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.

 

[Taken]

The issue is that Mary asks a mechanism question (“How?”) — which only makes sense if conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances.

Your issue, is based upon your own “mechanism” curiosity…that you have logically surmised …
That: logically Mary “should have” … grilled the angel messenger, regarding her own future child baring possibility with her husband…
Be possible,
Be natural,
Or
Require Gods intervention.
And
Would God intervene.

And…your shadow wondering WHY…
No one else, is onboard with your logical summation … to conclude at “THAT specific Timing of Mary’s encounter with the Angel”…Mary herself, was NOT grilling the Messenger Angel, regarding If or How, she would naturally have children in the future with her husband.

The Scriptural Narrative was/is…:
The Angel was Delivering To Mary;
(A; non-wedded, Faithful Virgin Jewish Female; Betrothed to A Jewish man of the House of David…)
A Message Proposal, on THAT day,
By, Through, Of Gods, Desire and Power,
To BE Effected on THAT day,
After Mary’s Agreement on THAT day.

Period….

Oh wait…Period… Only regarding Mary and “her angelic visit…
her proposing message…
her agreement”

Since Mary’s Future Wed-lock involved Joseph…
Surprise… Joseph had a supernatural Angelic Dream encounter…
TO: inform him…
OF: Mary’s Angelic Encounter, Proposal and Agreement…
AND: Joseph’s Agreement.

Period…

Nothing about your wondering, your logical surmising, your mechanics, your tension, is relevant, or carries weight or concern or challenges…

TO: a specific supernatural Proposal Made
TO: Mary and Joseph
ACCEPTED by: Mary and Joseph
FULFILLED by: the Lord God
AND:
APPROVED by God:
TO BE:
Verbally Taught, Written in Script, Published, and Distributed throughout the World…
FOR:
Any person to Freely ACCEPT or REJECT.

You… ARE Pointing to Mary’s encounter (only)… and desperately trying to Stir an Argument on, interjecting YOUR wondering of Mary and Joseph’s FUTURE “child baring”….
While “implying”… Mary’s Angelic Encounter, and Scriptural Account thereof…is … missing information YOU are wondering about…
THUS… trying to invoke a debate over Script that doesn’t exist.

You quote Script…that is Void of what you imply …
Should have Included… language to satisfy “your wondering” “about Mary and Joseph’s Future child baring.”
And… THEN…
repeatedly attempting to get forum members to engage with your Fantacy that scripture is NOT addressing.

Disingenuous …

 

[Moonwood]

Your issue, is based upon your own “mechanism” curiosity…that you have logically surmised …
That: logically Mary “should have” … grilled the angel messenger, regarding her own future child baring possibility with her husband…
Be possible,
Be natural,
Or
Require Gods intervention.
And
Would God intervene.

And…your shadow wondering WHY…
No one else, is onboard with your logical summation … to conclude at “THAT specific Timing of Mary’s encounter with the Angel”…Mary herself, was NOT grilling the Messenger Angel, regarding If or How, she would naturally have children in the future with her husband.

The Scriptural Narrative was/is…:
The Angel was Delivering To Mary;
(A; non-wedded, Faithful Virgin Jewish Female; Betrothed to A Jewish man of the House of David…)
A Message Proposal, on THAT day,
By, Through, Of Gods, Desire and Power,
To BE Effected on THAT day,
After Mary’s Agreement on THAT day.

Period….

Oh wait…Period… Only regarding Mary and “her angelic visit…
her proposing message…
her agreement”

Since Mary’s Future Wed-lock involved Joseph…
Surprise… Joseph had a supernatural Angelic Dream encounter…
TO: inform him…
OF: Mary’s Angelic Encounter, Proposal and Agreement…
AND: Joseph’s Agreement.

Period…

Nothing about your wondering, your logical surmising, your mechanics, your tension, is relevant, or carries weight or concern or challenges…

TO: a specific supernatural Proposal Made
TO: Mary and Joseph
ACCEPTED by: Mary and Joseph
FULFILLED by: the Lord God
AND:
APPROVED by God:
TO BE:
Verbally Taught, Written in Script, Published, and Distributed throughout the World…
FOR:
Any person to Freely ACCEPT or REJECT.

You… ARE Pointing to Mary’s encounter (only)… and desperately trying to Stir an Argument on, interjecting YOUR wondering of Mary and Joseph’s FUTURE “child baring”….
While “implying”… Mary’s Angelic Encounter, and Scriptural Account thereof…is … missing information YOU are wondering about…
THUS… trying to invoke a debate over Script that doesn’t exist.

You quote Script…that is Void of what you imply …
Should have Included… language to satisfy “your wondering” “about Mary and Joseph’s Future child baring.”
And… THEN…
repeatedly attempting to get forum members to engage with your Fantacy that scripture is NOT addressing.

Disingenuous …

Betrothal in Jewish law is full legal marriage, so Mary would naturally expect consummation. Yet She asks how conception will occur and explains Her confusion by saying She ‘knows not man.’ A woman expecting normal marital relations would not be confused about how conception happens. Her question only makes sense if She did not expect sexual relations.

 

[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 logiche 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.

 

[Armour of God]

Someone is very obsessed with Mary's sex life

 

[Moonwood]

Someone is very obsessed with Mary's sex life

You have not attempted the challenge.
At least the others tried.

 

[Armour of God]

You have not attempted the challenge.
At least the others tried.

1 - I've already refuted your assumption on another one of your threads on this same topic

2 - I'm not obsessed with this Mary's sex life like you are

 

[Moonwood]

1 - I've already refuted your assumption on another one of your threads on this same topic

We are still in the middle of the discussion in that thread, and you haven't responded to my last post there. If you truly refuted my position, then you could easily do this challenge too. But you haven't done either.

 

[Armour of God]

Ok I'll refute you again seeing its so easy...

Your erroneous assumption is that Mary was speaking about the future.
But she is not, she never said "i will remain a virgin".

Instead she said that she is STILL a virgin. She is clearly speaking in the past and present tenses. A child can understand this grammar. It's past and present tense

Besides, if Mary refused to love and submit to her husband that would make her a bad wife and a bad mother for forgetting her only child in Jesrusalem by himself at the age of 12.

Answer me this...
Since you’ve joined this forum you've started several threads on this topic...
Why are you so obsessed about Mary's virginity?
Why does it matter so much to you?

 

[Taken]

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.[/B]

Vague….
This discussion is specific, Before a Wed-lock.
Your assertion in THAT time…
Is not true.

Such an assertion carries clear expectations about what Mary Herself would have anticipated as a betrothed woman.

Your HAD / Assertion…
And
Expectations…
Are Not the Same Timing.

According to Jewish law, betrothal was a legally binding marriage, and a betrothed woman would naturally expect:

Not true.
A betrothal was a “legally binding Promise” of “intent to Wed”.
( a bill of divorcement (document) served one to the other, was the Legal means to make the Promise to Wed Contract Null / Void )
That did not occur.

• 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.

Future… is Timing…
Future… was NOT the Point, Purpose, Discussion, For the Angels Visit With Mary.

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

“You will conceive and bear a Son.”[/I]

You WILL… is the Discussion about Present
(THEN, That Day) NOT future.
And BEAR…(a son)…is FUTURE (9 months).

Notice what Gabriel does not say:

• He does not say when She will conceive.

Yes. Will, THAT Day.
Here you reveal, you do NOT understand “WHAT EXACTLY” determines Gods WILL on THAT DAY IS MADE Fulfill-ED.

I told you, showed you, but you neither addressed the point, or searched the scriptures to see if it be true.

“IT”…
When Gods WILL, is Told a person… AND
The Person AGREES …. with Gods Will Be unto Them… Gods Will IS Accomplished in THAT Person THEN

• He does not yet say how She will conceive.

Nor HAS Mary YET Agreed.

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

According to the Facts…
Wed / marriage / husband was NOT the issue.
The issue For Mary … Was HOW, because SHE had been with NO man.

• expected conception to occur through marital relations with Joseph,

Irrelevant to the facts of the Text.
Never mentioned by Mary or the Angel.

• expected conception to occur after the pre‑consummation period,

Irrelevant to the facts of the text.
Never mentioned by Mary or the Angel.

• and therefore had no reason to ask "How?" at all.

Your “text”, your “wondering”, your “expectation”, your “presumptions”…
And “your” challenge , “your” reasoning….
All Irrelevant, to the text.

… “WHAT “IS” relevant “IS Mary’s WONDERING”…. Of “HOW”… period…
Mary Asked the Angel”…of “HOW”…
And The Angel TOLD Mary “HOW”….
Period.
Satisfactory TO Mary.
Your wonderings “irrelevant”.

You’re hounding members to focus on “your” wondering… which has nothing to do with the Text.

But instead, the narrative gives us something entirely different:

• Mary asks “How will this be?” — a mechanism question, not a timing question.

“You saying” HOW is NOT WHEN, is irrelevant…. HOW is plainly IN the text.

• 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 logiche 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.[/B]

Gobbledygook …
Factual Text, stands on its Own
Your wondering, your because, your LOGIC, your words…all leaning into FUTURE…
And all Scripturally Absent and irrelevant.

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

Now “your irrelevant words” continue…
When the the Scriptural TEXT, is Absent of …. What Mary Thought, Expected, Future.

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

precisely!!!
Yet…you filled in the “blanks”… and fostered a discussion in The Direction of …
Mary’s thoughts and Future expectation.

Given your own position — that Mary expected future marital relations and natural conception through Joseph —

You dropped the nugget… instigated a future and expectation….wondering…by Mary…for Mary…
And? Ya, so? Others did agree…Mary Did become Promised to be Wed to Joseph and likely expected in the future to be a faithful and dutiful wife having sexual relations with her husband …

THAT passing Admission … All of a sudden… became some sort of Angle for you … that “You”… stepped back… and passed on the irrelevant (to the text)….
As….IF Everyone else’s’ “POSITION”… is NOW “Supposedly” About Mary’s FUTURE”…

Then you used “your Angle…”
“Everyone else’s position ( you say)… to then
Get to What “you really wanted to Know…
WHEN… timing….”

Fact is…
The scripture is a direct brief conversation between an Angel and Mary….

Speculation about Mary’s future with her husband … irrelevant.

Your cunningness, while clever, is transparent and irrelevant.

A wholly unnecessary charade.
You want to know “Exactly When” Mary became Conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit?
Scripture notifies you.

Pretending… “everyone else’s position was wondering WHEN Mary would be conceived by the Holy Spirit AND IF Mary would have sex and or conceive via her husband”… is broadly NOT true.

how do you explain that both Mary and Gabriel speak and act as though conception is impossible under those expected circumstances?

Now that “YOU” have decided/ claimed “Everyone’s “position”… (for them)…

Continued…

 

[Taken]

Continued…

You “introduce”… another NON textual false claim…cunningly disguised as a FACT…
Some you claim is a “Factual Tension”…
On a supposed fact…
You claiming… both The Angel and Mary…… expressly pointing to an “impossibility” for Mary to conceive naturally.

Utterly FALSE.

And your charade continues… as you then… demand an explanation … From Everyone…you hope has accepted YOUR claims For them!!”

That is the narrative tension.

No.

So far, every response has avoided the textual question I’m actually asking.

Actually … Pretty much “EVERYONE” noticed your charade… of quoting scripture and deflecting to your wondering, and trying to manipulate “your wondering” into “their position per the text”.

The arguments offered address questions I never raised, or reframe my point into something I did not claim.

There is no argument.
No one has claimed “their position” “changed from the TEXT of HOW to Your “position of wondering of WHEN, and that Mary “should have “LOGICALLY ASKED….WHEN”.

No one owes you an explanation… For what you do Not understand.

Mary asked How.
Mary was Answered How.
Mary knew WHEN…
I know WHEN…
Mary’s Knew her expected Future role with her husband.
And her Future was NOT the Present … which the Present was the Limit of Mary’s Angelic encounter.

The Factual Text regarding an Angel and a person…
Is a spiritual encounter… Carnal minded logic is MOOT…Irrelevant.

You have attempted to Stir a “carnal minded” argument, regarding a “spiritual event”…

You cunningly attempted to “change everyone’s position From a present spiritual event, to a “carnal future event”…

Then “demand they explain “their supposed changed position” TO YOU.

By your posts…
I would suspect… you have taken one or more college courses in ancient philosophers and modern psychology techniques… which you could have saved a bundle, by studying Satan’s Techniques in Scripture and discovered the same techniques.

You were told the Truth…
But don’t understand it.

Matt 13:
[14] And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[shepherdsword]

We are still in the middle of the discussion in that thread, and you haven't responded to my last post there. If you truly refuted my position, then you could easily do this challenge too. But you haven't done either.

Your position has been totally refuted in this thread. Your only comeback is to present the same text that everyone has dealt with over and over and cite some mythical "narrative tension". No one is interested in going over the same text again and again when you don't listen. It's more wise to let you think you have achieved some sort of victory because you have the last word.

 

[Moonwood]

Ok I'll refute you again...

There's no "again" because we haven't even finished our discussion on this topic in this thread. In fact, you haven't even responded to my last post addressed to you there. And what you’re offering here is actually the first time you’ve attempted the textual challenge itself.

Your erroneous assumption is that Mary was speaking about the future.
But she is not, she never said "i will remain a virgin".

Instead she said that she is STILL a virgin. She is clearly speaking in the past and present tenses. A child can understand this grammar. It's past and present tense

Besides, if Mary refused to love and submit to her husband that would make her a bad wife and a bad mother for forgetting her only child in Jesrusalem by himself at the age of 12.

Thank you for replying.

But none of this addresses the actual challenge.

The question is not about Mary’s grammar, nor about whether She said She would “remain a virgin,” nor about Her future behavior as a wife.

Your reply refutes claims I never made and does not address the actual question.

The premise of this challenge is simple:

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 you deny that, then you may as well abandon your position entirely.

If not, let’s continue.

Gabriel’s announcement
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 — not because of barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband, but 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.

The tension your position cannot resolve
Under Mary’s expected future circumstances — a legally binding betrothal, anticipated marital relations, and no physical impediments — natural conception through Joseph was entirely possible.

Yet 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.

 

[Moonwood]

Your position has been totally refuted in this thread. Your only comeback is to present the same text that everyone has dealt with over and over and cite some mythical "narrative tension". No one is interested in going over the same text again and again when you don't listen. It's more wise to let you think you have achieved some sort of victory because you have the last word.

The position being challenged is simple:
Mary had marital relations with Joseph.

Everyone who has attempted to defend that position — including you — has done one of two things:

• addressed questions I never raised, and/or
• reframed my point into something I didn’t claim

So I’m not sure how my position could be “totally refuted” when the argument everyone “refuted” wasn’t mine to begin with.

 

[Armour of God]

There's no "again" because we haven't even finished our discussion on this topic in this thread. In fact, you haven't even responded to my last post addressed to you there. And what you’re offering here is actually the first time you’ve attempted the textual challenge itself.



Thank you for replying.

But none of this addresses the actual challenge.

The question is not about Mary’s grammar, nor about whether She said She would “remain a virgin,” nor about Her future behavior as a wife.

Your reply refutes claims I never made and does not address the actual question.

The premise of this challenge is simple:

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 you deny that, then you may as well abandon your position entirely.

If not, let’s continue.

Gabriel’s announcement
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 — not because of barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband, but 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.

The tension your position cannot resolve
Under Mary’s expected future circumstances — a legally binding betrothal, anticipated marital relations, and no physical impediments — natural conception through Joseph was entirely possible.

Yet 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.

You haven't changed my mind.

I answered your question but you didn't answer mine.
I would appreciate it if you did so...

Why are you so interested in Mary's virginity?

 

[Moonwood]

You haven't changed my mind.

I answered your question...

You haven’t changed your mind because you still haven’t understood the premise of the challenge. That misunderstanding led you to address claims I never made, which is why your response wasn’t an answer to the challenge. Once you’re engaging the actual argument rather than the claims you attributed to me, then we’ll see where your position truly stands.

The premise of this challenge is simple:

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 you deny that, then you may as well abandon your position entirely.

If not, let’s continue.

Gabriel’s announcement
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 occur?” — 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 — not because of barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband, but 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.

The tension your position cannot resolve
Under Mary’s expected future circumstances — a legally binding betrothal, anticipated marital relations, and no physical impediments — natural conception through Joseph was entirely possible.

Yet 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.

Why are you so interested in Mary's virginity?

I explicitly ended my opening post with this disclaimer:

"I ask that responses address these questions directly, without shifting to unrelated topics or assumptions."

Your question about my personal motives isn’t part of the textual discussion.
If you want to ask, "Why are you so interested in Mary's virginity?," please do so in a different thread. Thank you.

 

[Armour of God]

You haven’t changed your mind because you still haven’t understood the premise of the challenge. That misunderstanding led you to address claims I never made, which is why your response wasn’t an answer to the challenge. Once you’re engaging the actual argument rather than the claims you attributed to me, then we’ll see where your position truly stands.

The premise of this challenge is simple:

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 you deny that, then you may as well abandon your position entirely.

If not, let’s continue.

Gabriel’s announcement
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 occur?” — 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 — not because of barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband, but 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.

The tension your position cannot resolve
Under Mary’s expected future circumstances — a legally binding betrothal, anticipated marital relations, and no physical impediments — natural conception through Joseph was entirely possible.

Yet 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.



I explicitly ended my opening post with this disclaimer:

"I ask that responses address these questions directly, without shifting to unrelated topics or assumptions."

Your question about my personal motives isn’t part of the textual discussion.
If you want to ask, "Why are you so interested in Mary's virginity?," please do so in a different thread. Thank you.

I answered your question but you refuse to answer mine. That's not how people have a discussion. It's meant to go two ways.

I think your interest with Mary's sex life is an unhealthy obsession

 

[Moonwood]

I answered your question, but you refuse to answer mine. ...discussion... it's meant to go two ways.

You already claimed to have answered it, and I explained you actually didn't because you misunderstand the premise of the challenge, which led to you addressing a claim that I didn't even make. Now its your turn to respond to that reply, since you assert "discussion is meant to go two ways." We'll see if you really abide by that, or are just using my not answering your off-topic question in this thread as an excuse to avoid the textual challenge.

I had said:

"You haven’t changed your mind because you still haven’t understood the premise of the challenge. That misunderstanding led you to address claims I never made, which is why your response wasn’t an answer to the challenge. Once you’re engaging the actual argument rather than the claims you attributed to me, then we’ll see where your position truly stands.

The premise of this challenge is simple:

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 you deny that, then you may as well abandon your position entirely.

If not, let’s continue.

Gabriel’s announcement
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 occur?” — 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 — not because of barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband, but 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.

The tension your position cannot resolve
Under Mary’s expected future circumstances — a legally binding betrothal, anticipated marital relations, and no physical impediments — natural conception through Joseph was entirely possible.

Yet 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."

...but you refuse to answer mine.

Why are you pretending like I didn't just tell you the reason why I'm not answering your question in this thread, and that I'll answer it in another thread?

 

[Armour of God]

You already claimed to have answered it, and I explained you actually didn't because you misunderstand the premise of the challenge, which led to you addressing a claim that I didn't even make. Now its your turn to respond to that reply, since you assert "discussion is meant to go two ways." We'll see if you really abide by that, or are just using my not answering your off-topic question in this thread as an excuse to avoid the textual challenge.

I had said:

"You haven’t changed your mind because you still haven’t understood the premise of the challenge. That misunderstanding led you to address claims I never made, which is why your response wasn’t an answer to the challenge. Once you’re engaging the actual argument rather than the claims you attributed to me, then we’ll see where your position truly stands.

The premise of this challenge is simple:

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 you deny that, then you may as well abandon your position entirely.

If not, let’s continue.

Gabriel’s announcement
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 occur?” — 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 — not because of barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband, but 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.

The tension your position cannot resolve
Under Mary’s expected future circumstances — a legally binding betrothal, anticipated marital relations, and no physical impediments — natural conception through Joseph was entirely possible.

Yet 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."



Why are you pretending like I didn't just tell you the reason why I'm not answering your question in this thread, and that I'll answer it in another thread:

Your obsession with Mary's sex life is very unhealthy

 

[Moonwood]

Your obsession with Mary's sex life is very unhealthy

Neither does that answer the textual challenge you claimed you could "refute so easily":

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?