's question.

So while you may not be taking a position on what happened later in Mary's life, your explanation does seem to presuppose that Mary expected future ordinary marital relations with Joseph as the normal means of conception.

If you're not actually taking a position on whether Mary's virginity was temporary or permanent, then we're discussing a somewhat different question. The issue I raised is not whether some hypothetical explanation can be imagined for Mary's question, but whether the explanation commonly offered by those who reject lifelong virginity adequately accounts for the details of the text.

So, just for clarification, and so I know how to address your answer to the challenge: do you believe Mary expected ordinary marital relations with Joseph in the future, or not? Your explanation appears to depend on that assumption.

 

[beechan]

Could have been Gabriel's tone. Or it could have been that given the suddenness of the announcement, she naturally thought that this would be somewhat immediate. It would be a totally normal thing to think.

And if she DID think that, as it turns out, she would have been 100% correct in that thought.



Just answered that.



I have taken no position whatsoever on whether Mary's virginity was temporary or permanent. I've just tried to answer the questions the OP is asking.



Because clearly she thought that this announcement meant that she would be pregnant even though she hasn't had sex. There's literally no reason whatsoever to think that she would assume that this meant she would NEVER have sex.



Right - you've repeated this numerous times now but the answer is still the same. I'm sorry you're finding the explanation so difficult to process.

Back then when a young woman was about to marry and learned that she would about to bear a child, she should be very happy and not 'surprised' as Mary did. Fertility was considered God's blessing!


You explain to us why Mary had such reaction to Gabriel's message and responded with :"I know not man.". Obviously, Mary must have a previous vow on permanent virginity, like the daughter of Jephthah.

 

[beechan]

BTW the protoevangelium of James was written at the end of the 2nd century so is not a valid source . Need I remind you that at the end of the 2nd century the church was battling the influx ofpagan Greek philosophy. Do not forget Origen and Arius.

The protoevangelium of James does exert influence.
Classic Nativity scenes of the gospels have Jesus being born in a wooden stable.
Look at most of the Orthodox Church arts, Jesus being born in a cave. , following this text rather than the canonical gospels.

Even though The protoevangelium of James is not scripture, the text has had a massive impact on Orthodox sacred tradition, hymnography, and iconography.

 

[Dryhn]

Once again with possibilities! Suggests? NO it does not. she simply said, I am not sexually active so how can I get pregnant.

If Mary knew she was to remain a virgin she would have said, " I will never know a man". YOu and moonwood take a simple easy to undetrstand statement and load it with so much maybe's and possiblies and suggests as to make you sound ridiculous.

also, you did get right what was teh obstacle in Mary's mind. she was not sexually active yet! But Scripture says after Jesus was born she was , just as Scripture shows to all who are not indoctrinated by Romanist philosophy. Perpetual virginity is a construct of men and not in Scripture.

BTW the protoevangelium of James was written at the end of the 2nd century so is not a valid source . Need I remind you that at the end of the 2nd century the church was battling the influx ofpagan Greek philosophy. Do not forget Origen and Arius.

Sounds like you are having to deal with the left right left right left right Vatican Mary NEVER had sex EVER march nonsense

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Well, then perhaps I've misunderstood your aim.

As made clear in the opening post, the challenge is specifically directed at those who assert that Mary expected ordinary marital relations with Joseph and that Joseph and Mary later had marital relations after the birth of Jesus. In other words, it is directed at those who understand Mary's virginity to be temporary.

So when you attempted to answer the challenge, I naturally assumed you were defending that position.

Moreover, your explanation seems to presuppose that Mary expected future ordinary marital relations with Joseph. After all, your explanation is that Mary was puzzled because She understood conception would normally occur through those future relations and therefore interpreted Gabriel's announcement as referring to a conception that would occur beforehand.

If that's not the expectation you're appealing to, then I'm not sure what future expectation is supposed to explain Mary's question.

So while you may not be taking a position on what happened later in Mary's life, your explanation does seem to presuppose that Mary expected future ordinary marital relations with Joseph as the normal means of conception.

If you're not actually taking a position on whether Mary's virginity was temporary or permanent, then we're discussing a somewhat different question. The issue I raised is not whether some hypothetical explanation can be imagined for Mary's question, but whether the explanation commonly offered by those who reject lifelong virginity adequately accounts for the details of the text.

So, just for clarification, and so I know how to address your answer to the challenge: do you believe Mary expected ordinary marital relations with Joseph in the future, or not? Your explanation appears to depend on that assumption.

I'm sure when she got betrothed to Joseph, she expected that the betrothal would be normal and that she'd have a normal marriage, which would include sex, yeah. What possible grounds does anyone have to even remotely suggest that she went into this betrothal thinking that she wouldn't have sex with her husband?

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Back then when a young woman was about to marry and learned that she would about to bear a child, she should be very happy and not 'surprised' as Mary did. Fertility was considered God's blessing!

They weren't supposed to have sex yet until they were married. If you were her betrothed, and the wedding was three months away, and you hadn't had sex with her, and all of a sudden she tells you she's pregnant, do you really think that's cause for celebration? Don't you get why Joseph intended to "put her away" (Matt 1:19)?

You explain to us why Mary had such reaction to Gabriel's message and responded with :"I know not man.".

Because she hadn't had sex with anyone, and even though we are more advance in science these days, they certainly understood how babies were made. And she was like, how can I get pregnant when I've never had sex?

It's really not that difficult of an answer to your question.

Obviously, Mary must have a previous vow on permanent virginity, like the daughter of Jephthah.

That's not even close to "obvious". That's wishful thinking on your part. When she got engaged to Joseph, do you really think she intended to never have sex with him? What possible evidence is there for that?

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Long story short, the OP's "textual challenge" ... isn't really much of a challenge. It's rather easily solved.

 

[Moonwood]

So, just for clarification, and so I know how to address your answer to the challenge: do you believe Mary expected ordinary marital relations with Joseph in the future, or not? Your explanation appears to depend on that assumption.

I'm sure when she got betrothed to Joseph, she expected that the betrothal would be normal and that she'd have a normal marriage, which would include sex, yeah.

Thank you for confirming that you believe Mary expected ordinary marital relations with Joseph in the future.

...given the suddenness of the announcement, she naturally thought that this would be somewhat immediate.

You suggest that, given the suddenness of the announcement, Mary naturally understood Gabriel to mean that conception would be "somewhat immediate." Immediate in what sense? As a betrothed Jewish woman, Mary knew that the final phase of marriage, when husband and wife would begin living together and consummate the marriage, was approaching. She also would have understood that Gabriel knew this. So are you suggesting that Mary understood Gabriel to be speaking of a conception that would occur before those expected marital relations?

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Thank you for confirming that you believe Mary expected ordinary marital relations with Joseph in the future.

As any young woman betrothed to be married would.

Note: this doesn't answer the question of whether Mary REMAINED a virgin. Just that she expected to have sex when she got married, because that was what you did.

You suggest that, given the suddenness of the announcement, Mary naturally understood Gabriel to mean that conception would be "somewhat immediate." Immediate in what sense?

Immediate in the sense that Mary was like, wait, how can I get pregnant since I've never had sex?

As a betrothed Jewish woman, Mary knew that the final phase of marriage, when husband and wife would begin living together and consummate the marriage, was approaching. She also would have understood that Gabriel knew this. So are you suggesting that Mary understood Gabriel to be speaking of a conception that would occur before those expected marital relations?

Yes. Which is why she was like, how is this possible? If Mary assumed she would get pregnant AFTER getting married, she wouldn't have wondered how it would be possible, since she would rightly assume that she'd be having sex, and that's how babies are made.

And of course, if Mary had thought this, she would have been 100% correct, since she DID get pregnant BEFORE she got married, which is why Joseph sought to quietly divorce her.

 

[beechan]

Because she hadn't had sex with anyone, and even though we are more advance in science these days, they certainly understood how babies were made. And she was like, how can I get pregnant when I've never had sex?

Did Gabriel tell Mary She would get pregnant now, or before her marriage to Joseph?

Mary's surprise: 'I know not man' would make sense only she knew she should never have sex and children in her lifetime, a perpetual virginity!

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Did Gabriel tell Mary She would get pregnant now, or before her marriage to Joseph?

No. He didn't tell her when. But her response makes 100% sense if she THOUGHT Gabriel meant that this would happen soon. And this is the piece that you keep missing or ignoring: IF she thought that, she would have been absolutely, 100% correct, because that was, in fact, what happened.

Mary's surprise: 'I know not man' would make sense only she knew she should never have sex and children, a perpetual virginity!

That's absurd on every level. I'd add "and you know it", but obviously you don't.

 

[beechan]

Did Gabriel tell Mary She would get pregnant now, or before her marriage to Joseph?
Mary's surprise: 'I know not man' would make sense only she knew she should never have sex and children in her lifetime, a perpetual virginity!

How would Mary b so surprised to bear a child when her 'marriage' was just three months ahead?

She was surprised with Gabriel's message because 'bearing a child' should not happen to her, soon nor in the future.