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

[Crazy Ivan]

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?

Easily understood if she thought Gabriel meant she would have a child SOON.

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!

It suggests nothing of the sort.

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.

 

[beechan]

Easily understood if she thought Gabriel meant she would have a child SOON.



It suggests nothing of the sort.

Thank you for your brief and pointless response.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Thank you for your brief and pointless response.

Oh there was a point. Not my fault you missed it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Once again with possibilities! Suggests? NO it does not. she simply said, I am not sexually active so how can I get pregnant.

If Mary knew she was to remain a virgin she would have said, " I will never know a man". YOu and moonwood take a simple easy to undetrstand statement and load it with so much maybe's and possiblies and suggests as to make you sound ridiculous.

also, you did get right what was teh obstacle in Mary's mind. she was not sexually active yet! But Scripture says after Jesus was born she was , just as Scripture shows to all who are not indoctrinated by Romanist philosophy. Perpetual virginity is a construct of men and not in Scripture.

BTW the protoevangelium of James was written at the end of the 2nd century so is not a valid source . Need I remind you that at the end of the 2nd century the church was battling the influx ofpagan Greek philosophy. Do not forget Origen and Arius.

 

[Moonwood]

...Mary assumed that Gabriel meant that she was SOON to have a child.

...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.

But why would Mary assume conception would occur before the marital relations that, according to your interpretation, She expected with Joseph?

Gabriel does not say:

"You are about to conceive."

or:

"You will conceive immediately."

He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

As a betrothed woman who, according to your position, expected future marital relations with Joseph, why would Mary's first assumption be that conception would occur prior to consummation rather than through the marital relations She expected in the future?

Instead of appealing to Joseph as the expected explanation, She explains Her difficulty by saying:

"I know not man."

That is why I still find the exchange significant.

And it is also why I find Gabriel's appeal to Elizabeth noteworthy. Elizabeth's conception was naturally impossible because of barrenness and old age. But under your interpretation, Mary had no comparable natural obstacle if future conception through Joseph remained Her expected explanation. So why is Mary's case framed alongside Elizabeth's and concluded with:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

You agree Mary's comparable natural obstacle was Her virginity. But according to your own position, that virginity was temporary, and at the time Mary asked Her question, She had not yet been given any reason to think the announced conception would occur prior to those future marital relations. So why does She appeal to "I know not man" as the explanation for Her difficulty rather than assume the announced conception would occur through those expected marital relations?

That is the difficulty I keep coming back to. Your explanation requires Mary to assume that the conception would occur prior to the marital relations She expected, even though Gabriel never says that and Mary Herself gives no indication that timing is Her concern. Instead, She grounds Her question in the fact that She "knows not man."

 

[Moonwood]

What I wrote is the natural and normal response of people.

You say Mary's response was simply the natural and normal response of a virgin who had not yet had relations with Joseph. But why would Mary assume conception would occur before the marital relations that, according to your interpretation, She expected with Joseph?

Gabriel does not say:

"You are about to conceive."

or:

"You will conceive immediately."

He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

As a betrothed woman who, according to your position, expected future marital relations with Joseph, why would Mary's first assumption be that conception would occur prior to consummation rather than through the marital relations She expected in the future?

Instead of appealing to Joseph as the expected explanation, She explains Her difficulty by saying:

"I know not man."

And this becomes even more significant when Gabriel responds with divine conception, appeals to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and concludes:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

You agree Mary's obstacle was Her virginity. But according to your own position, that virginity was temporary, and at the time Mary asked Her question, She had not yet been given any reason to think the announced conception would occur prior to those future marital relations. So why does She appeal to "I know not man" as the explanation for Her difficulty rather than assume the announced conception would occur through the future marital relations that you argue She expected with Joseph?

That is the difficulty I keep coming back to. Your explanation requires Mary to assume that conception would occur before the marital relations She expected, even though Gabriel never says that and Mary Herself gives no indication that timing is Her concern.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

But why would Mary assume conception would occur before the marital relations that, according to your interpretation, She expected with Joseph?

Gabriel does not say:

"You are about to conceive."

or:

"You will conceive immediately."

He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

Could have been Gabriel's tone. Or it could have been that given the suddenness of the announcement, she naturally thought that this would be somewhat immediate. It would be a totally normal thing to think.

And if she DID think that, as it turns out, she would have been 100% correct in that thought.

As a betrothed woman who, according to your position, expected future marital relations with Joseph, why would Mary's first assumption be that conception would occur prior to consummation rather than through the marital relations She expected in the future?

Just answered that.

Instead of appealing to Joseph as the expected explanation, She explains Her difficulty by saying:

"I know not man."

That is why I still find the exchange significant.

And it is also why I find Gabriel's appeal to Elizabeth noteworthy. Elizabeth's conception was naturally impossible because of barrenness and old age. But under your interpretation, Mary had no comparable natural obstacle if future conception through Joseph remained Her expected explanation. So why is Mary's case framed alongside Elizabeth's and concluded with:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

You agree Mary's comparable natural obstacle was Her virginity. But according to your own position, that virginity was temporary,

I have taken no position whatsoever on whether Mary's virginity was temporary or permanent. I've just tried to answer the questions the OP is asking.

and at the time Mary asked Her question, She had not yet been given any reason to think the announced conception would occur prior to those future marital relations. So why does She appeal to "I know not man" as the explanation for Her difficulty rather than assume the announced conception would occur through those expected marital relations?

Because clearly she thought that this announcement meant that she would be pregnant even though she hasn't had sex. There's literally no reason whatsoever to think that she would assume that this meant she would NEVER have sex.

That is the difficulty I keep coming back to. Your explanation requires Mary to assume that the conception would occur prior to the marital relations She expected, even though Gabriel never says that and Mary Herself gives no indication that timing is Her concern. Instead, She grounds Her question in the fact that She "knows not man."

Right - you've repeated this numerous times now but the answer is still the same. I'm sorry you're finding the explanation so difficult to process.