The Immaculate Conception is biblically accurate

My thanks to Con.Final Rebuttals1. 4th CommandmentCon has essentially dropped my argument how God can perfectly honour Mary without giving her every Grace. Con's rebuttals have brought us to Catholic vs. Protestant salvation theology. This topic is by far too great to be fully debated in this brief round, so I'll provide a brief rebuttal.We are in full agreement that the grace to desire God comes not from us, but from God:But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13Con uses Deuteronomy 10:17 to show that God is not partial, let's see what it says:Because the Lord your God he is the God of gods, and the Lord of lords, a great God and mighty and terrible, a who accepteth no person nor taketh bribes. This shows that God judges all equally. It does not state that he gifts all equally. In the parable of the talents God (Matthew 25:14-30) he gives one man 5 talents another 2 and a third 1. He judges each of them fairly based on what they did with what they were given. In fact Christ confirms this in Luke 12:48:And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.Thus it is not that God cannot choose which graces to give us, but that we are responsible to the level of grace that has been given unto us.Thus sanctifying grace is a supernatural disposition that perfects the soul to enable it to live with God, just as Mary lived with Christ in her womb. This grace is normally conferred at baptism and lost with mortal sin or as St. Paul states:I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (1 Cor 9:27) That God uniquely applied this grace to Mary at the moment of her conception thus preventing her from being subject to Original is uniquely graced to her because of God Perfectly honouring her.2. Full of GraceCon has argued that "but I am arguing that grace was not FULL. Sure, she may have received grace, but did the amount of grace ever get full?"Con is arguing that when almighty God fully graces you that... eh you might get some you might not others it really is a toss up. Strong's #5487: To make graceful, to endow with grace. As previously stated Greek verbs ending in oo "frequently express the full intensity of the action." [5][6] The perfect present tense of the word notes that it is an act that occurred in the past and continues in effect up to the present.Thus Mary has been made graceful with the full intensity of the action in the past (i.e. every possible grace) in a manner that continues to the present. Thus Luke 1:28And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [3] Is perfectly valid in what it says.3. GraceCon has conceded that grace can prevent one from sinning.4. EnmityCon concedes that "All" in all have sinned does not mean "All" it now just means all adults. And that my argument would only make sense if "Bible said, "all EXCEPT MARY have sinned"". Where all does not include newborns, toddlers and Jesus - none of whom were exempted from all in the first place. So basically Con is arguing that all includes everyone - except those that don't seem to agree with what he wants "all" to mean.So let's consider this passage:And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. - Mark 1:5 Does this mean that everyone who was not Jesus, a newborn or an infant went out to be baptized? No. Both use word 3956 in Strong's Concordance [28] and yet neither is an absolute. If we use HELPS Word-studies:3956 /pas ("each, every") means "all" in the sense of "each (every) part that applies."So whole in this case is in a global sense and not in an individual sense and is for "each part that applies." Thus Jesus is not included here because he does not apply. If Mary had not sinned she would not apply. This verse is not damning (so to speak) of Mary's sinful nature and thus does not prove Con's counter assertion.Con also argues that magnify (My soul doth magnify the Lord. - Luke 1:46 [3]) does not mean magnify, but instead glorify and praise. Con uses modern protestant translations that would obviously seem to deny the reality of the word. So let's look at the Greek:the word is Megalynei [29] and is word 3170 in Strong's Concordance:Definitions: (a) I enlarge, lengthen, (b) I increase, magnify, extol [30]As an example in 2 Corinthians 10:15 in the NIV [31] and NLT [32] (Con's two quoted translations) use the same word to mean "grow". Thus magnify is clearly the correct translation.5. ArkCon here argues that none are sinless according to 1 John 1:9 instead of Romans 3:23. So let's look at 1 John 1:8-10If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. [33]Once again it is clearly evident that here St. John is referring to personal sin and not original sin and all of the exceptions and arguments made above under enmity apply in this section as well. Thus, this does not prove that Mary was guilty of sin.Con further argues that God's purification / sanctification can only affect the spiritual and not the physical and that all of creation essentially carried "sin" within it and cannot be sanctified. Now both Con and myself agree that Christ was free from sin - no doubt about it. However, if what Con says is true then the act of eating by Christ must make Christ sinful and impure because it is impossible for God to purify physical matter. Thus Christ would be ingesting that which is impure and thus defiling his body.Yet Jesus says: understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him...But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man. - Mark 7:18,20Thus the physical world cannot be intrinsically defiled in the manner that Con describes. Instead original sin causes concupiscence in us. It is this inclination to unjustly desire that which is sinful that causes us to sin. Thus it is not the physical that is innately responsible, but instead that the act of sinning occurs through the physical. Once again this does not prove that Mary was stained with sin. Instead I have shown that the physical does not automatically defile that which is held pure - as was Christ. Thus, if Christ can be maintained pure in a fully impure world, there is no reason that if He graced Mary with an immaculate conception that she too could remain unaffected by a fallen world - if indeed the physical world is fallen in the manner that Con argues.Con does not truly address my argument on scientists combining two eggs to create a new human even though this has been accomplished in other primates. [34] I am providing a very real situation that could be physically accomplished using modern technology. This clearly disproves con's assertion that our sinful nature is passed through sperm.6. New EveThe similarities between Eve and MaryEve came from Adam's flesh, Jesus came from Mary's flesh.Eve said yes to a fallen angel, Mary said yes to a righteous angel.Eve gives birth to sin and death, Mary gives birth to grace and salvation.Adam and Eve cause creation to fall, Christ and Mary bring about salvation.Adam names Eve Woman, Christ names Mary Woman.The parallels between the two are unmistakable. As Con's quotation of 1 Corinthians clearly demonstrated, Adam was an archetype for Jesus. Adam was the original creation who fell that required a new Adam to redeem creation. As Adam was originally without sin, so was the new Adam without sin. Thus as Eve was without sin the new Eve, Mary, was also without sin.Con concedes that menstruation and birth do not create sin, but uncleanliness. Thus uncleanliness is not related to sin, but is merely ceremonial in nature.Con asked for the bible relating to John the Baptist:Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the country about Jordan:And were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. - Matthew 3:5-6As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance - Matthew 3:11Did Christ confess his sins? Did he need repentance? If not, this clearly shows that it was out of obedience to the Father that He was baptized and not because of having sinned. Thus both Jesus and his mother acted out of humble obedience to God the Father. Mary followed the law as required of her even though it wasn't necessary for forgiveness of sin. Like the rest of us Mary's salvation came from Christ, not from herself, however it was applied to her in a different manner.ConclusionsI have defended each of my proposals in this debate.God perfectly honoured Mary by giving filling her perfectly with every grace from the beginning of her existence. Grace has the ability to prevent us from sinning and God promised to put enmity between the Woman and the serpent (devil). To be at enmity would mean that she has no desire to sin, but would instead be free of the concupiscence that comes from original sin. Mary is also the purified perfectly crafted Ark which holds the priest, prophet and kingship of God. And finally Mary is the new Eve - as the original Adam and Eve were sinless so were the new Adam and Eve. Mary was saved by God's grace, but in a unique manner.Thanks to Con and all readers who took the time to read this debate.References[28] http://tinyurl.com...[29] http://tinyurl.com...[30] http://tinyurl.com...[31] http://tinyurl.com...[32] http://tinyurl.com...[33] http://tinyurl.com...[34] http://tinyurl.com...