So Joseph married Mary but didn’t have sex?

[Grailhunter]

The text never identifies these two women as the same person,

The scriptures do not identify two separate women. Making things up as you go?

 

[Grailhunter]

Your appeal to “scholars disagree about the meaning of virgin” doesn’t address that distinction, because I’m not debating the entire semantic range of parthenos or ‘almah. I’m pointing out that Matthew applies Isaiah 7:14 typologically to Christ, and your explanation only works if you collapse Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 8:3 into one woman — something the text itself does not do.

You keep bringing the same thing up over and over again. Matthew does use Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy....why?
I do not know, he knows that Isaiah had sex with his wife. As people usually do have sex with their wife.

 

[Grailhunter]

Saying “I stick with the scriptures and the scriptures refute you” is not an argument, it’s just a conclusion.

If the scriptures refute you that makes it easy on me.

 

[Grailhunter]

Matthew 1, Luke 1, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 8:3 — and shown how your interpretation collapses categories those passages keep distinct. If you think Scripture refutes what I said, then quote the verse and show the contradiction. Simply asserting it doesn’t answer anything.

LOL No you have not made a good argument that Yahweh did not have sex with Miriam.

 

[Grailhunter]

On the conception: “agency” means who performs the action.

Ok, like said before Yeshua is not the Son of the Holy Spirit. Yeshua does not refer to the Holy Spirit as His Father.

 

[Grailhunter]

You can’t override Matthew’s stated

I am not trying to override what Matthew said.
I am sticking with the scriptures that describe the event.
And those descriptions use terms associated with the normal procreation process.

 

[Grailhunter]

You can’t override Matthew’s stated cause by appealing to a general dictionary definition. Context determines meaning; a dictionary only gives the range of possible senses.

Let me educate you little on ancient languages. If you have a dictionary with all the words of the English language....it is a podium dictionary. Some people cannot lift it.

Ancient languages have words that have different meanings and all about how they are used in the context of the sentence as to what they mean. So you have to look at the contest. The word has possible meanings but the context of how they are used define their meaning there.

 

[Grailhunter]

The same problem appears in your use of heos. Quoting a dictionary definition (“marks a limit”) doesn’t address the actual linguistic point.

Again it is the context in which it is used.

 

[Grailhunter]

It does not imply that he “knew Her” afterward

This is debate you or I cannot prove either way.

 

[Grailhunter]

So the issue is not what heos can mean in isolation, but how it functions in Koine Greek when it marks a boundary without implying reversal. That’s the part you still haven’t addressed.

I am not implying reversal.

 

[Moonwood]

They are not two different women.
3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Isiaih 8:3

They are still Isaiah's children.

The scriptures do not identify two separate women. Making things up as you go?

You keep bringing the same thing up over and over again. Matthew does use Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy....why?
I do not know, he knows that Isaiah had sex with his wife. As people usually do have sex with their wife.

LOL No you have not made a good argument that Yahweh did not have sex with Miriam.

Ok, like said before Yeshua is not the Son of the Holy Spirit. Yeshua does not refer to the Holy Spirit as His Father.

I am not trying to override what Matthew said.
I am sticking with the scriptures that describe the event.
And those descriptions use terms associated with the normal procreation process.

If the scriptures refute you that makes it easy on me.

Let me educate you little on ancient languages. If you have a dictionary with all the words of the English language....it is a podium dictionary. Some people cannot lift it.

Ancient languages have words that have different meanings and all about how they are used in the context of the sentence as to what they mean. So you have to look at the contest. The word has possible meanings but the context of how they are used define their meaning there.

This is debate you or I cannot prove either way.

I am not implying reversal.

You’re explaining that ancient languages require context to determine meaning — but that’s exactly the point I’ve been making, and it’s the point you keep avoiding. A dictionary gives the range of possible senses; the context determines which sense is actually in play. That’s why appealing to a bare dictionary definition doesn’t answer anything.

If you really believe context determines meaning, then apply that principle to the actual passages:

• Isaiah 7:14 describes the ‘almah whose child is called Immanuel.
• Isaiah 8:3 describes the prophetess whose child is Maher‑shalal‑hash‑baz.

Different contexts, different women, different children. The text never identifies them as the same person. You’re asserting they’re the same, but you haven’t produced a single verse that makes that identification. Saying “They are still Isaiah’s children” doesn’t merge the women; different women can have children by the same man. And Matthew uses Isaiah 7:14 because he is drawing on the Immanuel sign — the promise of God’s presence with His people — not because he thinks the ‘almah of 7:14 is the prophetess of 8:3. Matthew is applying the Immanuel prophecy typologically to Christ, not retelling Isaiah’s domestic life.

The same context‑determines‑meaning principle applies to Matthew 1:25. The context of the passage is Matthew’s claim that Joseph had no role in the conception. “He did not know Her until She had borne a Son” marks the boundary relevant to that claim. It does not imply a change afterward — just as “Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until the day of her death” does not imply she began bearing children after she died. Context determines meaning, not the dictionary gloss.

Saying “we can’t prove it either way” ignores the actual linguistic question. The issue isn’t whether Joseph did or didn’t “know Her” afterward — the issue is whether heos itself implies a change after the limit. In Koine Greek, it doesn’t. That’s why Matthew can say “he did not know Her until She had borne a Son” without implying anything afterward, just as the Michal passage does not imply a reversal. So this is not a debate about what happened after — it’s about what the grammar does and does not imply. And the grammar does not imply reversal.

If you’re not implying reversal, then you’ve conceded the point. The entire debate about heos is whether the word signals a change after the limit. You now say you’re not implying reversal — which means you agree that Matthew 1:25 does not imply Joseph “knew Her” afterward. That removes the only linguistic basis for your claim.

And your statement “Yeshua is not the Son of the Holy Spirit” simply confuses identity with agency. Matthew and Luke are not describing Who Jesus eternally is — they are describing Who caused the conception. The Father is the eternal source of the Son; the Holy Spirit is the agent of the Incarnation. Those are different categories, and you keep collapsing them.

But notice: you still haven’t addressed the actual question I’ve asked multiple times. Matthew says the conception was “of the Holy Spirit,” and Luke says “the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” Those passages describe divine agency, not a sexual act by Yahweh. So how can you claim the conception was caused by Yahweh having sex with Mary when Matthew and Luke explicitly attribute the action to the Holy Spirit?

 

[Grailhunter]

You’re explaining that ancient languages require context to determine meaning — but that’s exactly the point I’ve been making, and it’s the point you keep avoiding. A dictionary gives the range of possible senses; the context determines which sense is actually in play. That’s why appealing to a bare dictionary definition doesn’t answer anything.

Well the dictionary of the language is the starting point. And then the context and then the interpretation.

 

[Grailhunter]

Different contexts, different women, different children. The text never identifies them as the same person.

The scriptures do not identify two women. You are making that up.

 

[Grailhunter]

The same context‑determines‑meaning principle applies to Matthew 1:25. The context of the passage is Matthew’s claim that Joseph had no role in the conception. “He did not know Her until She had borne a Son” marks the boundary relevant to that claim. It does not imply a change afterward —

No the verse does not imply a change. The norm does. The culture does. The scriptures do not give any information on that. Nor does the scriptures imply she refused to have sex with her husband.

 

[Grailhunter]

If you’re not implying reversal, then you’ve conceded the point. The entire debate about heos is whether the word signals a change after the limit. You now say you’re not implying reversal — which means you agree that Matthew 1:25 does not imply Joseph “knew Her” afterward. That removes the only linguistic basis for your claim.

I am not debating heos.

 

[Grailhunter]

And your statement “Yeshua is not the Son of the Holy Spirit” simply confuses identity with agency.

No the scriptures do not say that Yeshua is the Son of the Holy Spirit. And Yeshua does not say His Father is the Holy Spirit.

 

[Grailhunter]

But notice: you still haven’t addressed the actual question I’ve asked multiple times. Matthew says the conception was “of the Holy Spirit,”

You have asked it several times and I have addressed it several times. You do not like my answer. Matthew does not get into the details of what he meant. And I am not going to fill in the blanks.

 

[Grailhunter]

So how can you claim the conception was caused by Yahweh having sex with Mary when Matthew and Luke explicitly attribute the action to the Holy Spirit?

Because the scriptures make it clear that Yeshua is the Son of Yahweh. We are rehashing the same old thing. God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Yeshua is Yahweh's Son and all the wording associated with the event describe procreation in the normal fashion.

 

[Davy]

What is missing here?
Mary was a virgin who was to give birth to the son of God. If she had not been a virgin when Jesus was born, that would have ruined the prophesy, since she had to be a virgin when she gave birth proving that no man was responsible for the pregnancy. In Israel, a woman had to provide proof of her virginity after consummation.

Joseph showed self control and respect for God’s arrangement, and for the woman who would be the mother of the promised Messiah.
The fact that Jesus had siblings shows that they had a normal married life after his birth.

That's it, also recall that at Christ's resurrection His body was not found, so the chief priests against Him got the soldiers to lie about that and say Christ's disciples had stolen His body.

Matt 28:11-15
11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.

12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,

13 Saying, "Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you."

15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
KJV

 

[PeterAndroz]

That's it, also recall that at Christ's resurrection His body was not found, so the chief priests against Him got the soldiers to lie about that and say Christ's disciples had stolen His body.

Matt 28:11-15
11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.

12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,

13 Saying, "Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you."

15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
KJV

Looks like you are having to cope with more Anti Jesus Witness nonsense & deception