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

[Moonwood]

I know not a man - yes, she was a virgin BEFORE the birth of Christ
nothing shall be impossible - hench the virgin conception

I agree that Gabriel is explaining the virginal conception. That isn't the part I'm disputing.

The question is why Mary's statement leads to that answer.

You say:

"she was a virgin BEFORE the birth of Christ"

But under the position defended in this thread, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore expected future conception through Joseph.

Gabriel never says when the conception will occur. He simply tells Her:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

So why does Mary present not knowing man as the obstacle to that announcement rather than understanding the conception as something that would occur through the marital relations she supposedly expected in the future?

And why does Gabriel reinforce his answer by appealing to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception and concluding:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Simply saying "virgin conception" restates Gabriel's answer. My question is how your interpretation reconciles Mary's appeal to "I know not man," Gabriel's explanation of divine conception, his appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and his conclusion, "For with God nothing shall be impossible," with the claim that Mary expected future marital relations and future conception through Joseph.

 

[Dryhn]

Dryhn, try listing the verse that explicitly says “And then Joseph and Mary went and had normal marital relations afterward.”

I'm not the one claiming they never had sex
When a claim is made then verses are required.
No verses = no support for a said claim

 

[Dryhn]

I agree that Gabriel is explaining the virginal conception. That isn't the part I'm disputing.

The question is why Mary's statement leads to that answer.

You say:

"she was a virgin BEFORE the birth of Christ"

But under the position defended in this thread, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore expected future conception through Joseph.

Gabriel never says when the conception will occur. He simply tells Her:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

So why does Mary present not knowing man as the obstacle to that announcement rather than understanding the conception as something that would occur through the marital relations she supposedly expected in the future?

And why does Gabriel reinforce his answer by appealing to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception and concluding:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Simply saying "virgin conception" restates Gabriel's answer. My question is how your interpretation reconciles Mary's appeal to "I know not man," Gabriel's explanation of divine conception, his appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and his conclusion, "For with God nothing shall be impossible," with the claim that Mary expected future marital relations and future conception through Joseph.

Drag paste to your hearts content but only the verses will be read

 

[Moonwood]

Drag paste to your hearts content but only the verses will be read

So, you refuse to continue with the challenge and are only willing to go off topic. Got it.

 

[beechan]

I'm not the one claiming they never had sex
When a claim is made then verses are required.
No verses = no support for a said claim

They had normal sex, yet bore no children! Modern couples and teenagers would surely love their traits.

 

[Rockerduck]

While the New Testament does not contain a sentence saying, "And Mary remained a virgin until her death," proponents argue that several passages strongly point to or typify this reality. Here is one:

John 19:26–27 "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith to his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her into his own home."

If Mary to have sex relationship of Joseph after Jesus's birth, Jesus would have brothers. There was no contraception back then.

If Mary and Joseph had other sons, and Jesus has brothers, why would Jesus asked John to take care of Mary as if John would be Mary's son??
In Jewish culture of the Second Temple period, the legal and moral duty of caring for an widowed mother fell squarely upon her younger biological sons . If Mary had other biological children of her own (i.e., younger children born to Mary and Joseph), handing her over to the care of a non-family member, John, would have violated cultural and familial obligations.


There are other passages that suggest the same. Do ask, if you were so interest on it.

It was a political time then. Many of the Apostles were hiding behind locked doors. Jesus was the sole provider for the family. In multiple scriptures the Mary and family traveled with Jesus. Jesus had some women supporting the expenses of Jesus and the 12. John on the other hand seemed not to be bothered by any threat, so he showed up at the Cross with the other Mary's. In 1 Corinthians 15:7 Jesus made an appearance to James, then by the other apostles. I wonder if Jesus gave James some instructions, because James took the lead in the Jerusalem church. So, its not good to speculate why brothers, aka, family would not like to be a target for persecution by showing up.

 

[beechan]

John on the other hand seemed not to be bothered by any threat, so he showed up at the Cross with the other Mary's.

Objection! Speculation!
Why John was exempted from the threat of prosecution?

 

[Dryhn]

They had normal sex, yet bore no children! Modern couples would surely love their traits.

Bore no children is an opinion
No sex after the birth of Christ is not taught in Scripture

Claims with no verses = just a claim

 

[Dryhn]

So, you refuse to continue with the challenge and are only willing to go off topic. Got it.

No surprise, no verses, can't prove your claim, got it :)

 

[Moonwood]

No surprise, no verses, can't prove your claim, got it :)

So you not only refuse to continue with the challenge, and are only willing to go off topic, but you wrongly think my staying on topic in this thread means I'm unable to prove my position regarding another topic. Got it.

 

[beechan]

Bore no children is an opinion
No sex after the birth of Christ is not taught in Scripture

Claims with no verses = just a claim

If 'no sex after' is an interpretation, then the claim that they did have normal marital relations afterward is also just an unproven opinion backed by zero supporting Bible verses. You can't dismiss one side as just an opinion while smuggling in your own assumption as a self-evident fact.

If you don't have an explicit verse showing they did consummate the marriage after Bethlehem, then your entire counter-claim is built on the exact same silence you're complaining about.

 

[Dryhn]

If 'no sex after' is an interpretation, then the claim that they did have normal marital relations afterward is also just an unproven opinion backed by zero supporting Bible verses. You can't dismiss one side as just an opinion while smuggling in your own assumption as a self-evident fact.

If you don't have an explicit verse showing they did consummate the marriage after Bethlehem, then your entire counter-claim is built on the exact same silence you're complaining about.

Your no sex denominational dogma is destroyed by lack of Scripture to support it