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

[Moonwood]

It is you that needs to prove your hypothesis from Romanist doctrine. show me from the bible they did not.

Please don't pretend this thread is about something other than what it has been from the beginning.
This thread is a textual challenge to those who assert that Mary and Joseph had marital relations.

Your position is that Mary and Joseph had marital relations. My challenge has been for you to reconcile that assertion with Luke's narrative:

• Mary's statement, "I know not man."
• Gabriel's explanation of divine conception.
• Gabriel's appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception.
• His conclusion, "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

Instead of addressing those points, you keep attempting to shift the discussion to whether I can independently prove perpetual virginity.
But that's not the challenge.

The challenge is whether your interpretation adequately explains Luke 1:34-37.

If you believe Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and future conception through Joseph, then explain why She presents not knowing man as the obstacle to the announced conception when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur.

And explain why Gabriel responds with divine conception, Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and God's power over impossibilities.

Until those questions are answered, simply repeating "show me they never had sex" does not reconcile your position with Luke's narrative. It merely restates your conclusion.

 

[Dryhn]

Please don't pretend this thread is about something other than what it has been from the beginning.
This thread is a textual challenge to those who assert that Mary and Joseph had marital relations.

Your position is that Mary and Joseph had marital relations. My challenge has been for you to reconcile that assertion with Luke's narrative:

• Mary's statement, "I know not man."
• Gabriel's explanation of divine conception.
• Gabriel's appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception.
• His conclusion, "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

Instead of addressing those points, you keep attempting to shift the discussion to whether I can independently prove perpetual virginity.
But that's not the challenge.

The challenge is whether your interpretation adequately explains Luke 1:34-37.

If you believe Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and future conception through Joseph, then explain why She presents not knowing man as the obstacle to the announced conception when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur.

And explain why Gabriel responds with divine conception, Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and God's power over impossibilities.

Until those questions are answered, simply repeating "show me they never had sex" does not reconcile your position with Luke's narrative. It merely restates your conclusion.

Are there passages that conclusively confirm that Mary did not have normal marital relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus ?
If so please list them

 

[Moonwood]

Are there passages that conclusively confirm that Mary did not have normal marital relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus ?
If so please list them

I'm trying to stay on topic. So, if you're someone who believes and asserts that Mary and Joseph had marital relations, then please refer to the opening post and attempt to answer the challenge. Thank you.

 

[Dryhn]

I'm trying to stay on topic. So, if you're someone who believes and asserts that Mary and Joseph had marital relations, then please refer to the opening post and attempt to answer the challenge. Thank you.

I'm someone who is asking questions on the ""A Textual Challenge to the “Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations” Position" thread.
Are there textual passages that convincingly conclude that Mary did not have relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ ?
If so help me to learn by listing the verses

 

[Moonwood]

I'm someone who is asking questions on the ""A Textual Challenge to the “Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations” Position" thread.
Are there textual passages that convincingly conclude that Mary did not have relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ ?
If so help me to learn by listing the verses

You're asking a different question than the one posed by the thread.

The purpose of this thread is not to argue for Mary's perpetual virginity in the abstract. It is a textual challenge directed at those who assert that Mary and Joseph had marital relations.

The challenge is simple:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She explain Her question by saying:

"How will this occur, since I know not man?"

And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

If you hold the position that Mary and Joseph had marital relations, then I'm inviting you to explain how that belief is reconciled with Luke's narrative.

 

[Dryhn]

You're asking a different question than the one posed by the thread.

The purpose of this thread is not to argue for Mary's perpetual virginity in the abstract. It is a textual challenge directed at those who assert that Mary and Joseph had marital relations.

The challenge is simple:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She explain Her question by saying:

"How will this occur, since I know not man?"

And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

If you hold the position that Mary and Joseph had marital relations, then I'm inviting you to explain how that belief is reconciled with Luke's narrative.

What verses do you base your belief on that teaches Mary never had sex with Joseph after the birth of Christ ?

 

[Moonwood]

What verses do you base your belief on that teaches Mary never had sex with Joseph after the birth of Christ ?

The purpose of this thread is not to argue for Mary's perpetual virginity in the abstract. It is a textual challenge directed at those who assert that Mary and Joseph had marital relations.

The challenge is simple:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She explain Her question by saying:

"How will this occur, since I know not man?"

And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

If you hold the position that Mary and Joseph had marital relations, then I'm inviting you to explain how that belief is reconciled with Luke's narrative.

 

[Dryhn]

The purpose of this thread is not to argue for Mary's perpetual virginity in the abstract. It is a textual challenge directed at those who assert that Mary and Joseph had marital relations.

The challenge is simple:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She explain Her question by saying:

"How will this occur, since I know not man?"

And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

If you hold the position that Mary and Joseph had marital relations, then I'm inviting you to explain how that belief is reconciled with Luke's narrative.

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

AFTER Christ was born, what passages are you relying on to support a sex less marriage

 

[Moonwood]

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

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

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

You say:

"she was a virgin BEFORE the birth of Christ"

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

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

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

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

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

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

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

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Please don't pretend this thread is about something other than what it has been from the beginning.
This thread is a textual challenge to those who assert that Mary and Joseph had marital relations.

Your position is that Mary and Joseph had marital relations. My challenge has been for you to reconcile that assertion with Luke's narrative:

• Mary's statement, "I know not man."
• Gabriel's explanation of divine conception.
• Gabriel's appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception.
• His conclusion, "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

Instead of addressing those points, you keep attempting to shift the discussion to whether I can independently prove perpetual virginity.
But that's not the challenge.

The challenge is whether your interpretation adequately explains Luke 1:34-37.

If you believe Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and future conception through Joseph, then explain why She presents not knowing man as the obstacle to the announced conception when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur.

And explain why Gabriel responds with divine conception, Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and God's power over impossibilities.

Until those questions are answered, simply repeating "show me they never had sex" does not reconcile your position with Luke's narrative. It merely restates your conclusion.

This is not a biblical argument for Mary's perpetual virginity. Just the virgin birth.

If Mary expected to stay a virgin, she would have answered Gabriel with, "How can this be, since I will never know a man"?

Your argument is false.

Matt. 1, in the normal accepted usual and known understanding simply says that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. You have to show that this statement is false.

I have already given you teh reason why Mary said she did not know a man.. Once again if she was to stay a virgin- show the explicit Scripture and that Mary saying she knows not a man which is in the present active indicative was actually supposed to be voiced in the future perfect.

 

[Dryhn]

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

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

You say:

"she was a virgin BEFORE the birth of Christ"

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

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

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

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

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

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

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

What verses teach Mary did not have sex with Joseph AFTER Jesus was born ?
Easy request :)

 

[Moonwood]

This is not a biblical argument for Mary's perpetual virginity. Just the virgin birth.

If Mary expected to stay a virgin, she would have answered Gabriel with, "How can this be, since I will never know a man"?

Your argument is false.

That's the very point I've been making.
For several pages now, whenever I ask how your interpretation reconciles Luke 1:34-37, you respond by demanding that I prove perpetual virginity.
Yet when I point out that this thread is a textual challenge to the "Mary and Joseph had later relations" position, you tell me:

"This is not a biblical argument for Mary's perpetual virginity. Just the virgin birth."

Exactly.
The challenge has never been:

"Can you prove perpetual virginity?"

The challenge has always been:

"Can those who assert later marital relations reconcile that belief with Luke's narrative?"

Those are different questions.
You keep saying:

"Show me from Scripture that Joseph and Mary never had sex."

But that does not answer the challenge.
The challenge is whether your interpretation reconciles:

• Mary's statement, "I know not man."
• Gabriel's explanation of divine conception.
• Gabriel's appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception.
• His conclusion, "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

with the claim that Mary expected future marital relations and future conception through Joseph.
If your position is correct, then it should be able to explain those elements of Luke's narrative.
Simply demanding that I prove perpetual virginity does not do so.

I have already given you teh reason why Mary said she did not know a man.. Once again if she was to stay a virgin- show the explicit Scripture and that Mary saying she knows not a man which is in the present active indicative was actually supposed to be voiced in the future perfect.

But it still doesn't address the actual narrative.
Yes, Mary says:

"I know not man."

She speaks in the present tense because She is describing Her present condition.
But the question is not whether Mary's statement is present tense. We agree that it is.
The question is why She appeals to that present condition as the explanation for Her difficulty when Gabriel had only announced:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

Gabriel does not specify when the conception will occur.
Under your interpretation, Mary's present condition was temporary. She expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore future conception through ordinary means.
So why does She present Her present lack of relations with a man as the obstacle to the announced conception rather than understanding the conception as something that would occur through those future marital relations?
And why does Gabriel respond by explaining divine conception, then appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Whether the verb is present, future, or future perfect does not answer that question. The question is how your interpretation reconciles Mary's appeal to "I know not man," Gabriel's explanation of divine conception, his appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and his conclusion, "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

 

[Moonwood]

What verses teach Mary did not have sex with Joseph AFTER Jesus was born ?
Easy request :)

It may be easy, but its off topic.

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

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

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

You say:

"she was a virgin BEFORE the birth of Christ"

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

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

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

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

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

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

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

 

[Dryhn]

It may be easy, but its off topic.



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

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

You say:

"she was a virgin BEFORE the birth of Christ"

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

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

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

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

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

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

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

This thread is "

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

So I'm simply asking for the text that teaches Mary did not have sex AFTER the birth of Christ

If you can supply that text than it will be confirmed that Mary NEVER had sex in her whole life

 

[Moonwood]

This thread is "

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

So I'm simply asking for the text that teaches Mary did not have sex AFTER the birth of Christ

If you can supply that text than it will be confirmed that Mary NEVER had sex in her whole life

You're asking a different question than the one posed by the thread.
The thread is not titled:
"A Textual Defense of Mary's Perpetual Virginity."

It is titled:
"A Textual Challenge to the 'Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations' Position."
The purpose of a challenge is to test whether a position can adequately account for the relevant biblical data.

So the question before you is not:

"Can someone produce a text that explicitly says Mary never had relations with Joseph?"

The question is:

"Can the belief that Mary and Joseph had later marital relations be reconciled with Luke 1:34-37?"

Under the position defended in this thread, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore expected future conception through Joseph.
Gabriel never says when the conception will occur. He simply tells Her:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

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

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

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

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

 

[Dryhn]

You're asking a different question than the one posed by the thread.
The thread is not titled:
"A Textual Defense of Mary's Perpetual Virginity."

It is titled:
"A Textual Challenge to the 'Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations' Position."
The purpose of a challenge is to test whether a position can adequately account for the relevant biblical data.

So the question before you is not:

"Can someone produce a text that explicitly says Mary never had relations with Joseph?"

The question is:

"Can the belief that Mary and Joseph had later marital relations be reconciled with Luke 1:34-37?"

Under the position defended in this thread, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore expected future conception through Joseph.
Gabriel never says when the conception will occur. He simply tells Her:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

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

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

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

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

A Textual Challenge to the 'Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations' Position.

Lack of ANY verses to the contrary PLUS common sense = had sex after the birth of Jesus

 

[Moonwood]

A Textual Challenge to the 'Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations' Position.

Lack of ANY verses to the contrary PLUS common sense = had sex after the birth of Jesus

Thank you. I think that finally clarifies your position.
Your conclusion is no longer being derived from a specific passage, but from an inference:

"Lack of ANY verses to the contrary PLUS common sense = had sex after the birth of Jesus."

In other words, you are not pointing to a text that explicitly states Mary and Joseph had marital relations after Jesus' birth. You are inferring that conclusion.
And that's precisely why I opened this thread.

Once we acknowledge that the conclusion is inferential, the question becomes whether that inference can be reconciled with the biblical data.
That's where Luke 1:34-37 comes in.

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She present:

"I know not man"

as the obstacle to the announced conception when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur?

And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Simply repeating the inference that Mary and Joseph later had relations does not answer the challenge. The question is whether that inference adequately accounts for Luke's narrative.

 

[Dryhn]

Thank you. I think that finally clarifies your position.
Your conclusion is no longer being derived from a specific passage, but from an inference:

"Lack of ANY verses to the contrary PLUS common sense = had sex after the birth of Jesus."

In other words, you are not pointing to a text that explicitly states Mary and Joseph had marital relations after Jesus' birth. You are inferring that conclusion.
And that's precisely why I opened this thread.

Once we acknowledge that the conclusion is inferential, the question becomes whether that inference can be reconciled with the biblical data.
That's where Luke 1:34-37 comes in.

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She present:

"I know not man"

as the obstacle to the announced conception when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur?

And why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Simply repeating the inference that Mary and Joseph later had relations does not answer the challenge. The question is whether that inference adequately accounts for Luke's narrative.

Thank you.
You have clarified that you are unable to provide verses that contradict normal relations between Mary & Joseph after the birth of Christ.

 

[Moonwood]

Thank you.
You have clarified that you are unable to provide verses that contradict normal relations between Mary & Joseph after the birth of Christ.

No, I've clarified that this thread is not an attempt to prove perpetual virginity.
I've repeatedly acknowledged that you are asking a different question.
Your question is:

"Can you provide a verse explicitly stating that Mary never had relations with Joseph after Jesus' birth?"

My question is:

"Can the belief that Mary and Joseph had later marital relations be reconciled with Luke 1:34-37?"

Those are not the same question.
It is entirely possible for your question to remain unanswered while my challenge also remains unanswered.

What I have noticed is that after multiple pages of discussion, whenever I ask how your interpretation reconciles:

• Mary's statement, "I know not man,"
• Gabriel's explanation of divine conception,
• Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception,
• and "For with God nothing shall be impossible,"

with the claim that Mary expected future marital relations and future conception through Joseph, the discussion repeatedly returns to:

"Show me a verse that says Mary never had sex."

That is a different discussion.
So I'll simply restate the challenge:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She present not knowing man as the obstacle to the announced conception when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur? And how does your interpretation reconcile Mary's appeal to "I know not man," Gabriel's explanation of divine conception, Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and "For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

That is the question this thread was created to examine.

 

[Dryhn]

No, I've clarified that this thread is not an attempt to prove perpetual virginity.
I've repeatedly acknowledged that you are asking a different question.
Your question is:

"Can you provide a verse explicitly stating that Mary never had relations with Joseph after Jesus' birth?"

My question is:

"Can the belief that Mary and Joseph had later marital relations be reconciled with Luke 1:34-37?"

Those are not the same question.
It is entirely possible for your question to remain unanswered while my challenge also remains unanswered.

What I have noticed is that after multiple pages of discussion, whenever I ask how your interpretation reconciles:

• Mary's statement, "I know not man,"
• Gabriel's explanation of divine conception,
• Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception,
• and "For with God nothing shall be impossible,"

with the claim that Mary expected future marital relations and future conception through Joseph, the discussion repeatedly returns to:

"Show me a verse that says Mary never had sex."

That is a different discussion.
So I'll simply restate the challenge:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She present not knowing man as the obstacle to the announced conception when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur? And how does your interpretation reconcile Mary's appeal to "I know not man," Gabriel's explanation of divine conception, Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and "For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

That is the question this thread was created to examine.

The challenge is to prove that Mary did not have normal married relations after the birth of Christ
List those verses please