Search results

But none of this addresses the textual issue I’m raising. I’m not arguing that Mary thought She would never wed Joseph or never have children. The question is why both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible under Mary’s expected future circumstances. Mary does not say, “I am...

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

I appreciate the personal story, but it doesn’t really address anything I said. Childhood impressions or what some people later chose to believe don’t settle historical questions. The point remains simple: the early Church was visible, organized, and apostolic, and the communities the apostles...

Thank you for replying. But your answer doesn’t resolve the textual issues I’m raising. Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive, only that She will. That contradicts your claim that Mary is referring only to Her current circumstances rather than Her expected future circumstances...

I explicitly noted that Gabriel never tells Mary when She will conceive, only that She will. That contradicts your reframing of my argument into Mary thinking She was going to conceive on the day of Gabriel’s visitation. And earlier you said Mary was “wondering how that is going to happen”...

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

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

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

You’re taking a passage about false teachers and trying to use it as a blanket denial of apostolic succession. But 2 Peter 2 doesn’t say, “There will be false teachers, therefore no church can have legitimate leadership.” It simply warns that false teachers will arise — which every Christian...

You’re still mixing categories. The fact that early Christians met in homes doesn’t mean they weren’t organized. They met in homes because Christianity was illegal and they had no buildings — not because Jesus intended a loose, structureless movement. Even in those house churches, there were...

Thank you for replying. I’m not raising the question to defend any particular tradition. I’m looking at the textual logic of Luke 1. My point is simply that if Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, then the narrative should reflect that expectation. But in Luke’s account, both...

Your answer still doesn’t address the textual issue I’m raising. You say Mary “knows she can bear children if she is with a man.” I agree — Mary is not barren. But that is exactly why Her response is so striking. A young, betrothed woman who expects future marital relations does not treat...

I agree that God can do what is impossible for man. That isn’t the issue I’m raising. I’m not questioning the miraculous conception — I’m asking about the narrative logic in Luke 1. You say nothing here indicates that Mary didn’t have a normal marriage after Jesus’ birth. But my question is...

You’re moving far away from history and into accusations that don’t reflect what the early Church actually was. Calling any Christian community a “harlot” or describing believers as “full of deadly diseases” isn’t a theological argument — it’s just hostility. I’m not going to follow you into...

You’re confusing later polemics with actual early Christian history. Yes, the apostles preached in many places, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Church Jesus founded was visible, organized, and apostolic. Meeting in homes doesn’t mean they lacked structure — it simply means...

Thank you for replying. But your answer doesn’t address the textual issue I’m raising. I agree that Mary is not barren. That is exactly the point: a young, betrothed woman who expects future marital relations does not treat conception as impossible. In that situation conception is not...

Thank you for replying. Yes — ginosko is Present Active Indicative. But the tense does not mean “I am not currently having sex.” It means “I do not know man,” which is the standard biblical idiom for sexual relations. The issue is not the tense — it is the logic of Mary’s response. If Mary...

Thank you for replying. But your answers don’t resolve the textual issue I’m raising. You say Mary’s question is natural because She was only betrothed and had not yet had contact with Joseph. But if She expected future marital relations, then conception is not impossible, only not yet. In...

Your reply repeats the same claims, but it still doesn’t resolve the textual issue I’m raising. You say Mary is confused because She is “not in a relationship.” But that simply means the marriage is not yet consummated. Betrothed Jewish women do expect future marital intercourse. Luke does not...

Your explanation still doesn’t resolve the textual issue I’m raising. You say Mary had no thought of becoming pregnant without intercourse. I agree — that is exactly why Her question is so striking. If She expects future marital relations with Joseph, then conception is not impossible, only not...