Actually, I think my argument is far stronger than yours-but what would you expect me to say. :O) If we were to suppose Mary included the, "How can this thing be because I am a virgin?" as you suggest, I would say this is no different than the doubting Zachariah statement of how can his wife give birth. Both would be claiming doubt about how God could do a particular thing. But the response from the angel is far different in Zachariah's case than in Mary's case for we know the angel made Zachariah dumb where with Mary he simply answered her question.
This can only mean Mary was not asking it as a question concerning God's ability. With your interpretation such doubts exist with Mary's statement. With my interpretation Mary is not questioning the Lord but simply asking how something is going to transpirer.
I can't argue with your other interpretations of Mary simply because they are not part of the inspired word of God. They are based upon traditions handed down. Some of those traditions may be valid. Some may be fanciful. But few if any is recorded in scripture.
As Full Court argued, you will have a far more difficult time arguing with Matt 1:25 than I have with Luke 1:34. There are other places that seems to indicate Mary had other children.
The difference is that Zachary questions that God would give him and Elizabeth the strength to bring forth a child, while Mary questions how the new command from God squares with an obligation to God she already has.
If I am God and I tell you, -- Fly off the cliff! -- and you say "er, no wings" -- you are being disobedient. But if I tell you -- Fly! Swim! -- you are entitled to ask how to do both tasks at the same time.
Not really. It's been done before.
The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son(1), yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word "first-born" means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word "till" signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world(2), not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, And so shall we ever be with the Lord(3), meaning after the general resurrection.
-Saint John of Damascus, 8th century
"This can only mean Mary was not asking it as a question concerning God's ability. With your interpretation such doubts exist with Mary's statement. With my interpretation Mary is not questioning the Lord but simply asking how something is going to transpirer."
Not at all true. The Orthodox understanding is *not* that Mary was questioning the Lord in any way whatsoever. Our understanding, as I have pointed out elsewhere, is that she was establishing that it actually *was* the Lord that the angel was from, and that she was not being deceived by Satan, "appearing as an angel of light." She knew from the experience of Eve that the tempter does come in many forms, seeking our destruction.
She saw a contradiction, and knew that this contradiction had to be resolved. The answer of the angel resolved the contradiction for her, and from that point, there were no more questions. We do not see her motivation in her one initial question being at all as a doubting of God's omnipotence.
"I can't argue with your other interpretations of Mary simply because they are not part of the inspired word of God. They are based upon traditions handed down. Some of those traditions may be valid. Some may be fanciful. But few if any is recorded in scripture."
That is all very fair enough. It takes an intellectually secure Calvinist to say the words "some of those traditions may be valid," and I appreciate that. We are also in agreement that most of these things do not appear in Scripture, and are based on traditions handed down through the centuries within the Church.
None of us have ever claimed that they could be proven sola scriptura, and I in turn can see sola scriptura as an understandable and legitimate position to take, even if I don't hold to it.