Immaculate Conception: Bible & Patristics

Biblical hermeneutics allows typology as a Biblical means of interpretation but there is no way it allows contradictions to occur. Therefore, if X contradicts X, it is not Biblical: X=XThe Word = God by nature (cf. John 1:1).X=/=X ( RCC dogma)Mary,born w/out sin=/=Mary, born with sin ( Rom. 8:3,Lk. 1:28)Pro wrote: This is just splitting of hairs in terminology. Whether you say second, last or new they are all the same.Response:To say that Jesus is the "Last Adam" means that there is no other "Adams."This means that Jesus must be impeccable because he must not commit the same error the first Adam did (cf. Genesis 3).Hence, the appelations second Adam and Last Adam are not the same.In fact, the Apostles never records a phrase "Second Adam"in the entire NT Scriptures.Pro wrote:As the fall of mankind came about by the disobedience of both Adam and Eve it is logical that there be a new Adam and a new Eve to "make all things new." Together Adam and Eve changed creation, together Jesus and Mary changed creation.Response: Pro's argument clearly, explicitly and obviously contradicts the Scriptures:Romans 5:19New International VersionFor just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.New Living TranslationBecause one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous.English Standard VersionFor as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.New American Standard Bible For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.Compare Pro's argument with Romans 5:19: As the fall of mankind came about by the disobedience of both Adam and Eve it is logical that there be a new Adam and a new Eve to "make all things new." Together Adam and Eve changed creation, together Jesus and Mary changed creation.Pro wrote: In my last round I clearly showed how the Church Fathers alluded to Mary as the new Eve.Con goes on to state that for impeccable to be applied to Mary that she need to be sinless in both original sin and personal sin yet it is clear that she needed a saviour just like the rest of Humanity. To which the Catholic doctrine of Infallibility perfectly aligns. The Catholic teaching is that by a singular grace (returning to my argument about honouring thy father and mother) Mary's salvation was applied at the moment of conception saving her even from the stain of original sin. Thus there is no conflict between Con's argument and what the Catholic Church teaches about the immaculate conception.Response: 1. None of the Fathers quoted made explicit statements about Mary as New Eve.Contextually, we see that they simply discussed her role as opposite to Eve's action not that she's an another Eve (i.e. the New Eve).In fact, no church father is infallible, that is why if these fathers found to be contradicting the writings of the Apostles( Romans 5:19), then, they're teaching a false doctrine ( 2 Peter 2:1-3). 2. Pro's argument is null and void because no where in the Scriptures is Mary taught to be impeccable. Mary wasn't impeccable for she received "grace" ( Luke 1:28). Her flesh is the "flesh of sin" in which the Son of God was made like unto ( Romans 8:3, Philippians 2:7).In fact, we have an early church father's teaching, which he received from the church before him, that Mary sinned ( citing Luke 2:35). His name is Origen ( A.D. 184-253).Source: Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii"The New ArkPro's argument holds no water. Mary wasn't holy in the sense that she was without sin in her conception because if Pro is really consistent in his argument , then, the pre-existing materials needed to make the OT Ark must be sacred too before its usage. This is abdurd. The acacia and gold used were consubstantial (of same substance) with the source it came from and clearly all creation were under God's curse ( Genesis 3, Romans 8:28) and therefore, Mary must have been born with sin for she was the NT Ark.Pro wrote: As Christ is the New Adam he required a New Garden of Eden (a place of perfection). The womb of a New Eve protected from even the stain of sin would be the new Garden of Eden in which the new Adam spent his first days on earth. Response: The New Testament never ever speaks of a "New Adam." If Pro continually supports this notion, then, he is following a "different Christ" other than the Christ of the Scriptures ( 2 Corinthians 11:4).Pro flatly contradicts Romans 8:3, Phil. 2:7 and Luke 1:28 and obviously contradicts the ark-hood of Mary when he affirms that Mary's a New Garden of Eden as a reason of her being immaculately conceived.Pro misundersstood my arguments on Romans 8:3. Therefore, I will again explain it in another form: Romans 8:3 The Son was sent in the likeness of flesh of sin. Philippians 2:7 The Son became the likeness of menWho is Jesus' mother? Mary ( Acts 1:14). Is Mary's flesh holy or a flesh of sin? Romans 8:3 says it's flesh of sin. Did Jesus got his flesh from Mary? Yes. By means of the Holy Spirit's power. Mary conceived miraculously without natural means (Matthew 1, Luke 1).Did Jesus inherit he original sin? No. Why did Jesus did not inherit the original sin? It is because he was made in the likeness only not sameness of Mary's sinful flesh. The early church fathers agree. O.S. free sperm + the Virgin's O.S. infected egg = Jesus the Messiah Pro did not refute my arguments about Luke 1:28. He just quoted Jude 1:24 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23 ( both which do not even talk about grace preventing us to sin but God himself). Pro misunderstood my quotations of the post-nicene fathers. I merely used them to support that ( as I have already quoted an early church father) they received the same unbroken line of succession of doctrine just as it is written," the faith that was once delivered unto the saints" ( Jude 1:3). I already shown that Pro's arguments on the following as unbiblical: 1) Luke 1:282) Romans 8:33) New Eve: Mary4) New Adam: JesusPro insisted that to be in enmity with someone means to be always opposed to that someone. I never found any English dictionary that has the adverb "always" in its meaning. Lastly, Gregory T. may share the belief of the post-nicene fathers because as Pro argues, the original sin wasn't yet systematized but later. Therefore, we cannot make a supporting argument using this church father, knowing that his timeline and the scriptural eisegesis (he might have taught if in case he viewed I.C.), are all irrelevant to the Biblical truths evinced.Sola Scriptura! Soli Deo Gloria!