Replies

Also; let's presume for the sake of argument that Jesus didn't have any brothers and sisters. If God had Mary have a child without having relations with a man, He could surely prevent her from having a child even while she did have relations with a man. For all we know, Mary was not only a virgin but infertile, a not unheard of condition. After all, being Jesus's biological brother or sister would end up putting quite a psychological burden on said child, not to mention the safety issue as Jesus started His ministry and attracted the unfavorable attention of the authorities. The Apostles had a choice, but His siblings wouldn't have.

This is a unique perspective. Somehow you have taken the reality of Jesus being without maternal siblings and managed to preserve the important fact that she must have had sexual relations. Peculiar.

Zachariah doubting the Lord vs. Mary questioning him? The Lord had quite different plans for Mary than he had for Zachariah. Plus, they had different personalities and would respond in different ways to different treatments. Disciplining one and not disciplining the other could have had many factors; the proposition that she would remain a virgin would be the cause is stretching it quite a bit from my viewpoint.

I'm not sure you have understodd the argument. It is not that God failed to discipline her is used as an argument, but rather that her response ("How can this be?") makes no sense for a normal woman, about to be married. If an angel had told your wife on the eve of your wedding that she would conceive a child, would your wife say "How is this possible?" Wouldn't a normal woman assume that natural conception methods were being discussed, absent any other revelation?

So, my viewpoint on this. I don't posit anything as proof that they DID have sexual relations. I just figure that such is the natural (and God-approved) course of events for married couples, and thus figure in the absence of specific statements to the contrary that this is what they did.

I appreciate your measured viewpoint. But I think you need to give the last point a bit more thought. Can you explain her response?

This is a unique perspective. Somehow you have taken the reality of Jesus being without maternal siblings and managed to preserve the important fact that she must have had sexual relations. Peculiar.

I'm referring to the argument that Mary and Joseph must not have had sexual relations because Mary had no other children. What I'm saying is that 1) there are authorities that believe that she did, but setting that aside, 2) there are plenty of infertile couples even now, in an era of modern science, so it's not much of a stretch that Mary was infertile. Or Joseph; even if he had fathered children previously, an injury or illness could have left him infertile at this point in his life. Lack of children is no proof of lack of sex.I'm not sure you have understodd the argument. It is not that God failed to discipline her is used as an argument, but rather that her response ("How can this be?") makes no sense for a normal woman, about to be married.

Because the full quote of Luke 1:34 (KJV) is: "Then said Mary unto the angel, 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?'". Now, the way I read this is that Mary interpreted Gabriel's words to mean that she was going to get pregnant very soon, prior to her marriage, not that she was going to get pregnant in the normal course of events. "... seeing I know not a man" is present tense, not future tense. Unless there's something funky about the Greek I'm not aware of.