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

rwb said:

Why does this matter so much for you? Are you under the delusion that Mary is pure as long as she does not engage in marital relationship which Joseph, and being pure you believe her to be equal with God?

Click to expand...

It matters because it's true and part of the deposit of faith.

It has nothing to do with ideas of purity in the conventional sense you seem to be using it. Marital intimacy is a divinely ordained gift, and the Church does not teach otherwise. Mary simply had a unique role to play in salvation history (the Ark of the New Covenant, the Mother of God), and that unique role was reflected in her unusual marriage. (Though the idea of sacred celibacy was hardly foreign in the Judaism of the day, even in the context of marriage)

We do not believe Mary to be equal to God. The historic Christian teaching of the perpetual virginity has absolutely nothing to do with trying to wrongly elevate her to such a place.

Moonwood said:

But the present tense does not resolve the issue. Mary’s use of the idiom “I do not know man” refers to sexual relations in general, not merely Her present moment. The tense does not change the idiom’s meaning.

More importantly, the narrative logic still stands:

If Mary expected future relations with Joseph, then 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.

Gabriel reinforces 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.

Click to expand...

Not only does the tense not change the idiom's meaning, it reinforces it - the present tense is not used to speak exclusively of what is true in the moment without regard for the future, but rather it is very commonly used to speak to conditions (like ongoing celibacy, continuing into the future). And here, in context, the present tense has to have that meaning, since Mary was responding to what Gabriel said woild happen at an unspecified point in the future ("you will conceive").

TiberiusMaximus said:

It matters because it's true and part of the deposit of faith.

It has nothing to do with ideas of purity in the conventional sense you seem to be using it. Marital intimacy is a divinely ordained gift, and the Church does not teach otherwise. Mary simply had a unique role to play in salvation history (the Ark of the New Covenant, the Mother of God), and that unique role was reflected in her unusual marriage. (Though the idea of sacred celibacy was hardly foreign in the Judaism of the day, even in the context of marriage)

We do not believe Mary to be equal to God. The historic Christian teaching of the perpetual virginity has absolutely nothing to do with trying to wrongly elevate her to such a place.

Click to expand...

If Mary was pure "the Ark of the New Covenant, the mother of God) while clothed in human flesh & blood why does she, like every other human need a Savior?

If the perpetual virginity argument has nothing to do with elevating Mary why do Catholics argue so vehemently against Mary being natural flesh and blood? Do you also worship, bow down and pray to her as though she is equal with God?

Ronald Nolette said:

It does. If she is not sexually active- there is no normal "HOW" she would get pregnant. that is why her question is asked in honestness and Gabriel told her the how.

The angel answers the how and the when. that dhould be enough.

and as Joseph and Mary having sex?

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.

anyone without a predisposed bias would read that as Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born

Click to expand...

This is not responsive to the text. As Moonwood has observed repeatedly, not one answer thus far actually addresses the text, in context, of the Annunciation without ignoring it, misstating it, or reading into it what is not there.

As for Matthew 1, not only is it not to the contrary of historical Christian teaching, it underscores it.

"Until" here does not say that after Jesus was born Joseph did know Mary, just as in Matthew 28:20 "until" does not say that after the end of the age Jesus will no longer be with us. It expresses what is true during the relevant period without implying the converse becomes true after that period ends.

What is remarkable about Matthew 1, however, is that it tells us Joseph did not know Mary *even after* they had become fully married (when he took her into his home), when in a conventional marriage it would be fully expected that Joseph and Mary would have consummated more or less immediately upon her moving in with him. In other words, Matthew 1 gives us yet another data point from the pages of Scripture that, when it comes to marital intimacy, Joseph and Mary's marriage was *not* conventional.

Moonwood said:

You say:

"And you continue being disingenuous by stating accusations that we who have answered you have NOT answered you."

But I actually tagged you earlier in a post where I explicitly said:

“So far, every response has avoided the textual question I’m actually asking. The arguments offered address questions I never raised, or reframe my point into something I did not claim.”

That is a clear acknowledgment that people have responded — but that their responses have not addressed the specific textual issue I’m raising.
You ignored that clarification and instead accused me of being “disingenuous.”
But pointing out that no one has answered the actual question is not disingenuous — it’s simply accurate.

I’ve explained to each person along the way exactly why their replies didn’t address it — including yours.
In fact, you have yet to attempt to address the challenge, because the replies you’ve submitted —

• “heresy”
• “corrupted manuscripts”
• “you don’t have the Spirit”
• “you’re a troll”
• “blocked”
• “RCC doctrine debunked”
• “Mary had other children”
• “natural man cannot understand”
• “no textual tension”
• “you reject truth”

— do not engage the narrative logic in Luke:

• Mary asks a mechanism question (“How?”),
• not a timing question (“When?”),
• even though under your own position conception through Joseph would be entirely possible under Her expected future circumstances.

And Gabriel answers Her mechanism question with:

• a miraculous, non‑sexual mechanism,
• a parallel to Elizabeth’s impossible conception,
• and “For with God nothing will be impossible.”

None of that fits the scenario you’re defending.

You can call it “heresy,” “corrupted manuscripts,” or anything else — but none of that actually answers the textual question I raised.

And you say God prevented error by having Scripture written as it was — but I am using Luke’s narrative exactly as it was written, and the problem is that your belief cannot be reconciled with it.

So if anyone is avoiding the issue, it isn’t me.

Click to expand...

Of course, the name calling speaks for itself that the ahistorical position against the perpetual virginity--seemingly originating in heretical segments of the church per the historical record--is unbiblical. Otherwise, why have they resorted to schoolyard-bullying tactics?

Armour of God said:

Ok I'll refute you again seeing its so easy...

Your erroneous assumption is that Mary was speaking about the future.
But she is not, she never said "i will remain a virgin".

Instead she said that she is STILL a virgin. She is clearly speaking in the past and present tenses. A child can understand this grammar. It's past and present tense

Besides, if Mary refused to love and submit to her husband that would make her a bad wife and a bad mother for forgetting her only child in Jesrusalem by himself at the age of 12.

Answer me this...
Since you’ve joined this forum you've started several threads on this topic...
Why are you so obsessed about Mary's virginity?
Why does it matter so much to you?

Click to expand...

The fact that Mary uses the present tense ("I do not know a man") in response to Gabriel's future tense statement ("you will conceive") defeats your position rather than supports it. Mary is responding by describing her state of being that she anticipates continuing into the future - a very common use of the present tense. And as Moonwood has explained repeatedly, Mary's response to Gabriel only makes sense by reading the passage in this way - otherwise, why is she surprised to learn she "will conceive" in the future, which is hardly a surprising thing for a betrothed and soon-to-be-fully-married wife?

Pavel Mosko said:

Yes, I do not believe in the Helvidian position. Really nobody should that has any background in the Jewish Cultural context of the Bible, especially the Mitzot. or the concept of the sacred, any Godfearing Jew would be afraid to consummate the marriage literally speaking if you actually believed God incarnate or some kind of Divine miracle theophany passed through the birth canal. Furthermore there are linguistic reasons to believe the matter is not as cut and dried as it appears in some kind of English or European translation. I had Grok summarize things for me.


Here are usable quotes on the biblical idiom of “until” (heōs / heōs hou, reflecting Hebrew ʿad / ʿad-kî), which does not require that the contrary state begins afterward.
John Calvin (commentary on Matthew 1:25):

John Nolland (The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC):

Daniel Harrington (The Gospel of Matthew, Sacra Pagina):

John Chrysostom (Homily 5 on Matthew; commenting on the same verse):

The same pattern appears throughout Scripture. Classic examples include:

• 2 Samuel 6:23: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.”
• Psalm 110:1: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”
• Genesis 8:7: the raven “went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth” (and never returned).
• Matthew 28:20: “I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

In each case the “until” clause marks the period under discussion; it does not assert that the opposite state begins once the boundary is reached. That is the ordinary biblical usage of the idiom.

Click to expand...

Yes. One of the perpetual (no pun intended) and ill-informed red herrings in the debate over the historical Christian belief about the perpetual virginity is the argument that it is un-Jewish, which has cropped up here and there in this very thread. But the doctrine is so very deeply rooted in the Hebrew Bible. And similarly, the practice of sacred celibacy, even within marriage, is attested to in the Judaism of the day - the Essenes, for instance, according to Josephus; or the example of Moses becoming celibate in his marriage after he was called by God according to the targums of the day.

There's a reason Christians have accepted this doctrine, East and West alike, almost universally until *after* the Reformation (even radical reformers like Zwingli didn't reject the doctrine) - because it's biblical and historical!