> I believe that there's a misplaced comma somewhere. I read it as Jesus, being of God and Mary, is half-man, half-God...", and saying nothing about the nature of Mary.

That would make more sense to me, yeah.

> As to whether Mary remained a virgin, Catholics (and many Protestants) believe that she did; this goes back to the idea of her being utterly without sin.

Sex is not sin. I don't believe anything even remotely biblical can establish otherwise. It doesn't even make sense.

That's not even taking into contention the idea that Mary was sinless, which is, again, an idea rarely found outside of Catholicism. She certainly was considered "righteous" by God, but there are degrees of usage of this term. A great number of people are called "righteous" in God's sight, yet there are "none righteous, no, not one" [Rom 3:10].

Prevailing thought in Protestant denominations is that Mary was certainly not sinless, generally righteous and approved by God though she certainly was. But the sin nature, which the Bible says is passed down through the father, doesn't carry over from mother to child.

> Jesus' saying "call no man father" is a clear indication that he though of family in these terms, rather than purely as bloodlines.

I don't know. The context of this quote is Jesus' objection to someone naming *him* "father" as a spiritual title. The frequent approved uses of "father" to describe a biological father would suggest that this passage has little relevance to matters of biological family. It was the how this man was using the term, as spiritual deference appropriate only to God the Father, that Jesus objected to.