What you and Monkfan are saying is not consistent with Luke. When the angel of the Lord approached Mary and told her she would conceive and bear a son, she asked the most appropriate question,
According to our tradition, she lived at a time when there was no "single option" for women. One married. Period.
I would also suggest that you are forgetting Joseph in this whole argument. For Joseph to have married someone who was already impregnated would have been a terrible thing to do for a good Jewish man.
Mary's submission to God's calling is what's make this such a beautiful event for she was willing to go through not only the social stigma but possibly being stoned to death according to custom. Joseph's submission is what is often overlooked because he believed God. Though he was engaged and should have properly given Mary a certificate of divorce, was obedient to the Lord and carried through on his commitment.
"Mary did not for a moment believe that she would be married and bear a child."
On that we agree. Therefore what Monkfan and I are saying is exactly consistent with the account in Luke.
Where we and you are in disagreement is the reason why she would respond as she did. What you are suggesting is that she knew both that a. she was going to bear the Messiah, and that b. this meant she would conceive as a virgin.
You write: "Mary, whether she knew about Isaiah or not, in no way believe that she would conceive in the "normal" way."
But if she knew that she was going to bear the Messiah and that this meant that she was going to conceive as a virgin and not in the "normal way", then she would not have said "how can this thing be, since I know not a man?" You are suggesting that she was fully aware that she wasn't going to "know" a man to conceive this child -- so why would she ask this question?
If she knew that the angel was announcing a virgin birth, she wouldn't have asked this question.
If she thought that the angel was announcing a special, but not virgin birth, she wouldn't have asked that either, if she was (as per your scenario) betrothed to a young man whom she intended to set up housekeeping with.
Monkfan and I (or rather the Orthodox Church) give an account of events that explains perfectly well why she would ask that question. So far, no Protestant on this forum has given an explanation that makes sense.
Allow me to lead by example: I fully acknowledge that Matthew 1:25 can be read just as much in support of the Protestant position as of the Orthodox account. I will even go so far as to say that if one takes the verse in isolation that the Protestant reading is the logical one. Furthermore, I will say that the verses regarding Jesus' "brethren," again, taken in isolation, are very reasonably read as Protestants interpret.
Is it *that* hard to acknowledge that at least on this one verse in Luke, that the Orthodox explanation meshes neatly with the Virgin's response, whereas you are having to scramble to find some way to read the verse to explain why she asked that question?
The entire point of God's answer to Mary's question is to explain to her just how said conception would take place. Had she already known then the explaination becomes vain and superfluous.
Also, it makes absolutely no sense for Mary to point out her state of virginity if she already understood God's plan to circumvent it.
Perhaps now is a good time to remind ourselves that being familiar with a prophecy does not guarantee an actual understanding of same prophecy. Just take a look at all the competing theories regarding The Second Coming. Nuff said!
I would also suggest that you are forgetting Joseph in this whole argument. For Joseph to have married someone who was already impregnated would have been a terrible thing to do for a good Jewish man.
It definitely doesn't qualify as "Plan A". ;)
Mary's submission to God's calling is what's make this such a beautiful event for she was willing to go through not only the social stigma but possibly being stoned to death according to custom.
Agreed.
Joseph's submission is what is often overlooked because he believed God.
It's not overlooked in the Orthodox Church, I assure you.
Though he was engaged and should have properly given Mary a certificate of divorce, was obedient to the Lord and carried through on his commitment.
It's worth noting here that God saw fit to send an angel to Joseph to explain the situation for what it was [Matt. 2:20-23]. Somehow, I don't think "miraculous conception" was the conclusion Joseph was jumping to.
Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" ([Luke 1:34])
Mary, whether she knew about Isaiah or not, in no way believe that she would conceive in the "normal" way.
This is a strange conclusion. The question you quote betrays the assumption on the part of Mary that for the Angel's prediction to be true, she would have a regular conception following a marital act. It is in the next verse that the Angel explains the supernatural character of her impregnation.