Instead of hurling abuse, how about sticking to the subject?
Read Luke’s account. Mary is, by our standards, already married. She has just been told by the angel that she is to conceive and bear a child.
THE ANGEL HAS NOT TOLD HER SHE IS ALREADY PREGNANT. NOR HAS HE TOLD HER SHE IS GOING TO BE PREGNANT WITHIN MINUTES.
Her question to the angel makes no sense if she expects to be engaging in relations with her husband in the near future.
I ask you two questions and you call that abuse?? Man, you've got a thin skin.
Re-read Matthew 1 and Luke 1 together...draw out a timeline of what's happening and you'll understand the context of the situation.
By our standards doesn't count in understanding their relationship.
I agree that in their culture they were considered to be married in everything but actual practice. That is clear from Matthew.
Matthew is clear they were living apart when Mary became pregnant. He is also clear they then completed the ceremony and began living as husband and wife.
Matthew is also clear they consummated the marriage after Jesus was born.
Having children would be keeping in line with God's command to be fruitful and multiply. With them being the godly people they were they followed through on this command.
The context is the key to the whole thing.
Believe me, I doubt she was thinking about Joseph at that time. Can you imagine what it would be like to have an ANGEL OF THE LORD right there talking to you?
Joseph had nothing to do with her question.
Wrong. She is "betrothed" as in contractually committed to become the wife though not yet the wife as in "took her to wife". I would suggest some study of ancient Jewish wedding customs rather than make rash statements.
>>THE ANGEL HAS NOT TOLD HER SHE IS ALREADY PREGNANT. NOR HAS HE TOLD HER SHE IS GOING TO BE PREGNANT WITHIN MINUTES.<<
Weasel words.