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

[Moonwood]

The Bible wants us to know & clearly teaches a VIRGIN CONCEIVED - only a fool would dispute that.

If the Bible wanted us to know PERPETUAL VIRGINITY, it would teach it but it doesn't unless you RC torture text in a vain attempt to support a dogma

You're treating two different questions as though they were the same. We all agree that Scripture teaches the virginal conception. The question is whether the interpretation that Mary and Joseph later had marital relations adequately accounts for how Luke presents that virginal conception. In other words, my challenge is not:

"Does Luke teach the virgin birth?"

Everyone here agrees that it does. My challenge is:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore future conception through Joseph, why does She explain Her difficulty by saying, "I know not man"? 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 saying:

"Luke teaches the virgin birth"

does not answer that question. It restates the very passage under discussion.

The issue is whether the interpretation asserting future marital relations between Mary and Joseph adequately explains Luke's narrative. If it does, then please explain how Mary's appeal to "I know not man," Gabriel's answer, Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and "nothing shall be impossible with God" fit together with the claim that Mary expected future conception through Joseph. If it does not, then that is evidence that the interpretation may need to be reconsidered, even if that alone does not conclusively prove perpetual virginity.

 

[Dryhn]

You're treating two different questions as though they were the same. We all agree that Scripture teaches the virginal conception. The question is whether the interpretation that Mary and Joseph later had marital relations adequately accounts for how Luke presents that virginal conception. In other words, my challenge is not:

"Does Luke teach the virgin birth?"

Everyone here agrees that it does. My challenge is:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore future conception through Joseph, why does She explain Her difficulty by saying, "I know not man"? 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 saying:

"Luke teaches the virgin birth"

does not answer that question. It restates the very passage under discussion.

The issue is whether the interpretation asserting future marital relations between Mary and Joseph adequately explains Luke's narrative. If it does, then please explain how Mary's appeal to "I know not man," Gabriel's answer, Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and "nothing shall be impossible with God" fit together with the claim that Mary expected future conception through Joseph. If it does not, then that is evidence that the interpretation may need to be reconsidered, even if that alone does not conclusively prove perpetual virginity.

Sorry moon I don't do the RC left right left right left right march that you are duped into doing nor do I need man-made catechism & magisterium to interpret the Bible for me

 

[Moonwood]

Sorry moon I don't do the RC left right left right left right march that you are duped into doing nor do I need man-made catechism & magisterium to interpret the Bible for me

That's an argument about me, not about Luke 1. I'm asking a textual question. The answer to a textual question is found by addressing the text, not by discussing the denomination of the person asking it. So I'll simply repeat the question:

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" with the claim that Mary expected future conception through Joseph?

 

[Dryhn]

That's an argument about me, not about Luke 1. I'm asking a textual question. The answer to a textual question is found by addressing the text, not by discussing the denomination of the person asking it. So I'll simply repeat the question:

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" with the claim that Mary expected future conception through Joseph?

Virgin conception Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son
No sex after birth >>>> insert verses here <<<< :)

 

[Moonwood]

Virgin conception Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son
No sex after birth >>>> insert verses here <<<< :)

We already agree on the virginal conception.

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son."

Nobody in this thread is disputing that.
What you're doing is changing the question from:

"Can the later-relations interpretation be reconciled with Luke 1:34-37?"

to:

"Can you show a verse that explicitly says Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth?"

Those are different questions.
My challenge is not:

"Prove perpetual virginity from a single verse."

My challenge is:

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She explain Her difficulty by saying, "I know not man," when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur?

And why does Gabriel answer with divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude, "For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Simply asking me for a verse about Mary's later life does not reconcile your interpretation with Luke's narrative.

The challenge remains: How does your interpretation account for Mary's statement, Gabriel's answer, Elizabeth's conception, and "For with God nothing shall be impossible" if future conception through Joseph was already Mary's expected explanation?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Then we're making progress, because that's precisely the distinction I've been trying to make. I agree that Luke 1 is not directly discussing Mary's sex life after Jesus' birth. What it is discussing is the virginal conception. And my point has never been that Luke 1 directly proves perpetual virginity. My point has been that the interpretation asserting future marital relations between Mary and Joseph must still account for Luke's presentation of the virginal conception. Those are two different questions.

If that interpretation cannot adequately account for Luke's account of the virginal conception, then that is evidence against the interpretation, even if it does not by itself prove perpetual virginity.

I have said that all along, you have not been paying attention. What rules of grammar do you use in saying that the Luke account MUST account for the virgin birth. NOthing ion the passage even remotely speaks of future relations, but the one act of God.

No one without a preconceived insdoctrination would read anything like that in the Luke passage and you know that!

Gabriel never says:

"You are conceiving right now."

He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

Under your interpretation, Mary's lack of sexual activity was temporary because She expected future marital relations with Joseph.
So why does She present:

"I know not man"

as the reason for Her difficulty?

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"?

And Mary never said- " I will never know a man" That is what your Romanist doctrine has gotten you to believe she said.

I cannot give you a definitive answer for the bible doesn't say! but I can give you many possible and plausible answers. Mostly, Mary was a virgin and not expecting to have sex for approximately 6 months. Given that Gabriel visited her and gave her that news, she may have assumed it was going to be in teh near future, though he did not give a date- that is the logical and widely accepted thought to this.

You have to go from "I know not man" to "I am going to stay a virgin".

You can make all the philosophical and eisegetical arguments you wish, but you must answer Matt, 1:25. there were no contingencies in the statement . Nor anything in the context that even remotely assumes they remained abstinent.

Anytime until is a conclusion, the context shows it.

Example: " I will not vote for a democrat until hell freezes over" We know from SCripture hell will never freeze over so they will not vote democrat. or if you wish to be more biblical. Michal bore no children until her death. Now only the most severely mentally handicapped know death is final so the context shows until has an end point.

Show that in Matt. 1 or recant. There isnothing in the bible that even remotely hints at perpetual virginity.

 

[Moonwood]

Nothing ion the passage even remotely speaks of future relations, but the one act of God.

That's precisely my point.
You say:

"Nothing in the passage even remotely speaks of future relations, but the one act of God."

Correct. Luke's focus is the virginal conception.

The question I've been asking is why Luke presents that virginal conception the way he does if, as you assert, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and future conception through Joseph.
You say:

"No one without a preconceived indoctrination would read anything like that in the Luke passage."

But I'm not reading future relations into Luke's passage.
You are the one asserting future relations.
My challenge is whether that assertion can be reconciled with Luke's narrative.
Under your position:

• Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph.
• Mary expected future conception through Joseph.

Yet Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur. He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

And Mary's response is not:

"When?"

Nor:

"How can Joseph father such a child?"

Instead She says:

"I know not man."

Gabriel then responds with:

• divine conception,
• Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception,
• and "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

So the question remains:

If future conception through Joseph was already Mary's expected explanation, why does Luke present not knowing man as the obstacle, and why does Gabriel answer with divine intervention rather than by referring to the future marital relations your interpretation says Mary expected?

That is the textual challenge.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That's precisely my point.
You say:

"Nothing in the passage even remotely speaks of future relations, but the one act of God."

Correct. Luke's focus is the virginal conception.

The question I've been asking is why Luke presents that virginal conception the way he does if, as you assert, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and future conception through Joseph.
You say:

"No one without a preconceived indoctrination would read anything like that in the Luke passage."

But I'm not reading future relations into Luke's passage.
You are the one asserting future relations.
My challenge is whether that assertion can be reconciled with Luke's narrative.
Under your position:

• Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph.
• Mary expected future conception through Joseph.

Yet Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur. He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

And Mary's response is not:

"When?"

Nor:

"How can Joseph father such a child?"

Instead She says:

"I know not man."

Gabriel then responds with:

• divine conception,
• Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception,
• and "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

So the question remains:

If future conception through Joseph was already Mary's expected explanation, why does Luke present not knowing man as the obstacle, and why does Gabriel answer with divine intervention rather than by referring to the future marital relations your interpretation says Mary expected?

That is the textual challenge.

You end with a big if that neither you nor I can answer.

Mary did not respond with "I will never know a man" which is the Romanist position.

Lukes narrative has nothing to do with any future relations with Joseph or not! YOu trying to do so is foolishness.

You are reading future relations into the Luke passage or rather the lack thereof. You make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Moonwood]

You end with a big if that neither you nor I can answer.

But that "if" is not my assumption. It's yours.

Throughout this thread you have repeatedly argued that Mary and Joseph later had marital relations and that this was the normal expectation of marriage. Therefore, under your position, Mary would have expected future marital relations with Joseph and future conception through Joseph.

So the question is not whether the "if" is true. The question is whether your own position can be reconciled with Luke's account of the virginal conception.

Mary did not respond with "I will never know a man" which is the Romanist position.

Again, you're arguing from what you think Mary would have said rather than explaining what She did say.

The text does not say:
"I will never know a man."

Nor does it say:
"I do not yet know a man."

It says:
"I know not man."
My question is why Mary appeals to not knowing man as the explanation for Her difficulty, and why Gabriel responds as he does.

You say:
"Luke's narrative has nothing to do with any future relations with Joseph or not."

That's exactly why the challenge exists.
You are the one introducing future marital relations into the discussion, not Luke.
Luke gives us:

• "I know not man."
• Divine conception.
• Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception.
• "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

You then add:

• future marital relations,
• future conception through Joseph.

My challenge is whether those additions can be reconciled with the way Luke presents the annunciation narrative.

That's the question I've been asking from the beginning.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

But that "if" is not my assumption. It's yours.

Throughout this thread you have repeatedly argued that Mary and Joseph later had marital relations and that this was the normal expectation of marriage. Therefore, under your position, Mary would have expected future marital relations with Joseph and future conception through Joseph.

So the question is not whether the "if" is true. The question is whether your own position can be reconciled with Luke's account of the virginal conception.

And again you are trying to make an apple an orange! The Luke passage doesn't address futre realtions, Matthew does. You are trying to force something in Luke that is simply not there. There is no need to reconcile for there is nothing to reconcile betwen the two passages. another fail on your part.

My question is why Mary appeals to not knowing man as the explanation for Her difficulty, and why Gabriel responds as he does.

You say:
"Luke's narrative has nothing to do with any future relations with Joseph or not."

That's exactly why the challenge exists.
You are the one introducing future marital relations into the discussion, not Luke.
Luke gives us:

Well as SCripture doesn't answer this, we shou;ld not either. But as it is in the present, that tells us all we need to know about her response. Once again yopu are forcing the future into the present. Another fail.

No it is Matthew who told us that Joseph and Mary had future marital relations. Luke doesn't broach the subject at all! so why do you make such a fuss over Luke. YOu are making a false position where one does not exist!! Stop it!

You then add:

• future marital relations,
• future conception through Joseph.

My challenge is whether those additions can be reconciled with the way Luke presents the annunciation narrative.

That's the question I've been asking from the beginning.

And you are trying to force the annunciation narrative a a catch all for all future relations which it doesn't. I have told you from the beginning, the virgin birth and future marital relations are separate accounts in separate gospels and need no reconciliation! they are separate events with separate outcomes. You are trying to force some issue that does not exist.

 

[Moonwood]

Scripture doesn't answer this...

I appreciate the clarification.

But that is a very different position from saying the passage is simple, obvious, and clearly supports your interpretation.

My entire challenge has been that, under your interpretation, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore future conception through Joseph.
Yet Luke presents:

• "I know not man."
• Divine conception.
• Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception.
• "For with God nothing shall be impossible.

If your answer is now that Scripture does not tell us how those elements are to be reconciled with the expectation of future conception through Joseph, then that is precisely the tension I have been pointing out from the beginning. And if Scripture does not answer that question, then it becomes difficult to maintain that the later-relations interpretation is as obvious and self-evident as has repeatedly been claimed.

I am not claiming that this, by itself, proves lifelong virginity. I am saying that if the later-relations interpretation cannot explain that tension from the text itself, then it is not as obvious or as self-evident as has been repeatedly claimed throughout this thread.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I appreciate the clarification.

But that is a very different position from saying the passage is simple, obvious, and clearly supports your interpretation.

My entire challenge has been that, under your interpretation, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph and therefore future conception through Joseph.
Yet Luke presents:

• "I know not man."
• Divine conception.
• Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception.
• "For with God nothing shall be impossible.

If your answer is now that Scripture does not tell us how those elements are to be reconciled with the expectation of future conception through Joseph, then that is precisely the tension I have been pointing out from the beginning. And if Scripture does not answer that question, then it becomes difficult to maintain that the later-relations interpretation is as obvious and self-evident as has repeatedly been claimed.

I am not claiming that this, by itself, proves lifelong virginity. I am saying that if the later-relations interpretation cannot explain that tension from the text itself, then it is not as obvious or as self-evident as has been repeatedly claimed throughout this thread.

You are making an issue where there is none.

It is natural and normal for even an engaged girl who is virgin and is not marrying in the very near future to ask what Mary did. There is no issue.

Lukes passage is all about the divine conception and not future relations- no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise.

 

[Moonwood]

You are making an issue where there is none.

It is natural and normal for even an engaged girl who is virgin and is not marrying in the very near future to ask what Mary did. There is no issue.

Lukes passage is all about the divine conception and not future relations- no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise.

Earlier you said:
"Scripture doesn't answer this..."

Yet now you are offering an answer:
"It is natural and normal for even an engaged girl who is virgin and is not marrying in the very near future to ask what Mary did."

Those are not the same position.

If Scripture does not answer the question, then your explanation is not derived from the text itself.
If, on the other hand, you believe your explanation is derived from the text, then we're back to the original challenge:

Why does Mary explain Her difficulty by saying "I know not man" when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur?
And why does Gabriel answer with divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude:
"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Simply asserting that Mary's response was "natural and normal" does not explain why Luke presents the narrative with those particular elements.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

1. Why does Mary ask how conception will occur if She expects normal marital relations?

The most logical answer is that Mary assumed that Gabriel meant that she was SOON to have a child. And even though they weren't very scientifically advanced, Mary knew how babies were made and was like, uh, I'm a virgin, and I know how babies are made, and if you're telling me I'm about to be pregnant, I need to know how, exactly, that can happen, since I ain't having sex anytime soon.

Gabriel didn't give her a timetable, but it's not remotely farfetched for her to think he meant SOON.

2. Why does Gabriel respond with a description of miraculous conception rather than simply telling Her it will happen through Joseph?

To answer her question, that's why. It was clear that she thought he meant she would be pregnant SOON (which indeed was the case!), and it was clear she knew how babies were made and that she didn't go through the normal process of getting pregnant, so she rightly asked how this is possible, so Gabriel simply answered her.

There you go. That answers both of your questions, quite satisfactorily. It's probably not the answers you want, and it doesn't line up with your understanding of Mary, but those are legitimate answers to your questions that remain faithful to the text and offer precisely ZERO conflict with Scripture.

 

[Moonwood]

1. Why does Mary ask how conception will occur if She expects normal marital relations?

The most logical answer is that Mary assumed that Gabriel meant that she was SOON to have a child. And even though they weren't very scientifically advanced, Mary knew how babies were made and was like, uh, I'm a virgin, and I know how babies are made, and if you're telling me I'm about to be pregnant, I need to know how, exactly, that can happen, since I ain't having sex anytime soon.

Gabriel didn't give her a timetable, but it's not remotely farfetched for her to think he meant SOON.

2. Why does Gabriel respond with a description of miraculous conception rather than simply telling Her it will happen through Joseph?

To answer her question, that's why. It was clear that she thought he meant she would be pregnant SOON (which indeed was the case!), and it was clear she knew how babies were made and that she didn't go through the normal process of getting pregnant, so she rightly asked how this is possible, so Gabriel simply answered her.

There you go. That answers both of your questions, quite satisfactorily. It's probably not the answers you want, and it doesn't line up with your understanding of Mary, but those are legitimate answers to your questions that remain faithful to the text and offer precisely ZERO conflict with Scripture.

That's a fair attempt at an explanation. However, there is still a difficulty.

Your explanation requires us to assume that Mary interpreted Gabriel's words to mean that conception would occur very soon, even though Gabriel never explicitly gives a timetable. Yet Mary's question itself is not: "When will this happen?" or "How soon will this happen?" but:

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

In other words, Mary's question is still difficult to reconcile with the claim that ordinary marital relations with Joseph were simply assumed all along. Instead of clarifying a timetable, Mary's appeal to not knowing man is met with an explanation of divine conception:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."

Then Gabriel points to Elizabeth's naturally impossible and miraculous pregnancy and concludes:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

That response seems directed toward explaining conception apart from ordinary relations with a man, not merely correcting a misunderstanding about timing. Moreover, the idea that Mary's concern was simply that conception would occur "very soon" is itself an assumption brought to the text. Gabriel never specifies a timetable, while Mary Herself grounds Her question in the fact that She "knows not man."

If Mary's concern was merely that She was not yet sexually active, it is difficult to see why Her appeal to not knowing a man leads not only to an explanation of divine conception, but also to an appeal to Elizabeth's naturally impossible and miraculous pregnancy and a declaration of God's power over impossibilities.

The entire exchange seems focused on the manner of conception, not the timetable of conception.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

That's a fair attempt at an explanation. However, there is still a difficulty.

Your explanation requires us to assume that Mary interpreted Gabriel's words to mean that conception would occur very soon, even though Gabriel never explicitly gives a timetable. Yet Mary's question itself is not: "When will this happen?" or "How soon will this happen?" but:

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

In other words, Mary's question is still difficult to reconcile with the claim that ordinary marital relations with Joseph were simply assumed all along.

No, it's really - like REALLY - easy to reconcile. If she assumed (rightly, as it turns out!) that she would be pregnant soon, it is in fact the single most logical question for her to ask: Uh, how in the world is this possible?

Instead of clarifying a timetable, Mary's appeal to not knowing man is met with an explanation of divine conception:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."

Then Gabriel points to Elizabeth's naturally impossible and miraculous pregnancy and concludes:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

Right. Gabriel addresses Mary's question precisely. So far you've not highlighted any textual difficulty whatsoever.

That response seems directed toward explaining conception apart from ordinary relations with a man, not merely correcting a misunderstanding about timing.

Of course, Mary did NOT have a misunderstanding about timing. She *rightly*, as it turned out, assumed that Gabriel meant she would SOON be pregnant. No need to correct a misunderstanding about timing since there was in fact, NO misunderstanding about timing. So he simply answered her logical question with a straightforward explanation.

Moreover, the idea that Mary's concern was simply that conception would occur "very soon" is itself an assumption brought to the text.

It's not an assumption. It's an attempt at explaining why Mary would ask this question. It makes the most sense of the words spoken by both Gabriel and Mary of any possible explanation anyone can offer.

Gabriel never specifies a timetable, while Mary Herself grounds Her question in the fact that She "knows not man."

Correct. He never specifies a timetable, but IF she assumed he meant "soon", then her question makes all the sense in the world, as does Gabriel's answer.

If Mary's concern was merely that She was not yet sexually active, it is difficult to see why Her appeal to not knowing a man leads not only to an explanation of divine conception, but also to an appeal to Elizabeth's naturally impossible and miraculous pregnancy and a declaration of God's power over impossibilities.

The entire exchange seems focused on the manner of conception, not the timetable of conception.

Right. It's on the manner of conception, because it appears that she rightly assumed Gabriel meant she would be pregnant soon, without her having had sex, so if that's what she assumed, the entire conversation makes absolutely perfect sense in every conceivable (no pun intended) way.

There is quite literally no textual difficulty whatsoever.

If her timetable was wrong, Gabriel could simply have said, look Mary, good question, but you're not going to get pregnant right away, and here's how it'll happen. But Gabriel knows she will, in fact, get pregnant soon, so he answers her perfectly logical question in the most logical way possible.

Again, no textual difficulty whatsoever.

I'm glad to have helped you out with this.

 

[Moonwood]

No, it's really - like REALLY - easy to reconcile. If she assumed (rightly, as it turns out!) that she would be pregnant soon, it is in fact the single most logical question for her to ask: Uh, how in the world is this possible?



Right. Gabriel addresses Mary's question precisely. So far you've not highlighted any textual difficulty whatsoever.



Of course, Mary did NOT have a misunderstanding about timing. She *rightly*, as it turned out, assumed that Gabriel meant she would SOON be pregnant. No need to correct a misunderstanding about timing since there was in fact, NO misunderstanding about timing. So he simply answered her logical question with a straightforward explanation.



It's not an assumption. It's an attempt at explaining why Mary would ask this question. It makes the most sense of the words spoken by both Gabriel and Mary of any possible explanation anyone can offer.



Correct. He never specifies a timetable, but IF she assumed he meant "soon", then her question makes all the sense in the world, as does Gabriel's answer.



Right. It's on the manner of conception, because it appears that she rightly assumed Gabriel meant she would be pregnant soon, without her having had sex, so if that's what she assumed, the entire conversation makes absolutely perfect sense in every conceivable (no pun intended) way.

There is quite literally no textual difficulty whatsoever.

If her timetable was wrong, Gabriel could simply have said, look Mary, good question, but you're not going to get pregnant right away, and here's how it'll happen. But Gabriel knows she will, in fact, get pregnant soon, so he answers her perfectly logical question in the most logical way possible.

Again, no textual difficulty whatsoever.

I'm glad to have helped you out with this.

I appreciate that you've actually attempted to explain the full exchange. And I understand your explanation. You're proposing that Mary inferred from Gabriel's words that conception would occur soon, and therefore asked how that could happen since She had not known a man. But your explanation depends on the assumption that Mary understood Gabriel to mean that conception would occur soon, and thus it remains an inference rather than something stated in the text.

More importantly, Mary's explanation itself is still interesting.

Gabriel does not mention timing. He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

Yet Mary's response is not:

"When will this occur?"

or:

"How soon will this occur?"

Instead, She grounds Her question in:

"I know not man."

That seems to make the absence of relations with a man the relevant obstacle, not the timing of the conception.

And that leaves me with a further question:

Why does Gabriel appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise naturally impossible conception if Mary had no corresponding natural obstacle of Her own?

Elizabeth's obstacle is explicit:

• barrenness,
• old age.

Those are precisely why Gabriel concludes:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

But under your interpretation, Mary's situation contains no comparable obstacle.

• She is young.
• She is fertile.
• She is betrothed.
• And according to your position, She expected future marital relations with Joseph.

So why is Mary's case presented alongside Elizabeth's at all?

What is the corresponding impossibility in Mary's case that warrants an appeal to Elizabeth and a conclusion about God's power over impossibilities?

 

[Crazy Ivan]

I appreciate that you've actually attempted to explain the full exchange. And I understand your explanation. You're proposing that Mary inferred from Gabriel's words that conception would occur soon, and therefore asked how that could happen since She had not known a man. But your explanation depends on the assumption that Mary understood Gabriel to mean that conception would occur soon, and thus it remains an inference rather than something stated in the text.

Clearly it's not stated specifically in the text. You're asking why would Mary ask her question, and since the text does not SAY *why* she asked the question, we are left as Bible students to try to put the pieces together. You have your explanation for why, even though your explanation also isn't stated specifically in the text. I have my explanation. Just trying to make the most sense of the passage, dear brother.

More importantly, Mary's explanation itself is still interesting.

Gabriel does not mention timing. He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

Yet Mary's response is not:

"When will this occur?"

or:

"How soon will this occur?"

Instead, She grounds Her question in:

"I know not man."

That seems to make the absence of relations with a man the relevant obstacle, not the timing of the conception.

Dude, we literally JUST went over all this. Yeah, the obstacle is that she's never had sex, so how could she get pregnant? Because if she thought that 10 years from now is when she'd get pregnant, she would probably assume that by then she'd be married to Joseph and would have a baby how every other woman had a baby.

And that leaves me with a further question:

Why does Gabriel appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise naturally impossible conception if Mary had no corresponding natural obstacle of Her own?

Elizabeth's obstacle is explicit:

• barrenness,
• old age.

Those are precisely why Gabriel concludes:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

But under your interpretation, Mary's situation contains no comparable obstacle.

• She is young.
• She is fertile.
• She is betrothed.
• And according to your position, She expected future marital relations with Joseph.

So why is Mary's case presented alongside Elizabeth's at all?

What is the corresponding impossibility in Mary's case that warrants an appeal to Elizabeth and a conclusion about God's power over impossibilities?

Because Mary wonders HOW in the world she can get pregnant if she has never had sex, and Gabriel says, "For with God nothing shall be impossible", and let me give you an example from your own family, Mary - your cousin Elizabeth, who was too old to get pregnant naturally, but here she is, pregnant. How? Because God is the God of the miraculous. And God is going to do something miraculous in your life too, Mary.

Again, no textual difficulty whatsoever. Very easily explained.

You're trying to create a problem where none exists.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Earlier you said:
"Scripture doesn't answer this..."

Yet now you are offering an answer:
"It is natural and normal for even an engaged girl who is virgin and is not marrying in the very near future to ask what Mary did."

Those are not the same position.

If Scripture does not answer the question, then your explanation is not derived from the text itself.
If, on the other hand, you believe your explanation is derived from the text, then we're back to the original challenge:

Why does Mary explain Her difficulty by saying "I know not man" when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur?
And why does Gabriel answer with divine conception, appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and conclude:
"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

Simply asserting that Mary's response was "natural and normal" does not explain why Luke presents the narrative with those particular elements.

Scripture doesn't specifically answer. But What I wrote is the natural and normal response of people.

Once again you fail to prove that either passage means perpetual virginity.

 

[beechan]

Scripture doesn't specifically answer. But What I wrote is the natural and normal response of people.

Once again you fail to prove that either passage means perpetual virginity.

Right at the begining of Luke 1:27
In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,
to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary

If Joseph and Mary were to have a normal marriage, why a woman would be surprised to have a child born to her?

She grounds Her question in:

"I know not man."

That seems to make the absence of relations with a man the relevant obstacle, not the timing of the conception.

This suggested Mary knew right from the beginning she should remain a virgin, not knowing man!

The Protoevangelium of James described the 'marriage' of Joseph and Mary wad not a usual marriage of 'lovers' type which 'husband' would consummate the marriage.

This was not told in the gospel of Luke and Matthew.