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

[Moonwood]

The challenge is to prove that Mary did not have normal married relations after the birth of Christ
List those verses please

No, that is not the challenge.
The title of the thread is:

"A Textual Challenge to the 'Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations' Position."

The challenge is not:

"Prove Mary's perpetual virginity."

The challenge is:

"Can the belief that Mary and Joseph had later marital relations be reconciled with Luke 1:34-37?"

Those are different questions.
The subject of this thread is whether your position adequately explains:

• Mary's statement, "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."

So I'll ask again:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She present not knowing man as the obstacle to the announced conception when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur? And 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"?

If you can answer that, you'll have addressed the challenge. If not, then repeatedly asking me to prove a different proposition simply changes the subject.

 

[Dryhn]

No, that is not the challenge.
The title of the thread is:

"A Textual Challenge to the 'Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations' Position."

The challenge is not:

"Prove Mary's perpetual virginity."

The challenge is:

"Can the belief that Mary and Joseph had later marital relations be reconciled with Luke 1:34-37?"

Those are different questions.
The subject of this thread is whether your position adequately explains:

• Mary's statement, "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."

So I'll ask again:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She present not knowing man as the obstacle to the announced conception when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur? And 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"?

If you can answer that, you'll have addressed the challenge. If not, then repeatedly asking me to prove a different proposition simply changes the subject.

and so far you have failed to disprove normal relations between Mary & Joseph following the birth of Christ