The Immaculate Conception is biblically accurate

Thanks Pro.I. 4th CommandmentUnconditional election is not personal opinion. It is scriptural. If I show that it's is biblical, then Pro's argument will fall flat. Ephesians 1:4-5 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will"So, believers are chosen by God (instead of believers choosing God). However, we know that God does not choose people based on any worth or merit they have (in this case the merit in question is Mary's motherhood to Jesus). If God chose Mary for salvation because she was Jesus' mother, then God would be showing partiality and be electing her based on some worth that she has. However, Deuteronomy 10:17 (12) says that God is NOT PARTIAL. Thus, it stands to reason that God's election is indeed unconditional (not based on conditions or some other merit) and God bestowing her the grace for salvation had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HER BEING Jesus' mother, lest He becomes impartial.So, in response to Pro's premise that God would bestow Mary every grace for being Jesus' mother, I say that is incorrect. The phrase "every grace" includes saving grace, and God would be unjust if He gave her saving grace for being Christ's mother. Again, God offers saving grace unconditionally. God would of course honor His mother perfectly, but it would be imperfect for Him to be partial at the same time.II. Full of GraceGeogeer's screenshot of Strong's Concordance (word 5487) only strengthens my argument, since it does not show that Mary's POSSESSION OF GRACE was full. It only shows that grace/favor was FREELY BESTOWED. I am not contesting that favor and grace are interchangeable, as mentioned by Strong's Concordance itself. I agree that they are the same thing, but I am arguing that grace was not FULL. Sure, she may have received grace, but did the amount of grace ever get full? It doesn't say that.When Geogeer says, "Returning back to kecharitomene being in the perfect present tense means that Mary has been completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with the favour of God's graces", that only shows that God's ACTION of completely, perfectly, enduringly endowing her with the favor of his graces, that only shows that the ACT OF ENDOWING IT was in full intensity, for everything God does is perfect (13) (which is something we can both agree on). Just because the act of endowing itself is fully intense does not mean Mary's possession of it is full.III. GraceI have showed that Mary did have grace, but does not mean she was FULL of it. Thus, she was not free from sin.IV. EnmityTrue, newborn people have not committed personal sins, but they are still not "righteous" (human beings being unrighteous is the main point; their personal sins just DESCRIBE their unrighteousness as you can see that Paul CONTINUES TO explain their personal acts by starting with man's unrighteousness) since they inherit the sin nature (14). Furthermore, even if we exclude infants from the "ALL" category, we still have adults left. Mary is an adult, and she falls under the "ALL" category. The fact that Pro excludes infants won't help the argument that Mary is among the group that did not commit personal sin. Once again, my point about everybody sinning still stands. If the Bible said, "all EXCEPT MARY have sinned", then Pro's argument would make sense, but it does not.The word "magnify" is synonymous with the word "glorify" and "praise". Pro took a very literal approach to this, which is fallacious. The NIV version says, "And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord" for Luke 1:46 (15). The NLT Bible says, "Mary responded, "Oh, how my soul praises the Lord" (16). Here are the other Bible versions that say pretty much the same thing (17).Can someone that committed personal sins praise the Lord? Of course! King David had done this many times throughout his Psalms, even though we know that he was both a murderer and an adulterer as per 2 Samuel 11 (18). V. ArkPro is talking about literal/physical sanctification here. That's not true, because you know that all of humanity has been affected by the sin nature due to Adam's fall. If pro takes the literal approach, then the priests and the Levites would still be un-sanctified, because that would not remove the sin nature in their genes. If that is true, then they would no longer have sin, but you know that whoever says that they're without sin is spewing falsehood (see 1 John 1:8 (19)). So, we conclude that this must be talking about the spiritual sanctification as opposed to physical/literal sanctification. God makes us righteous through Jesus Christ, but we still have the sin nature. Without the imputed righteousness, the priests and the Levites would not be able to carry the ark of the Covenant as they would still remain unredeemed and thus dead in sin.The truth is that God can of course sanctify and cleanse something (since He is omnipotent). However, we still retain the sin nature. Regarding the tablets: True, ALL of creation got affected, so if the tablets were from the earth, then they were affected. However, they are holy in the sense that they display the holiness of God and how men were supposed to not break them. Sin is both spiritual and physical. It's a spiritual matter because men go to hell for sinning, but physical because we sin due to our nature. If you have any children, pro, then you know that you never had to teach them to be selfish, angry, or to lie. Since they don't have to get taught to do these things, we conclude that this is one way of how sinfulness can be rendered as a physical thing. Pro: "if somebody were to genetically create a person in a lab by combining the genetic material of two female eggs, the resulting human being would be immaculate and without original sin."This is an "if" situation. We know that we need sperm and an egg to make a human being (20). Two eggs do not result in a human. VI. New EveOf course, Jesus did not come from Joseph. What I was trying to convey was that Mary cannot be compared as the New Eve considering that she does not even fulfill the similarities that Eve has (like initially sinless husand, initial purity, etc.).The scriptures may also say that Jesus is the second Adam, but we must think about HOW He is the second Adam. Obviously, Jesus cannot be like Adam in every sense. For example, Jesus can't be NOT divine like Adam, nor can He have a sin nature later on. Jesus cannot also stop being omnipotent, because He is God. So, it is capricious for pro to say that he has to be in a new garden of eden and then say that Mary's "unblemished womb" could suffice for his beginning of His human life.So, in what sense is Jesus the second Adam? Obviously not in any way that compromises Christ's divinity. So, let's check the context of 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 (the passage where Geogeer got the new Adam argument from): "45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven" (21).Here, the context shows that Paul was showing the differences between the two types of bodies: natural and spiritual. As per Genesis 2:7 (22), Adam was made from dust and got the breath of life from God, and Jesus is the life giving Spirit (because He rose from the dead and had a new body that suits for eternal life, just as the first Adam's natural body suits the natural earthly life). Verse 46 says that the natural comes first, THEN the spiritual. People have natural earthly lives first, then they have the spiritual life. Here is what Gotquestions.org says: "Paul is telling us that the natural man, Adam, came first on this earth and was made from the dust of the earth. While it is true that Christ has existed from eternity past, He is here called the second man or second Adam because He came from heaven to earth many years after Adam. Christ came as a human baby with a body like all other humans, but He did not originate from the dust of the earth as had Adam. He “came from heaven" (23).Now, I am not saying that menstruation and giving birth are sinful. I am just saying that they are unclean, and since the uncleanness applies to Mary, then she is not clean as asserted by Pro. The thing we must ask is that would people have had the obligation to do all the ceremonial stuff if Adam had not sinned? No! They were doing all this BECAUSE of the fall. So, the uncleanness is applied to people, and Mary is among them.For the sin offering:I am arguing that the sin offering IMPLIES that Mary has sinned at some point. If not, then why does she even need to bother offering it? Of course the Law had to be obeyed, but you don't need sin offerings (which cover sins) if you have no sin to begin with. This makes sense considering that there was no report of Jesus giving sin offerings in any of the Gospel accounts, since there is no sin in Him. Offerings can also be in thanks, but those go by different names. There are thanksgiving offerings (Leviticus 22:29) and sin offerings, which is a totally different term.Pro has not provided any proof that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Conclusion:I have shown that Mary is sinful. Sources:12. http://tinyurl.com...13. http://tinyurl.com...14. http://tinyurl.com...15. http://tinyurl.com...16. http://tinyurl.com...17. http://tinyurl.com...18. http://tinyurl.com...19. http://tinyurl.com...20. http://tinyurl.com...21. http://tinyurl.com...22. http://tinyurl.com...23. http://tinyurl.com...