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

[Moonwood]

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.

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.