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

[Armour of God]

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?

I've already refuted your claim.
No use in repeating myself.

You won't answer my simple question yet you expect me to answer your questions about something that doesn't interest me...
Please...
That's not how a conversation works...

Despite your lame excuses the fact still remains.
Scripture never says that Mary was a perpetual virgin. In fact it suggests the opposite.

 

[David Lamb]

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?

But surely Mary conceived before she and Joseph married. During their betrothal, they would have lived apart from each other, so conception through Joseph during betrothal was not a possibility.

 

[Moonwood]

I've already refuted your claim.

You attributed a claim to me that I never made, and thus answered a question that I never asked. Therefore you didn't address my actual textual challenge. You're making yourself look like you're just saying you did to avoid actually doing so and save face.

You won't answer my simple question yet you expect me to answer your questions...

I already told you that if you ask me it in another thread that I'll answer it there. But you don't. Therefore you're making yourself look like you're just using my not answering it in this thread (so as to stay on topic) as another excuse to avoid addressing my actual textual challenge and save face.

 

[Armour of God]

But surely Mary conceived before she and Joseph married. During their betrothal, they would have lived apart from each other, so conception through Joseph during betrothal was not a possibility.

I'm afraid that common sense isn't a strength of hers

 

[Moonwood]

But surely Mary conceived before she and Joseph married. During their betrothal, they would have lived apart from each other, so conception through Joseph during betrothal was not a possibility.

Thank you for submitting a new reply to the challenge.

But your reply still doesn’t address the challenge because it only discusses Mary’s present circumstances during betrothal. The challenge is about Her future expectations. Your own position requires that Mary expected future marital relations and future natural conception through Joseph. Under those expected circumstances, conception would not be impossible. Yet Mary asks "How?" and explains Her confusion with "I know not man," and Gabriel responds by explaining a miraculous mechanism. Both Mary and Gabriel treat conception as impossible under circumstances where — according to your position — it should be entirely possible.

Your new reply also contradicts your initial one: first you said Mary’s question was "natural," then you said conception through Joseph was "not a possibility." Neither explanation resolves the narrative tension. The question remains: if Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, why does She speak and act as though conception is impossible even in light of those expected future circumstances?

 

[David Lamb]

Thank you for submitting a new reply to the challenge.

But your reply still doesn’t address the challenge because it only discusses Mary’s present circumstances during betrothal. The challenge is about her future expectations. Your own position requires that Mary expected future marital relations and future natural conception through Joseph. Under those expected circumstances, conception would not be impossible. Yet Mary asks ‘How?’ and explains Her confusion with "I know not man," and Gabriel responds by explaining a miraculous mechanism. Both Mary and Gabriel treat conception as impossible under circumstances where — according to your position — it should be entirely possible.

Your new reply also contradicts your initial one: first you said Mary’s question was "natural," then you said conception through Joseph was "not a possibility." Neither explanation resolves the narrative tension. The question remains: if Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, why does She speak and act as though conception is impossible even in light of those expected future circumstances?

But you are assuming (it seems to me) that Mary understood Gabriel's message as meaning that she could become pregnant with Jesus after marrying Joseph. Her reaction to the message shows that she didn't think that way. Matthew makes the matter clear, that it was during her betrothal that she conceived:

NKJV Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.
Mat 1:20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins."

 

[Moonwood]

But you are assuming (it seems to me) that Mary understood Gabriel's message as meaning that she could become pregnant with Jesus after marrying Joseph. Her reaction to the message shows that she didn't think that way. Matthew makes the matter clear, that it was during her betrothal that she conceived:

This challenge has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. It is about testing your position — that Mary expected future marital relations and future natural conception through Joseph — against the narrative logic of Luke. The question is whether that position coherently explains Mary’s reaction and Gabriel’s explanation.

What you just said is not my assumption — it is your own position. If Mary did not expect future marital relations with Joseph, then She did not expect future conception through Joseph. But that directly contradicts the view you are defending, which requires Mary to expect normal marital relations and future children. If you now deny that Mary expected future marital relations, then you have abandoned your own position and adopted mine.

So the challenge remains:
If your position requires Mary to expect future marital relations and future natural conception through Joseph, why does She treat conception as impossible even in light of those expected future circumstances?

And yes — this latest reply of yours is the closest anyone has come to recognizing the actual tension in the text.

 

[David Lamb]

What you just said is not my assumption — it is your own position. If Mary did not expect future marital relations with Joseph, then She did not expect future conception through Joseph.

But I did not say that she didn't expect future marital relations with Joseph. What I said was that she clearly understood Gabriel's message to mean that her conception would be before she and Joseph came together. If she thought that Gabriel was talking about conception through Joseph, she would not have asked her question about how it could happen.

But that directly contradicts the view you are defending, which requires Mary to expect normal marital relations and future children. If you now deny that Mary expected future marital relations, then you have abandoned your own position and adopted mine.

Not so at all. My point has always been that Mary understood the angel's message to mean that she would conceive while still betrothed, and so living apart from Joseph. I have never denied that Mary expected future marital relations.

The challenge remains:

If your position requires Mary to expect future marital relations and future natural conception through Joseph, why does She treat conception as impossible even in light of those expected future circumstances?

I think I have already answered that. She understood Gabriel to mean that she would conceive before coming together with Joseph in marriage.

This challenge has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. It is about testing your position — that Mary expected future marital relations and future natural conception through Joseph — against the narrative logic of Luke. The question is whether that position coherently explains Mary’s reaction and Gabriel’s explanation.

Luke says nothing about her remaining a virgin, just that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived in her by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Moonwood]

But I did not say that she didn't expect future marital relations with Joseph.

I didn’t say you claimed Mary didn’t expect future marital relations. I said that your explanation logically requires Her not to expect future conception through Joseph — because you argue that if She had expected future conception, She would not have asked Her question. But your doctrinal position requires Mary to expect future marital relations and future natural conception through Joseph. Those two claims cannot both be true.

Saying that Mary understood Gabriel to mean conception before She and Joseph came together does not resolve the tension. The issue is not when She conceived, but why She treats conception as impossible even though, according to your own position, She expected future marital relations and therefore future conception.

So the challenge remains:

If your position requires Mary to expect future marital relations and future natural conception through Joseph, why does she treat conception as impossible even in light of those expected future circumstances?

 

[David Lamb]

I didn’t say you claimed Mary didn’t expect future marital relations. I said that your explanation logically requires Her not to expect future conception through Joseph — because you argue that if She had expected future conception, She would not have asked Her question. But your doctrinal position requires Mary to expect future marital relations and future natural conception through Joseph. Those two claims cannot both be true.

Saying that Mary understood Gabriel to mean conception before She and Joseph came together does not resolve the tension. The issue is not when She conceived, but why She treats conception as impossible even though, according to your own position, She expected future marital relations and therefore future conception.

So the challenge remains:

If your position requires Mary to expect future marital relations and future natural conception through Joseph, why does she treat conception as impossible even in light of those expected future circumstances?

Thanks for replying, but as you still seem to be misunderstanding my position, in spite of my efforts to explain that position, I will leave it there.

 

[Armour of God]

Thanks for replying, but as you still seem to be misunderstanding my position, in spite of my efforts to explain that position, I will leave it there.

LoL. That's exactly what I found.
She just keeps misrepresenting our arguments and keeps making false assumptions.

Your explanation was easy to comprehend and totally refuted her erroneous belief.
No need to waste your time anymore on this subject.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[Moonwood]

Thanks for replying, but as you still seem to be misunderstanding my position, in spite of my efforts to explain that position, I will leave it there.

Claiming that I’m misunderstanding your position isn’t the same as showing that I am. Until you demonstrate the misunderstanding, your logic remains unsupported and the challenge unaddressed.

 

[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.

 

[Armour of God]

Claiming that I’m misunderstanding your position isn’t the same as showing that I am. Until you demonstrate the misunderstanding, your logic remains unsupported and the challenge unaddressed.

He totally refuted your erroneous assumption just like I did, just like many others did.
All you have is nonsense.

 

[Moonwood]

He totally refuted your erroneous assumption just like I did, just like many others did.
All you have is nonsense.

You can say they did. But they didn't show they did. Two different things.

 

[Taken]

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

Matt 1:
[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.