[Mrs. Don-o]

That would only make sense if the angel said she was pregnant RIGHT NOW or would be pregnant before she and Joseph lived as husband and wife. The angel didn't say that. He left the actual timing of the pregnancy in the indefinite future. So the "perplexity" problem remains unanswered.

I understand it seems obvious to you, which only raises the other question: why did nobody interpret i your way for 1500 years?

There's a huge cultural and interpretive gap here, I think, stemming from the modern failure to read the many "lifelong covenant" passages of the OT as context and prophecy. You also don't understand that covenant means honor, and concubinage dishonor. You achieve clarity by omission.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“So the “perplexity” problem remains unanswered.”

To you it is an issue because, perhaps it is perceived to open the door to prebelief? In the end, there is no passage of Scripture at all that says Mary remained a virgin.

“I understand it seems obvious to you, which only raises the other question: why did nobody interpret i your way for 1500 years? “

This is a very big assumption, since you’ve yet to demonstrate it was believed before 100 ad, MDO.

More importantly, if something is falsely believed, regardless of how long, it remains false. In this case, no evidence it was taught by the Apostles before 100 ad. No declaration in the inspired Scriptures.