A counter argument to this has been offered at least once on this thread. I saw no answer to it.
The fact that Mary DIED is proof enough that she was subject to the FULL penalty of sin. Rom. 6:23, Gen. 2:17, 3:19.
Just FYI the Catholic Church is silent on whether or not she died.
Which leads to the next point. If the Virgin Mary had an inherited sin nature (which she most certainly did), she could not bring forth a pure offspring.You disagree then with metmom who thinks the "sin nature" (not a term I am familiar with -- is it in the Bible?) only passes from the man?
But I take it you are saying that God made the embryo, that Jesus is not really descended from anyone through Mary, and that the "substance" she provided was not genetic but nutritive?
Again,no gotchas. This is a line of thought unfamiliar to me.
I think this is pretty clear that the embryo that was deposited in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost contained no taint of sin, and that Mary's womb was SIMPLY THE VEHICLE FOR THE FORMATION OF THE HUMAN BODY OF CHRIST. Into which the "Spirit of Christ" entered AT BIRTH and THUS WAS FORMED THE GOD-MAN.
So John erred when he leaped in Elizabeth's womb because it wasn't his Lord yet, just the body which would later be adopted by investment of the Divine nature at parturition?
I don’t know, MD. I’m asking. Just for a reasoned, well-thought response. With Scripture. That’s all.