But the FACT of the universal sin nature of ALL mankind is not just stated in the book of Romans. My "interpretation" is not at issue since Scripture clearly states repeatedly that no human is without sin. Both the Old and New Testaments speak to this. In fact at the very start when Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, God spoke about the inherited sin nature. To state that Mary was born without a sin nature AND that she never sinned until the day she died is NOT verified anywhere in Scripture. It was a doctrine that developed over many centuries but was NOT held by the Apostles. Not even John, who took care of her, ever mentioned what would HAVE to have been an extraordinary and miraculous thing.
I think you are running away from the singularity of the Virgin Birth. God could have chosen to come among men as he perhaps did to Abraham, as an angelic being. He could have been born, as John the Baptist was, to a mother and a father. That would have made him more like us. But Matthew and Luke tells us this was not the case. Mark says nothing about the matter, and John , like Paul, only tells us that he was born of a woman. John does tell us that he was divine, something that Luke tells us only by implication. Luke, however, tells us far more about Mary than any other Evangelist, and we are left with no doubt about her holiness and the most extraordinary nature of the conception of Jesus.
I am not "running away" from anything at all. I have no doubts about the very fitting and proper fulfillment of Messianic prophecy. That God would become man, by a miracle of a virgin, is a major prophecy that set apart the true Messiah from all other pretended ones - and, yes, there were false Messiahs then and still. His place of birth, means of conception, his lineage, his town of origin, his trip to Egypt as a baby and many more events were fulfilled exactly in Jesus Christ. But there was not ONE mention of his mother's sinlessness nor her continued virginity after Christ's birth, not in the Old Testament nor anywhere in the New Testament, nor why it would have been necessary. In fact, the New Testament speaks of the brothers and sisters of Jesus multiple times, so why is that ignored?
As to the argument that her immaculate conception derived her of free will, we argue that it made her that much more capable of a free choice. Eve was born without sin. How then could God justly punish her for sinning if she had no free will.
I wasn't the one who said she was deprived of a free will in order to have been the mother of the Messiah. My point was that IF she really was free from sin from her own birth, then that would mean she was NOT given a choice in her bearing the Lord. God could certainly chosen another Jewish virgin, I'm pretty sure Mary was not the only one around those times. My contention is that she did not NEED to be sinless in order to be the mother of Jesus, only that she was a virgin - so that the paternity of Jesus would not be doubted - and that she was from the lineage of David and living in the "right" area of the world. But, as I have said many times, if you want to believe this go ahead. I don't and for salient reasons. I think the Roman Catholic Church erred in making this a part of the faith that MUST be held by all who will be saved.
As to the distinction between Jesus before and after the Resurrection: Whatever weakness he had was a matter of his choice. From time to time, he revealed himself, as when he calmed the story seas, and when he stood on the mount of the transfiguration when the glory of the Lord was shown.
My point for mentioning that was simply to dispute that when he was born, he did not "wisp" through Mary's body like a "spirit" but that he was born fully human with a real flesh and blood and bones body. It was the Gnostics that would declare Jesus was not in a physical body. They would have gladly accepted his birth being so miraculous that Mary remained a virgin after the birth. If we're talking about physical virginity, then she could not possibly have continued to be after giving birth. That is not humanly possible. But it does not make sense to insist she did especially since such was not part of any prophecy. I'm not telling you or anyone else to stop believing what you want, just that if we are discussing the subject, I have a different viewpoint and I give my reasons. At no time am I disrespecting Mary or ascribing disrepute to her. She was truly amazing in her depth of faith that at such a young age she could trust that God would provide for her and protect her. Back then, if you aren't aware, women who were betrothed - for a whole year - could not show up pregnant before the marriage is consummated. To do so would prove adultery and the woman could be stoned to death. If you remember, Joseph, when he found out she was with child, sought to "put her away privately" - meaning spare her life by getting her out of town - but the angel appeared to him in a dream to tell him what was going on and to NOT fear to take Mary as his wife. It took a lot of courage and faith for both of them to continue to honor God and proceed with the birth. Here was Joseph, an innocent man, faced with what looked like a woman who was sexually impure that he was engaged to. What would YOU have done? But he was also a man of faith and he trusted that God would provide and protect them both. They are BOTH wonderful examples of faith for us all. They are BOTH to be honored. And I DO.
Wrong. Back then, a pregnant woman betrothed to a man was presumed to be carrying that man's child. Joseph knew Christ was not his child, and did not know He was the Son of God until the angel told him in a dream. That's why he considered putting her away privately. Tradition, which you laugh at, says that Joseph was very old, and not expected to be a father by anyone.