The Immaculate Conception is biblically accurate

IntroductionMy thanks to GOP for his initial counter arguments and also request that voters do no hold the 2nd round "forfeit" in any way against him.I thank Con for pointing out the error in source [6] - I have fixed it below.Reaffirming arguments I am maintaining the same numbering scheme so that readers may easily follow the arguments/counter arguments.1. 4th CommandmentCon's argument against God blessing Mary with every grace is based on personal opinion on what graces God can bestow. The Catholic teaching is that the merits of Christ's sacrifice were applied to Mary from the beginning of her existence. The typical analogy is one of a mud puddle being sin. We have fallen in the mud and Jesus lifts us out. With Mary he pulled her back before she could fall in. In both cases it is only by God's grace that we are saved.The other half of his argument is that God perfectly honour's Mary, without actually giving her every Grace that he could. Con wants you to believe that God can perfectly honour his mother, while intentionally withholding gifts from her. Does that strike you as perfectly honouring or imperfectly honouring?Instead the Catholic argument is that God reserved one particular grace to be bestowed on his mother, that he gave to no other human. This is not to say that Mary was incapable of sin, but only that God gave her every grace to resist sin - which she did use in humility and trust to avoid sin.God gave her everything he could to honour her and thus perfectly honoured her. 2. Full of GraceCon argues that kecharitomene does not mean full of grace but instead highly favoured and uses Strong's Concordance as a reference.From word 5487 in Strong's Concordance [21]: So charitoo is to endow with grace and freely bestowed favour. So which is right in this case? HELPS Word-studies clarifies this nicely [21]:properly, highly-favoured because receptive to God's grace. 5487 (xaritoo) is used twice in the NT (Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6), both times of God extending Himself freely to bestow grace (favour).Let's see what Ephesians 1:6 says [22]:Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son. So God's favour is the bestowing of his grace. Thus Grace and favour are essentially interchangeable in the sense that God's grace is God's favour. The grace that Mary received was gifted to her and does not emanate from her.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 - i.e. full of Grace.3. GraceCon does not contest that Grace can prevent one from sinning. Given that we have confirmed that Mary was completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowed with grace, the logical conclusion is that Mary was completely free from sin.4. EnmityCon's counter argument is that we cannot conclude from Genesis that God putting enmity between "the Woman" (which he does not contest is Mary) and the serpent means that Mary was sinless.Con's counter was that Romans 3:23 shows that Mary had sinned. So let's see what that actually says [23]:For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.Now Con has already made one exception to the above statement by saying that Jesus is not included in all. So are there any other exceptions to this? Well let's read earlier in Romans 3 shortly before this text. None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Romans 3:10-14 [24] This chapter is obviously about personal sin as it is about things people do. A newborn is not guilty of personal sin and until the age of reason none of us can be guilty of personal sin. So there are literally millions of souls excluded from Romans 3:23. Thus 'all' does not mean ALL in an absolute sense, but rather in a normative sense.In fact if Mary was sinful then she would have been at enmity while Jesus was in her womb and while she taught him as a child. This is illogical and I'll expand on this point further in the New Eve section below.In fact the exact opposite can be gleaned from scripture:And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. - Luke 1:46 [3]If Mary was sinful then she would not magnify the Lord, but like a magnifying glass smudged with grime would instead obscure the Lord. However, if she was free from all sin she would be able to magnify him.5. ArkCon claims that Mary cannot be the new ark of the Covenant because all of creation was affected by the fall. Now on the surface this seems reasonable, but it has 2 problems. The first of which assumes that God cannot sanctify and cleanse something. And yet we see that:So the priests and the Levites were sanctified, to carry the ark of the Lord the God of Israel. - 1 Chronicles 15:14 [25]Additionally this would mean that the tablets on which the 10 Commandments were written remained affected by the fall.This leads to 2 conclusions.a) God cleansed and sanctified the stone tablets of the 10 Commandments and Ark of the Covenant.b) If the old testament is an imperfect prefigurement of the new, then if the old was imperfect the new was perfect. The tablets were an "imperfect" prefigurement of the perfect Jesus, as the Ark was an imperfect prefigurement to the perfect Mary.Now Con's second argument here is that sin is passed on through the "Father's Line" or semen. This puts sin in a materialistic and not spiritual sense. In a patriarchal society, they write in a patriarchal style. Thus the talk is the line of Abraham or Isaac. This does not diminish the relevance of their wives, but only talks in a patriarchal style. Using Con's argument, 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 person would not be in need of God's grace because they would be perfect. Instead, Adam & Eve's sin of disobedience passed on original sin to all of humanity. Jesus was free from all sin (personal and original) because he was God, and Mary was free from sin only through God's grace.6. New EveCon argues that Mary cannot be the "New Eve" because the original Eve was originally sinless. To bolster this argument Con states that Eve's husband was the sinless Adam and Mary was married to the sinful Joseph.This is a very weak argument as Jesus did not come from Joseph, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. In fact, if Jesus is the new Adam, then he should have begun his physical existence in a new Garden of Eden. Only the perfect unblemished womb of a sinless Mary could provide a new and perfect Garden of Eden for Jesus to commence his human life.Con's second argument here is that Mary fulfilled the purification laws as per Leviticus 12:1-8 after giving birth to Jesus. Con also provided an excellent table that shows how perfectly the Holy Family fulfilled "the Law."So let's break down Leviticus 12 and see if it says what Con thinks it says. The Old Testament contains 3 types of law: moral, ceremonial and civil. Now it was incumbent on all Jews to follow all 3 types. Now since Mary and Joseph obeyed the Law so faithfully they must have been obedient Jews. a) ‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. - Lev. 1:2 [26]Now menstruation cannot be sinful otherwise God would be responsible for all women sinning. And giving birth cannot be a sin otherwise God would have commanded sin:And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth... - Genesis 1:28 [27]So this is a ceremonial law that Mary had to follow and not moral uncleanliness that the woman must be cleansed of. This is further confirmed:Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. Lev 12:4 [26]Leviticus goes on to discuss how if it is a female child she is unclean for longer than for the male child. Once again, clearly ceremonial and not moral in nature. Con's entire argument depends on the following verse:When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. - Lev. 12:6 [26]There is the word - SIN. Con's argument is that because Mary followed the Law she must have been sinful. Doesn't make sense does it? Since the Law had to be obeyed Mary was bound to make the offering regardless of whether she had sinned or not. Offerings can be in repentance, but they can also be in thanks, in that Mary was thankful for being spared from sin by God's grace.Jesus also obeyed the law when not necessary. John the baptist proclaimed baptism for the forgiveness of sins and Jesus was baptized by him for the forgiveness of sins. Does that mean Jesus sinned or does it mean that Jesus submitted to the Law?Clearly the Law was written for a normative state of sinfulness and not for those without sin. And yet those without sin humbly submitted to the Law. Thus Mary's adherence to the Law is not indicative of sin, but of obedience to God.ConclusionsIn this round I have logically and scripturally refuted all of Con's arguments and further reinforced the 6 primary arguments for the Immaculate Conception.References:[6] H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b.[21] http://tinyurl.com...[22] http://tinyurl.com...[23] http://tinyurl.com...[24] http://tinyurl.com...[25] http://tinyurl.com...[26] http://tinyurl.com...[27] http://tinyurl.com...