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

[Moonwood]

Mid‑Thread Summary and Restatement of the Textual Challenge

@Armour of God
@sondring7
@markalan
@David in NJ
@Ronald Nolette
@marks
@Grailhunter
@Taken
@quietthinker
@David Lamb
@Lambano
@Titus
@JimKnox
@shepherdsword

All of you assert that Mary had marital relations with Joseph.

Such an assertion carries clear expectations about what Mary Herself would have anticipated as a betrothed woman. According to Jewish law, betrothal was a legally binding marriage, and a betrothed woman would naturally expect:

• future marital relations with her husband,
• future conception of children through those relations.

If any of you deny that, then you may as well abandon your position entirely.
If not, let’s continue.

When Mary was betrothed to Joseph, Gabriel announced to Her:

“You will conceive and bear a Son.”

Notice what Gabriel does not say:

• He does not say when She will conceive.
• He does not yet say how She will conceive.

According to your position, at hearing such an announcement Mary would have:

• expected conception to occur through marital relations with Joseph,
• expected conception to occur after the pre‑consummation period,
• and therefore had no reason to ask "How?" at all.

But instead, the narrative gives us something entirely different:

• Mary asks “How will this be?” — a mechanism question, not a timing question.
• She explains Her question with “since I do not know man” — an idiom referring to sexual relations in general, not merely the present moment.
• Gabriel answers Her “How?” with a description of a miraculous, non‑sexual conception: “The Holy Spirit will come upon You… the power of the Most High will overshadow You.”
• Gabriel reinforces impossibility by pointing to Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception.
  He is explaining why Mary’s conception will happen — precisely because it is impossible under normal circumstances.
  This is the same logic he uses with Elizabeth:
  • Elizabeth’s conception was impossible naturally, specifically because she was barren and advanced in age (Luke 1:36).
  • Mary’s conception is impossible naturally — yet not because of barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband. It is impossible specifically because She “knows not man” (Luke 1:34).
  • God will make both possible, for "nothing is impossible with God" (Luke 1:37).

That is the narrative logic.

Under Mary’s expected future circumstances — a legally binding betrothal, anticipated marital relations, and no physical impediments — natural conception through Joseph was entirely possible.

None of Luke’s narrative fits a scenario where Mary expects conception through Joseph at any point in the future.

Given your own position — that Mary expected future marital relations and natural conception through Joseph — how do you explain that both Mary and Gabriel speak and act as though conception is impossible under those expected circumstances?

That is the narrative tension.

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.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Thank you for replying.

If “I do not know man” simply meant Mary is not sexually active at present, that does not explain why She asks how conception will occur. If She expected normal marital relations with Joseph later, conception would not be puzzling — only the timing would be. In that case She would ask “When?”, not “How?”

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

 

[Moonwood]

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

You’re responding to a claim I never made. I’m not arguing that Mary believed She would never know a man. I’m saying that according to your own position, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph — and therefore conception was entirely possible under Her expected future circumstances.

If conception was possible, Her natural question would be “When?”
But She asks “How?” — which only makes sense if conception is impossible under those expected circumstances.

Your explanation only works if Mary expected no future sexual relations.
But your own position is that She did expect future sexual relations with Joseph.
So your explanation contradicts your position.

More importantly, you still haven’t addressed Gabriel’s answer.
Gabriel does not tell Her She will conceive through Joseph after consummation.
He gives a miraculous mechanism, cites Elizabeth’s impossible conception, and concludes: “For with God nothing will be impossible.”

None of that fits a scenario where Mary expects conception through Joseph at any point in the future.

So the question remains: Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak and act as though conception is impossible under the very circumstances your position says make conception possible?

Matthew 1:25 does not answer that question. It concerns events after the conception, not Mary’s expectations before it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Thank you for replying.

If “I do not know man” simply meant Mary is not sexually active at present, that does not explain why She asks how conception will occur. If She expected normal marital relations with Joseph later, conception would not be puzzling — only the timing would be. In that case She would ask “When?”, not “How?”

More importantly, how does your explanation address Gabriel’s response? Gabriel does not tell Her She will conceive through Joseph once the betrothal period ends. He instead explains a miraculous, non‑sexual conception and reinforces it by citing Elizabeth — a woman whose conception was naturally impossible.

So the question remains:

Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention if Mary expected normal marital relations?

Your reply explains neither Mary’s confusion nor Gabriel’s answer.

Your RCC predisposition is forcing you to reinterpret this verse. Her question is simple. How can I get pregnant since I am not sexually active? Gabriel tells her the Holy Ghost will impregnate her.

Neeither Mary nor Gabriel even remotely implied conception was impossible. Just that she was not active so she did not know how she could get pregnant. That is all.

Gabriel’s explanation (“Holy Spirit will come upon you… power of the Most High will overshadow you”) is never used as a sexual description in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. It is consistently a divine‑presence term, not a physical act. And Gabriel reinforces this by citing Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception — a miracle, not intercourse.

Well the Holy spirit did not take on the form of a man and have physical sex with Mary. His presence was enough to do the job. so that is a red herring.

 

[Moonwood]

Your RCC predisposition is forcing you to reinterpret this verse. Her question is simple. How can I get pregnant since I am not sexually active? Gabriel tells her the Holy Ghost will impregnate her.

Neeither Mary nor Gabriel even remotely implied conception was impossible. Just that she was not active so she did not know how she could get pregnant. That is all.

Well the Holy spirit did not take on the form of a man and have physical sex with Mary. His presence was enough to do the job. so that is a red herring.

Your explanation only works if Mary believed She would never have sexual relations. But your own position is that She did expect future marital relations with Joseph. Under that expectation, conception was entirely possible — so Her natural question would be “When?” not “How?”

“How?” is a mechanism question, not a timing question. It only makes sense if conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

More importantly, you still haven’t addressed Gabriel’s answer. Gabriel does not tell Her She will conceive through Joseph after consummation. He gives a miraculous, non‑sexual mechanism, cites Elizabeth’s impossible conception, and concludes: “For with God nothing will be impossible.”

None of that fits a scenario where Mary expects conception through Joseph at any point in the future.

Matthew 1:25 concerns events after the conception. It does not explain Mary’s question or Gabriel’s answer at the annunciation.

So the textual question remains: Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak and act as though conception is impossible under the very circumstances your position says make conception possible?

 

[shepherdsword]

You’re responding to a claim I never made. I’m not arguing that Mary believed She would never know a man. I’m saying that according to your own position, She expected future marital relations with Joseph — and therefore conception would have been entirely possible under Her expected future circumstances.

If conception was possible, Her natural question would be “When?” But She asks “How?” — which only makes sense if conception is impossible under those expected circumstances.

She expected relations with Joseph but wanted to know HOW this would result in the birth of the Messiah. The angel clarified it would not be by normal relations but by the Holy Spirit. Your logic is faulty.

 

[Moonwood]

She expected relations with Joseph but wanted to know HOW this would result in the birth of the Messiah. The angel clarified it would not be by normal relations but by the Holy Spirit. Your logic is faulty.

Your explanation doesn’t match the text or your own position.

You say:

“She expected relations with Joseph but wanted to know HOW this would result in the birth of the Messiah.”

But that is not what Mary asks.

Mary does not ask:

• “How will this child be the Messiah?”
• “How will Joseph’s son fulfill prophecy?”
• “How will the promise be accomplished?”

She asks:

“How will this occur, since I do not know man?”

That is a question about conception itself, not about the child’s identity.

If Mary expects future marital relations with Joseph—as you say She does—then:

• conception is possible under Her expected future,
• the mechanism (sexual relations) is already known,
• so the only natural question would be “When?”, not “How?”.

A mechanism question only makes sense if conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

And Gabriel’s answer confirms that:

• he gives a miraculous, non‑sexual mechanism,
• he parallels it with Elizabeth’s impossible conception,
• he concludes with “For with God nothing will be impossible.”

None of that fits your scenario where Mary expects conception through Joseph.

If Mary simply wondered how Joseph’s child could be the Messiah, Gabriel would have answered with identity, mission, or prophecy. Instead he answers with biological mechanism, because that is what Mary is asking about.

So your explanation requires Mary to be confused about Messiahship, but Mary is clearly confused about conception.

Your logic doesn’t resolve the tension— it actually reinforces it.

 

[Taken]

You claiming to raise a textual issue doesn't mean you actually have. The text has been explained with proper exegesis. It disproves your eisegeses of the text. If what you say is true she would have said "How can this be since I will never know a man"

But none of this addresses the textual point I’m raising. You’re asserting “She doesn’t,” “No,” and “Your speculation,” but you’re not engaging the actual argument or the narrative logic in Luke.

Mary’s question is recorded as: “How will this be, since I do not know a man?” That is a mechanism question, not a timing question. If Mary expected future relations with Joseph, 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.

Moonwood said:
My point is simply that Mary’s question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances. If She anticipated normal marital relations, conception wouldn’t be impossible —

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention?

You created an “if -future” narrative of WHEN… then imply WHEN isn’t your point.

You claim by Speculation Mary and Gabriel were without understanding, (when there is no scriptural indication)…regarding what method of Another Pregancy would apply to Mary in her future…

Your question is twisted with presumptions that do not Scripturally exist, while claiming to be sticking to Scripture.

Scripture tells you …
Who
What
When
Why
How
A single event regarding Mary and a super natural pregancy.

 

[shepherdsword]

Your explanation doesn’t match the text or your own position.

You say:

“She expected relations with Joseph but wanted to know HOW this would result in the birth of the Messiah.”

But that is not what Mary asks.

Mary does not ask:

• “How will this child be the Messiah?”
• “How will Joseph’s son fulfill prophecy?”
• “How will the promise be accomplished?”

She asks:

“How will this occur, since I do not know man?”

That is a question about conception itself, not about the child’s identity.

If Mary expects future marital relations with Joseph—as you say She does—then:

• conception is possible under Her expected future,
• the mechanism (sexual relations) is already known,
• so the only natural question would be “When?”, not “How?”.

A mechanism question only makes sense if conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

And Gabriel’s answer confirms that:

• he gives a miraculous, non‑sexual mechanism,
• he parallels it with Elizabeth’s impossible conception,
• he concludes with “For with God nothing will be impossible.”

None of that fits your scenario where Mary expects conception through Joseph.

If Mary simply wondered how Joseph’s child could be the Messiah, Gabriel would have answered with identity, mission, or prophecy. Instead he answers with biological mechanism, because that is what Mary is asking about.

So your explanation requires Mary to be confused about Messiahship, but Mary is clearly confused about conception.

Your logic doesn’t resolve the tension— it actually reinforces it.

Your argument has decayed to the absurd. There is no "tension" except in your own mind.

 

[Moonwood]

Your argument has decayed to the absurd. There is no "tension" except in your own mind.

Interesting that you deny any tension, yet your own answers haven’t even remained consistent.

First you said Mary was only referring to Her present circumstances:

“She wasn’t making some statement based on Her never having relations in the future… She was simply saying She has never been with a man and wondered how She could have a child.”

Then you gave a completely different explanation:

“She expected relations with Joseph but wanted to know HOW this would result in the birth of the Messiah.”

I addressed both of those claims directly, and neither one fits the text.

Now your response is simply:

“Your argument has decayed to the absurd. There is no tension except in your own mind.”

But dismissing the argument doesn’t resolve the contradiction.
You still haven’t explained why — under your own position — Mary asks a mechanism question (“How?”) when conception through Joseph would have been entirely possible under Her expected future circumstances.

And you still haven’t explained why Gabriel answers 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 a scenario where Mary expects conception through Joseph at any point in the future.

Simply declaring “no tension” doesn’t make the tension disappear.

 

[Moonwood]

Moonwood said:
My point is simply that Mary’s question only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances. If She anticipated normal marital relations, conception wouldn’t be impossible —

You created an “if -future” narrative of WHEN… then imply WHEN isn’t your point.

You claim by Speculation Mary and Gabriel were without understanding, (when there is no scriptural indication)…regarding what method of Another Pregancy would apply to Mary in her future…

Your question is twisted with presumptions that do not Scripturally exist, while claiming to be sticking to Scripture.

Scripture tells you …
Who
What
When
Why
How
A single event regarding Mary and a super natural pregancy.

You’re attributing claims to me that I haven’t made and then arguing against those instead of the actual textual issue I raised.

You say I “created an ‘if‑future’ narrative of WHEN,” but that “WHEN isn’t my point.” The “if‑future” is not something I invented—it’s your own position:

• you (and the others) assert Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph,
• you assert She would naturally expect future conception through those relations.

I’m simply asking whether that expectation fits Luke’s narrative.

Under that expectation, conception is possible under Mary’s future circumstances. If conception is possible, then Her natural question would be “When?”, not “How?”.

But the text gives us:

“How will this be, since I do not know a man?”

That is a mechanism question, not a timing question.

And Gabriel’s answer matches a mechanism question:

• he gives a miraculous, non‑sexual mechanism,
• he parallels it with Elizabeth’s impossible conception,
• he concludes with “For with God nothing will be impossible.”

You say Scripture tells us “Who, What, When, Why, How” about a single event. But in Luke 1, Gabriel does not tell Mary when She will conceive—only how. That’s exactly the narrative detail I’m drawing attention to.

I’m not claiming Mary or Gabriel were “without understanding.” I’m saying: under your own premise (that Mary expected future marital relations and natural conception through Joseph), their words and actions in Luke read as though conception is impossible under those expected circumstances.

That’s the tension I’m pointing to.
Simply calling it “speculation” or “twisted” doesn’t answer it.

 

[Taken]

She does not ask “When,” but “How,” which only makes sense if She sees conception as impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

Appealing to “

If conception was possible, Her natural question would be “When?”

Why would Mary ask WHEN, if she already knew WHEN?

Why is her question of HOW a stumbling block for you…and you presenting “What you think she should have asked”… a question you think others should answer for you?

 

[Moonwood]

Why would Mary ask WHEN, if she already knew WHEN?

Why is her question of HOW a stumbling block for you…and you presenting “What you think she should have asked”… a question you think others should answer for you?

You’re misunderstanding the point I’m making. I’m not claiming Mary didn’t know the timing. I’m saying that under your own position — where Mary expects future marital relations with Joseph — conception is entirely possible under Her expected future circumstances.

If conception is possible, then the only unknown would be timing, not mechanism.
In that scenario, the natural question would be “When?” because the mechanism (sexual relations) is already known.

But Mary does not ask “When?”.
She asks:

“How will this occur, since I do not know man?”

That is a mechanism question, not a timing question.

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.”

This is the language of impossibility, not “normal conception will happen later.”

So the issue isn’t that Mary “should have asked WHEN.”
The issue is that Her actual question (“How?”) only makes sense if conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

That is the tension I’m pointing out.
You haven’t addressed it yet — you’ve only reframed my argument into something I never claimed.

And refer to post #81 for further clarity.

 

[JimKnox]

But none of this addresses the textual point I’m raising. You’re asserting “She doesn’t,” “No,” and “Your speculation,” but you’re not engaging the actual argument or the narrative logic in Luke.

Mary’s question is recorded as: “How will this be, since I do not know a man?” That is a mechanism question, not a timing question. If Mary expected future relations with Joseph, 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.

Appealing to “spiritual understanding” or redefining “when” as “the moment of agreement” doesn’t resolve the textual tension. Luke presents Mary’s question as a response to the angel’s announcement, and the wording matters. Gabriel answers Her “How?” 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, and it hasn’t been answered:

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention?

I’m not asking for Scripture to satisfy my logic — I’m asking for Scripture to be read on its own terms.

There is no "textual tension" nor "textual questions ".

You are asking God to comply with your heresy.
And He most clearly prevented such heresy by directing Scripture to be written as it was.

The RCC heresies can ONLY be supported by corrupted MSS such as the Vaticanus, Sianaticus or Alexandrinus.

THAT IS WHY you reject Truth.
Mary was NOT a perpetual virginity nor was she immaculately conceived herself.

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

 

[Taken]

So the textual question remains, and it hasn’t been answered:

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph,

Prove with the text what Mary expected.

why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention?

Quote the text that Mary and Gabriel say conception is impossible without divine intervention.

 

[Taken]

You’re misunderstanding the point I’m making.

I see no point you are making beyond IF and You deciding what Mary “should have asked”.

I’m not claiming Mary didn’t know the timing. I’m saying that under your own position — where Mary expects future marital relations with Joseph —

I’m very confident when God directed husbands and wives to multiply…
A betrothed Jewish female was fully informed what that meant.

 

[Moonwood]

Prove with the text what Mary expected.

Quote the text that Mary and Gabriel say conception is impossible without divine intervention.

I’m not asking you to accept any speculation. I’m asking you to follow the narrative logic in Luke. You asked for two things, so let me answer both directly from the text.

1. “Prove with the text what Mary expected.”​

The text itself shows Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph:

• She is betrothed (Luke 1:27).
• Betrothal in Jewish custom is a binding marital contract that includes the expectation of consummation.
• Nothing in the text suggests Mary believed she would never consummate the marriage.

Your own position affirms this: you and others have repeatedly said Mary expected future relations with Joseph.

So I’m not inventing anything — I’m using your own premise.

Under that premise, conception is possible under Mary’s expected future circumstances.

And if conception is possible, Her natural question would be “When?”, not “How?”.

2. “Quote the text that Mary and Gabriel say conception is impossible without divine intervention.”​

Mary’s own words:

“How will this be, since I do not know man?” (Luke 1:34)

That is a mechanism question, not a timing question.
She is asking how conception itself will occur, not when it will occur.

If She expected future relations with Joseph, conception is not impossible — only not yet.
In that case, “How?” makes no sense. She would ask “When?”

Gabriel’s answer:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you… the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” (Luke 1:35)

That is a miraculous, non‑sexual mechanism — not “you will conceive when you and Joseph consummate the marriage.”

Gabriel then gives the parallel:

“Elizabeth… who was called barren.” (Luke 1:36)

Elizabeth’s conception was impossible under normal circumstances.

And Gabriel concludes:

“For with God nothing will be impossible.” (Luke 1:37)

That is the language of impossibility, not “normal conception will happen later.”

So yes — the text itself frames the conception as impossible without divine intervention:

• Mary asks how conception will occur at all.
• Gabriel gives a miraculous mechanism.
• Gabriel cites another impossible conception.
• Gabriel concludes with “nothing will be impossible.”

None of that fits a scenario where Mary expects conception through Joseph.

So the tension remains:​

Under your own premise (Mary expects future marital relations with Joseph), conception is possible — so She should ask “When?”.

But the text gives us:

• Mary asking “How?”,
• Gabriel answering with a miracle,
• and Gabriel framing the event as impossible without divine intervention.

That is the textual tension I’m pointing out.

Simply denying it doesn’t make it disappear.

 

[Taken]

I’m not asking you to accept any speculation. I’m asking you to follow the narrative logic in Luke. You asked for two things, so let me answer both directly from the text.

1. “Prove with the text what Mary expected.”​

The text itself shows Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph:

• She is betrothed (Luke 1:27).
• Betrothal in Jewish custom is a binding marital contract that includes the expectation of consummation.
• Nothing in the text suggests Mary believed she would never consummate the marriage.

Your own position affirms this: you and others have repeatedly said Mary expected future relations with Joseph.

No I have not said that… But I have no reason to disagree with that.

So I’m not inventing anything — I’m using your own premise.

Under that premise, conception is possible under Mary’s expected future circumstances.

Future is WHEN… that you skirted that was a point of yours.

And if conception is possible, Her natural question would be “When?”, not “How?”.

Why? …you seem put off as if scripture shortchanged you …for Mary not asking what “you do not know”.

2. “Quote the text that Mary and Gabriel say conception is impossible without divine intervention.”​

Mary’s own words:

“How will this be, since I do not know man?” (Luke 1:34)

She asked How… and didn’t even need your approval…
And she was answered… even though your wondering why she didn’t ask WHEN….

Mary already KNEW WHEN.

That is a mechanism question, not a timing question.
She is asking how conception itself will occur, not when it will occur.

If She expected future relations with Joseph, conception is not impossible — only not yet.
In that case, “How?” makes no sense. She would ask “When?”

No. she already knew when.
I know When.
You were told When…
And? You are still in the dark, pointing to others for what you do not know.

Gabriel’s answer:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you… the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” (Luke 1:35)

That is a miraculous, non‑sexual mechanism — not “you will conceive when you and Joseph consummate the marriage.”

And?
Did you think every female requires an angel to visit to be informed of timing of if or When they will have children?

Gabriel then gives the parallel:

“Elizabeth… who was called barren.” (Luke 1:36)

Elizabeth’s conception was impossible under normal circumstances.

And Gabriel concludes:

“For with God nothing will be impossible.” (Luke 1:37)

So?

That is the language of impossibility, not “normal conception will happen later.”

Not impossible … is construed in your mind to mean Impossible?

Weird.

So yes — the text itself frames the conception as impossible without divine intervention:

No.

Simply denying it doesn’t make it disappear.

Making up scenarios you think should appear in Scripture doesn’t make it appear.

 

[Moonwood]

No I have not said that…

I’m simply trying to understand your position.
You said you have not claimed that Mary expected future relations with Joseph.

If that’s the case, then your view is that Mary did not expect to consummate the marriage — which means:

• Mary did not expect conception through Joseph,
• Mary did not expect natural conception at all,
• and Mary’s question “How will this occur, since I do not know man?” fits perfectly with that expectation.

But that is not the position you’ve been arguing throughout the thread, where you repeatedly said:

• Mary understood normal conception,
• Mary expected normal marital relations,
• Mary knew conception happens after intercourse,
• Mary knew She would have children in the future.

If you are now saying Mary did not expect future relations with Joseph, then your position has changed — and that’s fine. I just need to know which view you’re actually holding so I can respond accurately.

1. “Prove with the text what Mary expected.”​

The text itself shows Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph:

• She is betrothed (Luke 1:27).
• Betrothal in Jewish custom is a binding marital contract that includes the expectation of consummation.
• Nothing in the text suggests Mary believed she would never consummate the marriage.

Your own position affirms this: you and others have repeatedly said Mary expected future relations with Joseph.

So I’m not inventing anything — I’m using your own premise.

Under that premise, conception is possible under Mary’s expected future circumstances.

And if conception is possible, Her natural question would be “When?”, not “How?”.

And you said in reply,

Future is WHEN… that you skirted that was a a point of yours.

You’re still misunderstanding the point.
The issue is not when Mary will conceive — it’s how.

You agreed that Mary, under normal expectations of betrothal, would anticipate future marital relations with Joseph ("I have no reason to disagree with that"). Under that premise, conception is possible in Her expected future circumstances.

If conception is possible, Her natural question would be:

“When will this happen?”

But She doesn’t ask that.

She asks:

“How will this be?”

And She explains Her question with:

“since I do not know man.”

That is a mechanism question, not a timing question.
It only makes sense if Mary believes conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

So your reply — “Future is WHEN” — doesn’t address the challenge.
It simply repeats the assumption that creates the contradiction.

2. “Quote the text that Mary and Gabriel say conception is impossible without divine intervention.”​

Mary’s own words:

“How will this be, since I do not know man?” (Luke 1:34)

That is a mechanism question, not a timing question.
She is asking how conception itself will occur, not when it will occur.

If She expected future relations with Joseph, conception is not impossible — only not yet.
In that case, “How?” makes no sense. She would ask “When?”

Gabriel’s answer:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you… the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” (Luke 1:35)

That is a miraculous, non‑sexual mechanism — not “you will conceive when you and Joseph consummate the marriage.”

Gabriel then gives the parallel:

“Elizabeth… who was called barren.” (Luke 1:36)

Elizabeth’s conception was impossible under normal circumstances.

And Gabriel concludes:

“For with God nothing will be impossible.” (Luke 1:37)

That is the language of impossibility, not “normal conception will happen later.”

So yes — the text itself frames the conception as impossible without divine intervention:

• Mary asks how conception will occur at all.
• Gabriel gives a miraculous mechanism.
• Gabriel cites another impossible conception.
• Gabriel concludes with “nothing will be impossible.”

None of that fits a scenario where Mary expects conception through Joseph.

So the tension remains:​

Under your own premise (Mary expects future marital relations with Joseph), conception is possible — so She should ask “When?”.

But the text gives us:

• Mary asking “How?”,
• Gabriel answering with a miracle,
• and Gabriel framing the event as impossible without divine intervention.

That is the textual tension I’m pointing out.

Simply denying it doesn’t make it disappear.

And?
Did you think every female requires an angel to visit to be informed of timing of if or When they will have children?
So?
Not impossible … is construed in your mind to mean Impossible?

Weird.

No.
Making up scenarios you think should appear in Scripture doesn’t make it appear.

None of these statements actually address the textual argument I presented.

“Did you think every female requires an angel to visit to be informed of timing…?”

This doesn’t answer the point.
The issue is not whether “every female” needs an angel.
The issue is that Mary asks a mechanism question (“How?”) — which only makes sense if conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

If conception through Joseph were possible, she would ask “When?”, not “How?”.

Your hypothetical about “every female” does not touch that textual tension.

“So?”

That does not engage Gabriel’s parallel to Elizabeth.
Gabriel explicitly cites another impossible conception to explain Mary’s.
Dismissing it with “So?” is not an argument.

“Not impossible … is construed in your mind to mean Impossible? Weird.”

Gabriel says:

“For with God nothing will be impossible.”

He is explaining why Mary’s conception will happen — precisely because it is impossible under normal circumstances.

This is the same logic he uses with Elizabeth:

• Elizabeth’s conception was impossible naturally, specifically because she was barren and advanced in age (Luke 1:36).
• Mary’s conception is impossible naturally — yet not because of barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband. It is impossible specifically because She "knows not man" (Luke 1:34).
• God will make both possible (Luke 1:37).

That is the narrative logic.
Calling it “weird” does not refute it.

“No.”

A bare denial is not an argument. It does not address:

• Mary’s mechanism question,
• Mary’s explanation (“I do not know man”),
• Gabriel’s miraculous mechanism,
• Gabriel’s parallel to Elizabeth,
• Gabriel’s framing of impossibility.

Simply saying “No” does not make the textual features disappear.

“Making up scenarios you think should appear in Scripture doesn’t make it appear.”

I’m not making up anything. I’m quoting the text:

• Mary asks “How?”, not “When.”
• Mary explains Her question with “I do not know man.”
• Gabriel gives a miraculous mechanism.
• Gabriel cites Elizabeth’s impossible conception.
• Gabriel concludes with “nothing will be impossible.”

Those are not “scenarios I think should appear.”
They are the actual narrative details.

None of your replies engage those details.

So you have yet to attempt to address the challenge. And the replies you’ve submitted do not engage the narrative logic in Luke.

 

[Taken]

Winner…

Most convoluted gobbledygook nonsense.