Yes. Although I would word it different.
It wasn't preserved from sin. He had none.
The sin nature comes through the father, not the mother.
Also, what Catholics claim God did for Mary in conception, having been carried by a sinful mother and yet remaining free from the stain of sin, He could have done for Jesus, being carried by a sinful mother.
It's totally inconsistent to argue that Mary had to be free from sin in order to carry Jesus and have Him be free from sin, and yet claim that very thing for Mary.
If God could do it for Mary, a mere human, then He could certainly do it for His own son. If He couldn't do it for His son, then He couldn't do it for Mary.
What it does is portray Jesus as being weaker than Mary in that He could not have been born sinless or protected from sin, being born of a sinful mother, but yet Mary could.
Sin is not transferred by touch or osmosis. It cannot be absorbed. The sin nature is inherent in us as human beings. We sin because we're sinners.
Romans 5:12-13 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Romans 5:15-19 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For 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.
And yes, Eve did sin when she ate. But sin was not counted until ADAM ate. It was after he ate, too, that the eyes of both of them were opened and sin entered the world.
I honestly don't know what the outcome would have been had Adam refused to eat and exercised his authority in the situation.
There is OT Scripture that holds the man responsible to a degree for vows made by his wife or daughter.
He can release them from those vows if he chooses. If he doesn't, they are then bound by them.
Be that as it may, Adam did eat and we are here stuck with dealing with the consequences of that action.
I agree with you that logically, there was no necessity for Mary to be free from sin, in order for Jesus to be likewise free, even though from her He derived His human nature. I realize that has been offered by some Catholics as a necessary reason for the Immaculate Conception, but I do not think it's necessary (and I don't think the Church has an official dogma that says it's necessary.)
I'm not sure what to make of the "sin is transmitted by the male parent" argument.
They new reproductive technology is producing offspring in animals and will soon produce offspring in humans, that have no biological father.
I'm not just talking about cloning: that has been around since Dolly the Sheep 20 years ago. I'm talking about the more recent stuff with mitochondrial DNA transfers resulting in an offspring with 3 genetic parents: a man, a woman, and another woman who supplies the mitochondria. This has rapidly led to research about plucking out some haploid egg DNA and joining it to a second ovum, to fertilize it.
I assume we will live to see babies that are genetically fatherless. They're on the verge of it. At first it will be touted as therapeutic somehow. Later it'll be something appealing to lesbians, I suppose: two-female-genetic-parent babies.
It seems implausible that those babies would be free from the effects of Original Sin and would be as perfect in their natures as Adam and Eve were in Eden.
So (I'm groping here) I think that the weakness and blight of our nature results simply from our having been transmitted a human nature from human parents. However the cytotechnology of that may be. Otherwise, what we need is not a Savior, but eugenics at the molecular level.
Your thoughts?