Did Mary make an offering for sin?

[Daniel_Marsh]

Today a co-worker of mine put forth an objection to the Immaculate Conception that I had never heard before. It goes something like this:

In Luke 2:24, Mary and Joseph offer two turtledoves as an offering at the temple. This was prescribed in Leviticus 12 which says one of the doves is for a sin offering. Mary’s presentation of this offering implies that she was sinful, for why would you make a sin offering if you are sinless?

Any ideas on how to answer this objection?

Thanks!

Jesus is included in the words “their purification”, is your co-worker willing to make the same claims for Jesus as he did for Mary here? ask him where does it say that Joseph needed to be purified? Both the Mother and Child made contact with the Blood, not Dad.

Luke 2:21-24

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

Leviticus 12

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.
" ‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’ "

Exodus 13:2
“Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal.”

Exodus 13:12-16
you are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD.13 Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.

14 “In days to come, when your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ say to him, ‘With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed every firstborn in Egypt, both man and animal. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.’ 16 And it will be like a sign on your hand and a symbol on your forehead that the LORD brought us out of Egypt with his mighty hand.”

 

[guanophore]

Actually, everything Dave said is true. And the Bible itself speaks very specifically about teaching doctrine that is NOT in the Bible. Why is what Dave said hatefulness? I see him as presenting what he believes…just as you have.

Really? Where does the Bible say that?

 

[guanophore]

Sancifying grace can make Mary perfect because there is a blank slate to styart with.

Sanctifying grace CANNOT make perfect what original sin ALREADY IS!

I think there is a flaw in this arguement. If sanctifying grace cannot make us perfect when we are born under original sin, we are all in trouble, because none of us will ever get to heaven.

Anyone who denies the Immaculate conception of mary by definition causes Jesus to unite with sin!

I agree that the doctrine was developed because of the theology of the incarnation. However, one could also postulate that the flesh Jesus took from Mary was cleansed as He took it on.

 

[PC_Master]

I think there is a flaw in this arguement. If sanctifying grace cannot make us perfect when we are born under original sin, we are all in trouble, because none of us will ever get to heaven.

Indeed.

I agree that the doctrine was developed because of the theology of the incarnation. However, one could also postulate that the flesh Jesus took from Mary was cleansed as He took it on.

This is the point I’ve been trying to make. Yes, God could have made Mary be without sin, and thus have no sinfulness pass to Jesus. But he could also have made Jesus without sin, while Mary was still a sinner.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I have been toying with these arguments in the past, but there are a few fundamental points being overlooked.

The flesh and blood of Jesus are for the purpose of sacrifice according to the law in order to redeem us.
The reason God became incarnate was to provide a sacrifice for our redemption.

A simple summary of the requirements of this sacrifice are 1) Is is to have no defect whatsoever in it 2) It is not to even have been repaired from a wound.

Neither of these two conditions applies to the parent of the offspring. While it is indeed possible that Jesus could have saved only his own flesh, and not that of his mother – it would violate the principle of the sacrifice. Eg: his own flesh would be salvaged, and hence would have a debt against it directly – and not be worthy of sacrifice. That God intended to save our flesh from the beginning is a fact, and so that our flesh would be involved (in spite of sin) is also a fact.

But notice: the salvage taboo does not apply to the parent of the sacrifice:
For a very concrete example consider the sheep that Jacob took from Lablan – only the speckled, spotted, DEFECTIVE sheep – and these sheep are the ancestors of those whom would be used in sacrifice many years later without spot, speckle, or defect. In other words, it is clearly acceptable for one of the parental (or grand-parental) sheep to have been saved or ransomed in some way.

Now consider the problem in more detail:

The requirements of the sacrifice are also:
1b) That it be human to redeem other humans, (Like pays for like, similar undoing is required for similar doing)
eg: it had to come from human generation or else it would be a new creation and not salvation. If God had intended a new creation, there would have been no reason for an incarnation AT ALL and especially no reason for entering a human womb. Contact with sin has nothing to do with the argument as yet.

2b) A son, genetically, is an XY creature while a woman (natural) is only an X. If God created the Genetics ‘on the fly’ one is open to the objection that the flesh is not entirely human – but either created, simulated, etc. So there is at least a partial UN-likeness of the human flesh, which brings its sufficiency as mentioned in (1b) into question.

3b) There is also the possibility that the difference in males and females had to both be accounted for in the saving flesh. Presumably male includes female, so it is sufficient – but this still needs some exploration scripturally / philosophically.

A consistent solution to this problem can only be had by a reversal of some kind (saving) of the original fall to be found in Adam and Eve – since nature as we know it contains any biological change effected by the fall, one can reasonably expect a perfectly saved being from having it undone in some way.

In other words, Mary had masculine seed within her as perhaps did Eve before the fall. In precisely what way, I do not know – but the messiah is the seed of the Woman – not the man – according to scripture, and this is consistent with the view I am proposing.

I had also begun to deal with the issue of there only being a ‘Single’ sacrifice of turtledoves rather than a plurality – which may not have been sufficient for a sin offering in another thread. Search my back posts if you’re interested – but the adversary on that thread seems to have given up prematurely to finish the argument.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

We are cleansed from original sin by baptism but the effects of it–such as concupiscence or inclination towards sin remain after baptism.

Jesus had to be born of a sinless Mary because even if Mary’s humanity was cleansed when He united with it it would still be wounded as we are after Baptism–that is He would be joining with a wounded humanity that was inclined to sin.

That humanity being cleansed would not repair that wound!

When God did intervene by providing Mary with sancitfying grace at the exact moment that Mary’s original sin father and original sin mother’s egg and and father’s sperm united–any wounding effects of original sin weren’t cleansed–they were cancelled! No effects of original sin ever took root!

Any original sin Mary produces a wounded humanity for Jesus to unite with and that results in an imperfect sacrifice.

Any Mary in a pre-fall state such as Eve without original sin results in a perfect humanity which Jesus can unite with.

Concupiscence after Baptism–inclination towards sin after baptism proves that cleansing–even as cleansing as takes place in Baptism–while that may be enough to get us to Heaven–it is not enough to reverse the wound of original sin.

Jesus cannot unite with imperfect humanity!

And yes I do believe that it is Satan’s wish that people believe that Jesus could unite with imprefect humanity!

That’s how Satan blasphemes God–He wants peope not to believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Virgin birth of Jesus that resulted in God fused with perfect pre-fall humanity that would be worthy to perform the perfect sacrifice.

Satan wants people to believe in Jesus giving an imperfect sacrifice!

If you believe in the perfect humanity of Jesus that was truely received from His mother Mary you have to believe in the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.

God does not unite with the effects of original sin!

If Baptism can’t cleanse away the effects of original sin–what can?

Nothing. That’s why God chose to create Mary–not by an original sin conception like all the rest of us–but by an Immaculate Conception–so she could give that perfect pre-fall humanity to Jesus who would perfectly offer it in sacrifice to God at Calvary!

God is smart enough to beat Satan!

That’s how He defeated the effects of original sin that Satan brought!

Thanks be to God!

 

[PC_Master]

Jerry> You’re repeating the same thoughts ad-nauseam, but you still haven’t answered my questions.

Let’s start simple.

When Mary was conceived, you claim she was spared original sin due to divine intervention. You’re saying that God effectively blocked original sin from becoming a part of Mary, while allowing all the rest of humanity to become a part of Mary (whether it came genetically, spiritually, or some other way seems of little consequence). Therefore, Mary was fully human, but didn’t have a sinful nature. Is that a correct assessment?

Yes, or no? If no, then please explain how my above statement is incorrect in your view.

After we get through that much, then perhaps we can move on.

 

[fellowChristian]

Tradition / Church Fathers

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” **Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244). **

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.”** Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370). **

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” **Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370). **

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” **Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373). **

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.”** Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388). **

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” **Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415). **

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” **Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446). **

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” **Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446). **

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” **Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449). **

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” **Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521). **

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” **Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650). **

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” **Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733). **

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” **Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733). **

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

Well here are writtings from as far back as 235 ad. from the Early Church Fathers and what was being taught at that time until now. The Catholic Church ,which dates back to the time of Christ the only Christian church that can, has passed this down by mouth and by letter.

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-II

 

[Jerry-Jet]

God can create perfect humanity before there is any humanity as in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

God can not create perfect humanity after humanity becomes imperfect.

It is a logical impossibility.

 

[tyson]

Jesus is included in the words “their purification”, is your co-worker willing to make the same claims for Jesus as he did for Mary here? ask him where does it say that Joseph needed to be purified? Both the Mother and Child made contact with the Blood, not Dad.

Luke 2:21-24

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

Leviticus 12

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.
" ‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’ "

Exodus 13:2
“Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal.”

Exodus 13:12-16
you are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD.13 Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.

14 “In days to come, when your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ say to him, ‘With a mighty hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed every firstborn in Egypt, both man and animal. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.’ 16 And it will be like a sign on your hand and a symbol on your forehead that the LORD brought us out of Egypt with his mighty hand.”

 

[Jerry-Jet]

“This is my beloved Son in who I’m well pleased.”

Who believes that God ever said “this is my beloved Son who needs to be purified because He is ceremonially unclean to me”?

 

[PC_Master]

God can create perfect humanity before there is any humanity as in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

At what point does there become “any humanity”? Are you saying that Mary’s conception didn’t happen from genetic material from her mother and father?

God can not create perfect humanity after humanity becomes imperfect.

And at what point would this have happened if Mary had been a sinner?

If God could cleanse Mary of any stain of original sin at the moment of her conception, and yet allow every other bit of humanity to pass to her from her parents, why couldn’t he do the same with Jesus? Jesus’ humanity did not exist prior to his conception, so why couldn’t God intervene at the point of his conception?

“This is my beloved Son in who I’m well pleased.”

Who believes that God ever said “this is my beloved Son who needs to be purified because He is ceremonially unclean to me”?

You’re asking a “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” question.

Jesus was not unclean in any way. The question is, was he that way because of how he was conceived – by divine intervention at that moment, or as a natural consequence of Mary’s supposed perfection? Why is one more logical than the other?

And Jerry, why can’t you just answer the simple questions I’m asking, rather than repeating your points over and over again?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I am saying that there is more to the conception of the human person than just the fusing of genetic material.

The substantiality of a human person is more than just the matter that forms the accidents that we view as a person’s body.

Only God can create the totality of a human person and that humanity is more than just body and soul.

The fact that you PC Master are not able to fathom substantiality does not indicate whether or not it exists just as the fact that no one can observe the human soul does not indicate whether or not it exists.

Mary’s humanity would be imperfect if it were ever effected by original sin–the precise time this happens is immaterial.

What isn’t immaterial is the fact that whenever Jesus became human if Mary was His mother He could only draw that humanity from her.

And why is it that Mary can draw her humanity straight from God and Jesus can’t?

Because God can create that humanity for Mary just like He created the humanity of Adam and Eve.

It is different for Jesus. If His humanity comes directly from God with no (name removed by moderator)ut from Mary He can not REVERSE what sin had done to humanity.

If Mary is ever effected by original sin in ANY way then Jesus as God can not join with that sin!

Surely you would understand PC Master that God will have nothing do with sin.

It would be quite simple for Jesus to unite with any perfect humanity that God might want to create.

What would be so great about that?

It would be quite another thing for Jesus as God to lower Him self to the point that He would come from Mary not only as flesh from flesh but as Substantial person from substantial person!

Why–that would make Jesus truely man! Would that upset you PC Master?

And let’s get something straight.

Original sin is not altogether about cleansing a stain.

Original sin is the privation or absence of sanctifying grace.

Baptism cleanses us from any stain of original sin and washes us clean.

Baptism does not return us to a state of sanctifying grace such as Adam and Eve had before the fall that had no inclination towards sin.

Even directly after we are baptized and cleansed we still have an inclination towards sin.

Jesus did not ever have an inclination towards sin even though He was tempted to sin.

So we know that merely cleansing original sin is not good enough!

And we know if the substantiality of Jesus’s person came from the substantiality of Mary’s person then merely cleansing her of original sin wouldn’t restore her to non inclination towards sin just like baptism does not restore us to non inclination towards sin!

A Totally depraved sin infested Mary is Substantiality not good enough for the son of God to draw his personhood from PC Master!

Perfection can’t come from non perfection!

True man that will redeem man can’t come from any newly created perfect humanity that God could create outside of currrent fallen man.

That humanity might indeed be perfect.

But it would not be what current man is!

Bottom line: Mary’s humanity could be perfect through the Immaculate Conception.

Jesus’ humanity must by definition come from the humanity of Mary–it couldn’t come from another Immaculate conception because that would be the creation of another Adam and Eve humanity–it wouldn’t be able to redeem the first Adam and Eve humanity!

Mary can be created from a blank slate!

Jesus by definition can’t be created from a blank slate–He must come from the slate of Mary–she is the mother of God–not the womb bearer of a new humanity!

Oh and by the way PC Master–I will never answer your questions in the way that you would want them to be answered.

You asked why Jesus couldn’t have been created perfectly like Mary and I have told you why–Mary is a human just like Adam and Eve who can receive all their humanity directly from God.

Jesus to be able to redeem mankind must receive His humanity indirectly from God through Mary so He can REVERSE what is wrong with fallen humanity. He can’t do that with perfect humanity NOT FROM humanity but from a newly created perfect humanity!

And also don’t worry PC Master about repeating my points over and over again–every single time you see fit to maintain that Jesus can unite with totally sin infested depraved humanity of Mary I will refute that!

Every single time you maintain that God can create a new perfect humanity for Jesus without Jesus drawing his humanity from Mary I will refute that!

No PCMaster–it is Infinitely logical to see how God can create a perfect humanity for Mary through the Immaculate Conception–yet not do it in the same way for Jesus becuse more was required of Jesus–He didn’t have to only have a perfect humanity–He had to derive humanity from men so He could REVERSE what had been done to them!

That takes a real savior!

That’s the Fullness of Truth that Catholics believe and shows the inadequacy of what Protestants believe!

 

[PC_Master]

Rhetoric notwithstanding, you seem to have introduced another sidetrack on the issue.

Let’s try to get to the basics of what you’re claiming here.

As I understand your argument (in its current form, for it’s gone through many mutations I believe):

1. Mary was created directly by God, fully human but without original sin. By comparison, every other child gets original sin (along with their physical characteristics) from their parents.
2. Jesus could not have been directly created by God, because if he were, somehow he wouldn’t be able to redeem fallen humanity from our sin.
3. Mary was fully human, but not a descendant of fallen human beings (her parents, etc). Jesus, as a descendant of Mary, gets all of his humanity from Mary (somehow), and is a descendant of a human (but not a fallen one, nor one that has fallen ancestors?), so is capable of redeeming humanity.

So, apparently, ancestry doesn’t matter, but yet it does?

Can I ask – anyone else reading all this – is it just me, or is Jerry being difficult to understand? I realize most of you agree with his conclusions because you’re all Roman Catholics, but do you comprehend his reasoning? If so, can you please try to explain it to me?

 

[paarsurrey]

Today a co-worker of mine put forth an objection to the Immaculate Conception that I had never heard before. It goes something like this:
In Luke 2:24, Mary and Joseph offer two turtledoves as an offering at the temple. This was prescribed in Leviticus 12 which says one of the doves is for a sin offering. Mary’s presentation of this offering implies that she was sinful, for why would you make a sin offering if you are sinless?
Any ideas on how to answer this objection?
Thanks!

Hi

If a man/woman is sinless/innocent even then he/she has to do good deeds to please GodAllahYHWH like praying, helping the poor that would raise one’s value before God.
The same way there is no objectionable thing if a sinless person offers sacrifices, in no way it could make one sinless.

Thanks

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Rhetoric
Can I ask – anyone else reading all this – is it just me, or is Jerry being difficult to understand? I realize most of you agree with his conclusions because you’re all Roman Catholics, but do you comprehend his reasoning? If so, can you please try to explain it to me?

Yes… I think the proper word is etherial, no um ephemeral, or perhaps sublime? Oh I don’t know – but yes I can see why you might not get all he says.

I posted earlier, and started to lay a framework, perhaps I can help after a detour addressing Paarsurrey.

Hi
The same way there is no objectionable thing if a sinless person offers sacrifices, in no way it could make one sinless.
Thanks

I see you have settled a point. Dare I ask why you are being so kind? I mean if the sacrifice was a Sin offering, then it sort of raises the question why it was offered. But – I do agree, as a sinless person – offering a sin sacrifice does nothing for the person offering it.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is what God did TO man.

The Incarnation of Jesus is what God did THROUGH man.

The redemption of man took BOTH God working to Man AND THROUGH man.

Both/and is Catholic.

The Protestant mind can only fathom either/or!

“Son of man” is not just the son of Adam and Eve’s pefect humanity or Mary’s perfect humanitty–it is also Son of that humanity which remains after the fall that is still not bad!

Protestants cannot fathom that all of man is not bad AFTER the fall.

God denied Adam and Eve sancitfying grace and because it they suffered many effects.

They did not however become totally depraved.

Jesus not only worked with man’s perfect humanity but with that humanity which after the fall was not bad–in fact he worked THROUGH that humanity.

That’s what a Real Redeemer does.

Is that hard to understand?

 

[PC_Master]

Huiou> I look forward to your explanation.

Jerry> I don’t think you have clarified anything.

 

[SPH1]

Hi
Mary did sin, Romans 3:23 says that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Jesus would not be included in ALL because he is God.

This also refers to one’s own efforts. Mary was aided by a special grace, so wasn’t really completely under her own efforts.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

PCMaster,
I apologize for the delay as I was at the hospital all day unexpectedly – and am a bit flustered.

Let’s try to restart here:

I have been toying with these arguments in the past, but there are a few fundamental points being overlooked.

The flesh and blood of Jesus are for the purpose of sacrifice according to the law in order to redeem us.
The reason God became incarnate was to provide a sacrifice for our redemption.

Now, there is no logic binding God to redeem mankind in this way.
If he could save one person, he can save all persons.
So, If he could have saved the flesh of Jesus directly – it follows that God could have saved the sinful flesh of Cain, Seth, and all others from the first generation directly also – so that there would be no sin to begin with in any human generation.

However, the first creation was insufficient to withstand the temptation of the devil – and in some way this weakness is to be found in the flesh of man.

(Genesis records Eve as being bone and flesh – but not spirit of Adam, so that the traditional interpretation is that the spirit is a separate entity created by God directly for each human being but the flesh/bone is inherited.)

Scripturally, the form of the body is known as the soul – ψυχη. Eg: Ezeki 18:20 – and presumably contains all ideas related to genetics and epigentics, for this is what “forms” the body as a living organism. (Crudely speaking).

A spirit, which is superior to a mere soul, and often used synonymously of the soul, is an immortal version of the soul created by God – which means man is composed of distinct parts (composite) body-soul and an immaterial spirit. The exact relation of these is a philosophical question and beyond what I can discuss in detail today.

Since God did not choose to save Adam and Eve immediately, their offspring inherited their flesh and bones in a damaged condition. The body which is formed by the soul is damaged. The spirit, then, is joined to a body and soul which affect it – and damage it as well – eg: the damage is contagious.

Now, historically, God entered into dialog with fallen man rather than the immediate fix. In this dialog, God – in his mercy and justice – made promises to Adam and Eve about their eventual salvation. He then proceeded to enter into Oaths with certain members of the human family, which restricted the way in which he chose to save us.
That is the history of the Torah, the Law of Moses, and of sacrifice.

There is, in the sacrificial law, a payment to appease God for the damage done by transgression. Hence, the idea that sacrifice Pays back for the sin which damaged God’s creation (or alternately that the punishment deserved by man is inflicted on a victim so that justice is served.)

However, those in poverty can’t pay – and this is where the idea of mercy comes in. For without mercy, no one would be saved – and if God saved no one, he could not be called merciful. If he was not paid back, then there would be no justice. So God chose (arbitrarily?) a method of salvation in accord with who he is – a revelation of himself.

From here on out, it is a discussion of how these elements interact which logically demonstrate the immaculate conception – and why God chose to save a mother over just Jesus himself. I’m sure at this time you have questions and objections, – and I would rather have you respond – than guess at them so our conversation is more productive.