"Mary is not a 21st century city girl, She is a 1st century farm girl who understands the mechanics of procreation. Her response only makes sense if she had no intention of having a conjugal relation with the man she was already betrothed to. In the usual state of affairs a woman would expect to have children, but Mary is expressing amazement. Remember the angel has not yet told her that the child will be the literal Son of God only that he would be called the son of the most high and sit on the throne of David.
...............
First, hi verga. I hope things are well in your world!
I'm sure many will respond and we will have a good discussion. I will just address your argument about "shall" in Luke 1:34.
The event the angel announces will take place in the future. Mary asks how this will occur, since she will still be a virgin. Hence, the future tense about a future event.
Not an argument that proves or indicates perpetual virginity.
More importantly, there is no prophecy nor theological reason for Mary to remain a virgin. The Virgin birth was a miraculous sign identifying the Savior.
Which leads to this: it really doesn't matter much, if someone believes in perpetual virginity or not. Salvation does not depend on this.
The single question that remains crucial is where you (and all others) will spend eternity. Only by entrusting ourselves to Him and His gracious gift - accepting His righteousness instead of trying to earn our own - do we receive eternal life.
That is what matters. It is available today. Now. Why put it off?
I addressed as many of the common objections that I could recall. I cited the Scripture, quoting chapter and verse from both Testaments, and I also cited the Talmud where it applied.
I must admit to being somewhat surprised by people that think they have one the "argument" quoting a verse that I already disproved.