The Immaculate Conception is biblically accurate
Pro will be arguing that this is a biblically sound doctrine. Since I am Con, I will do the opposite.
1. You must be a Catholic. No devil's advocates.
2. Your arguments must be based on the 66 books of the Bible that both Protestants and Catholics agree upon (1). Neither the seven books (the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon) that Catholics and Protestants do not agree upon, nor any other religious writings are valid sources for this debate.
3. No trolling or profanity.
4. If you're interested in debating this topic, then you should let me know in the comments section. I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you find a way to accept it, then you forfeit all seven points. You have to personally get my permission to accept this debate.
5. The first round is NOT for acceptance. Provide your arguments for the first round. However, you must stop arguing for your final round in order to balance the number of arguments out. So, all you must do is simply say, "As established by the rules, I will not be posting any arguments here. Goodbye."
1. Immaculate Conception: The Catholic doctrine stating that Mary (the mother of Jesus), "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin" (2).
2. Biblically - "Of, relating to, or contained in the Bible" (3).
3. Accurate - "free from error; conforming to truth" (4).Have fun.
My thanks to GOP for the interesting debate topic. I look forward to a spirited debate.
I'll restate the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the immaculate conception:
"The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854) 
Now the debate topic is whether this is whether this teaching of the Catholic Church as proclaimed by Pope Pius IX is biblically accurate.
Given GOP's religious beliefs I believe that we are both in agreement that all salvation for the human race comes from Jesus Christ and that it is only by God's grace that our sins are forgiven and that we have hope for heaven. Thus "of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race" should not be a contention between us. Thus what we are actually debating is whether by singular grace and privilege Mary was preserved immune from all sin, including original sin, for the entirety of her life.
1. The 4th commandment
The first 3 commandments in the old testament deal with our relationship with God. The first and greatest commandment is:
"I am the Lord thy God...Thou shalt not have strange gods before me." Exodus 20:2-3 
Now if we followed this commandment perfectly there would be no need for any other commandment. The other 9 commandments are essentially rules that enable one to follow the 1st.
What is interesting is that the first commandment dealing with our fellow men is not on sexual sins, murder or theft, but on honouring our parents.
"Honour thy father and thy mother" Exodus 20:12 
This shows the incredibly high value that God places on this commandment. In fact in its own way, if we were to perfectly honour our parents the other commandments on dealing with other people would hardly be necessary as they are things that our parents teach us from a young age.
Now if God places such an emphasis on honouring our parents, how much more would He honour His earthly mother? If God is perfect, would he not honour his mother perfectly? Would He not bestow every grace at His disposal to honour her as only God could?
2. Full of Grace
This leads us into the meat of the discussion - Grace. Above I have just listed off a logical conclusion from scripture as to why God would perfectly grant every grace to his earthly mother. Let's see what scripture has to say concerning the matter:
"And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Luke 1:28 
As we can see that how heaven refers to Mary is exactly what was to be expected from combining God's nature along with His commandments.
Now there are two counter arguments to be made here.
a) This is an English translation and it may not accurately reflect the original Greek intent.
b) It says that Mary was full of Grace at that time, but does not say she always was full of Grace.
By looking at the original Greek term used we can satisfactorily respond to both of these critiques.
By looking at the interlinear Greek text we find that the critical word dealing with Grace is kecharitomene. 
This word is special as it is found nowhere else in the Bible. So let's break it down:
ke: present perfect tense (an action happened in the past that continues up to the present time)
mene: passive participle (Mary received the grace)
Greek verbs ending in oo "frequently express the full intensity of the action."  
"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." 
Thus it is fair to say that Mary was always endowed with the fullness of grace, but does this mean that Mary never had any sin whatsoever?
We can see that sin and grace are opposed to each other:
"...but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:20-21
We know that grace can also prevent us from sinning:
"Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy" Jude 24 
"And may the God of peace himself sanctify you in all things; that your whole spirit, and soul, and body, may be preserved blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thessalonians 5:23 
So if God's grace can preserve one from sinning, it means that one who is always kept from sinning is Kecharitomene - full of grace.
Mary is the fulfilment Genesis 3:15:
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed..." 
Christ makes this apparent as he refers to Mary as Woman:
"And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come." John 2:4 
The bible notes that those who are in sin are the enemies of God - "But God commendeth his charity towards us; because when as yet we were sinners, according to the time, Christ died for us; much more therefore, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." Romans 5:8-10 
Thus whomever is in sin is not the enemy of the Satan (the serpent), but his ally or even his seed! And thus further proof that for Mary to be at enmity with the serpent must have always been free from all sin.
5. The Ark
Mary's sinlessness is made evident by the Ark of the Covenant. Mary was the living Ark for the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity - Jesus, just as the ark of the covenant was for the 10 commandments. In the Ark of the Covenant were the manna, the rod of Aaron, and the stone tablets (Hebrews 9:4 ) - symbols of the priest, king and prophet. Jesus was the high priest, the king of kings and God himself. Thus Mary is the perfect Ark bearing Christ who is the perfection of the old Testament.
God not only meticulously outlined the construction of the Ark in Exodus 25:10-22, but he inspired the craftsman (Uri son of Hur of the tribe of Judah) to construct the ark:
"And I have filled him with the spirit of God, with wisdom and understanding, and knowledge in all manner of work." Exodus 31:3 
In fact the Ark was so Holy that only a select few, after being cleansed, could touch it without dieing:
"And when Aaron and his sons have wrapped up the sanctuary and the vessels thereof at the removing of the camp, then shall the sons of Caath enter in to carry the things wrapped up: and they shall not touch the vessels of the sanctuary, lest they die." Numbers 4:15 
The ark was meticulously crafted by only the finest materials in order to be perfect to bear the perfection of God. In the same way God crafted Mary in perfection to bear Himself in the incarnation.
6. The New Eve
The apostle Paul refers to Christ as the last Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47:
"So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven." 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 
As the fall of humanity occurred through the original Adam and Eve, so too is the redemption of humanity accomplished through the new Adam and the New Eve. Eve received her flesh from Adam:
"And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam." Genesis 2:22 
In turn the New Adam received his sinless flesh from a sinless New Eve. This was necessary in order for Christ to receive flesh that was untainted by sin. This is supported from the following verses:
And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” - Revelation 21:5 
“Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.” - Matthew 9:17 
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. - Mark 14:23-24 
By Jesus' own words in Revelations He is making creation new again. However, for this to happen according to Matthew 9:17 a fresh start was necessary. As Jesus institutes the new Covenant he transubstantiates wine into his blood (or as Con would argue - uses wine as a symbol for his blood).
If Jesus is to make all things new, then He must be the New Adam, in that the world needed "New Wine". If He is the New Wine then His flesh required a "New Wineskin" in the form of Mary, the New Eve. If Mary was a fresh wineskin that means that she was without sin like Christ and like Adam and Eve before the Fall.
In this opening round I have laid out the basic reasoning based on the bible as to why Mary was sinless from the moment of conception onward. In the subsequent rounds I intend to expand on these point as required.
Round 2 Pro and 3 Con will be passed by agreement as I am out of town and will be unable to reply.
GOP forfeited this round.
My thanks to GOP for passing the last round and giving me the maxium time while I was away out of town.
I now look forward to the resumption of the debate with GOP presenting his first round of counter arguments.
Thanks Geogeer. I would like the voters to notice that I passed the previous round instead of round 3, so don't count the forfeiture against me.
My duty here is to show that the Immaculate Conception is not biblically accurate. Seeing that Pro is the one making the assertion, he has the BOP, and I have the duty to refute his arguments.
To win this debate, I must provide Bible verses that show that Mary sinned in her life.
I. 4th Commandment
"Now if God places such an emphasis on honouring our parents, how much more would He honour His earthly mother? If God is perfect, would he not honour his mother perfectly? Would He not bestow every grace at His disposal to honour her as only God could?"
Sure, He would honor her perfectly, but not every grace would be bestowed to her just because she is His mother. She would have to be a believer/one of the elect for God to bestow saving grace (1), which is not contingent on her motherhood. After all, given Geogeer's Catholic beliefs I believe that he adheres to salvation by grace through faith and works (2), and obviously God would not bestow her saving grace just for being the mother of Jesus (because, well, solely being His mother does not equal salvation by grace through faith and works). If that were the case, then even pro's beliefs would be violated.
The main point is that her being honored perfectly does not mean that she did not sin in her life.
II. Full of Grace
The problem is that the word "kecharitomene" does not mean "full of grace." It means "highly favored", "make graceful", etc. (3-4). Surely, Mary would be a highly favored and a blessed woman, considering that she had the privilege to give birth to the King of kings, but this does not mean she is "full of grace". The Bible translation does not give any indication about that. Even Pro's breakdown of the word doesn't show that she was full of it. The act of receiving grace itself might be intense (the verb of giving it could be intense, but the possession of grace is not full), but that doesn't mean that she herself was full of grace ITSELF.
However, "plaras karitos" (plaras = full, karitos = grace) means "full of grace" in Greek, but this is not what's used in reference to Jesus' mother (5). Also, Geogeer's 6th source does not work.
I don't think I need to address this point so much, since this ties in with the point above. I have shown that the Bible does not say that Mary is full of grace, so this means that she did sin in her life.
Certainly, Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy regarding the Lord's provision for a Savior, but here is the reason why Pro cannot conclude that Mary was free from all sin:
Romans 3:23 says that ALL have sinned (6) (with the exception of Jesus Christ, of course), and so does Ecclesiastes 7:20 (7). If Mary did not sin in her life, then that would flatly contradict the aforementioned verses, for they say that ALL have sinned. The word "ALL" includes Mary.
Well, the Ark of the Covenant is not holy substance-wise, because Romans 8:22 says that all of creation was affected due to the fall (8). So, when Pro compares the Ark of the Covenant with Mary's body, that doesn't help either, for that turns out to be a faulty comparison. This is because the sin nature is passed on from the father to his offspring (9). Jesus did not have a biological father, so He did not get the sin nature. Since Mary had a human father, she inherited the sin nature.
VI. New Eve
Mary cannot be the new Eve, because the original Eve was initially sinless. If I could demonstrate that Mary was unclean as opposed to sinless, then I could win this debate. Moreover, Eve's husband Adam was initially sinless, but Mary's husband Joseph wasn't sinless at all.
If she was sinless and clean, then why did she offer a sacrifice for sin as per the laws of the Old Covenant?
As per Leviticus 12:1-8 (10), a woman needs to get purified after giving birth. However, how could she not be clean if she is sinless?
Here is a chart that compares Leviticus 12:1-8 and Luke 2:16, 21-24 (11). (Shout out to carm.org for this chart!!)
Since I have demonstrated that Mary is not the new Eve, everything else that Geogeer said falls apart.
1. I have showed that Jesus Christ would certainly honor her perfectly, but that does not mean she would be full of grace.
2. I have referred to Bible verses that indicate that ALL have sinned.
3. I have showed that the word "kecharitomene" doesn't mean full of grace.
4. Lastly, I have showed a thorough chart showing that Mary was unclean.
Thank you pro, and I hope and pray that God will bless you abundantly.
3. Swanson, J., Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek New Testament, electronic ed., Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997, kephale, GGK5923.
4. Strong, J., Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, electronic ed., Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1996, GK5487.
My thanks to GOP for his initial counter arguments and also request that voters do no hold the 2nd round "forfeit" in any way against him.
I thank Con for pointing out the error in source  - I have fixed it below.
I am maintaining the same numbering scheme so that readers may easily follow the arguments/counter arguments.
1. 4th Commandment
Con's argument against God blessing Mary with every grace is based on personal opinion on what graces God can bestow. The Catholic teaching is that the merits of Christ's sacrifice were applied to Mary from the beginning of her existence. The typical analogy is one of a mud puddle being sin. We have fallen in the mud and Jesus lifts us out. With Mary he pulled her back before she could fall in. In both cases it is only by God's grace that we are saved.
The other half of his argument is that God perfectly honour's Mary, without actually giving her every Grace that he could. Con wants you to believe that God can perfectly honour his mother, while intentionally withholding gifts from her. Does that strike you as perfectly honouring or imperfectly honouring?
Instead the Catholic argument is that God reserved one particular grace to be bestowed on his mother, that he gave to no other human. This is not to say that Mary was incapable of sin, but only that God gave her every grace to resist sin - which she did use in humility and trust to avoid sin.
God gave her everything he could to honour her and thus perfectly honoured her.
2. Full of Grace
Con argues that kecharitomene does not mean full of grace but instead highly favoured and uses Strong's Concordance as a reference.
From word 5487 in Strong's Concordance :
So charitoo is to endow with grace and freely bestowed favour. So which is right in this case?
HELPS Word-studies clarifies this nicely :
properly, highly-favoured because receptive to God's grace. 5487 (xaritoo) is used twice in the NT (Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6), both times of God extending Himself freely to bestow grace (favour).
Let's see what Ephesians 1:6 says :
Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son.
So God's favour is the bestowing of his grace. Thus Grace and favour are essentially interchangeable in the sense that God's grace is God's favour. The grace that Mary received was gifted to her and does not emanate from her.
Returning back to kecharitomene being in the perfect present tense means that Mary has been completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with the favour of God's graces - i.e. full of Grace.
Con does not contest that Grace can prevent one from sinning. Given that we have confirmed that Mary was completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowed with grace, the logical conclusion is that Mary was completely free from sin.
Con's counter argument is that we cannot conclude from Genesis that God putting enmity between "the Woman" (which he does not contest is Mary) and the serpent means that Mary was sinless.
Con's counter was that Romans 3:23 shows that Mary had sinned. So let's see what that actually says :
For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.
Now Con has already made one exception to the above statement by saying that Jesus is not included in all. So are there any other exceptions to this? Well let's read earlier in Romans 3 shortly before this text.
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Romans 3:10-14 
This chapter is obviously about personal sin as it is about things people do. A newborn is not guilty of personal sin and until the age of reason none of us can be guilty of personal sin. So there are literally millions of souls excluded from Romans 3:23. Thus 'all' does not mean ALL in an absolute sense, but rather in a normative sense.
In fact if Mary was sinful then she would have been at enmity while Jesus was in her womb and while she taught him as a child. This is illogical and I'll expand on this point further in the New Eve section below.
In fact the exact opposite can be gleaned from scripture:
And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. - Luke 1:46 
If Mary was sinful then she would not magnify the Lord, but like a magnifying glass smudged with grime would instead obscure the Lord. However, if she was free from all sin she would be able to magnify him.
Con claims that Mary cannot be the new ark of the Covenant because all of creation was affected by the fall. Now on the surface this seems reasonable, but it has 2 problems. The first of which assumes that God cannot sanctify and cleanse something. And yet we see that:
So the priests and the Levites were sanctified, to carry the ark of the Lord the God of Israel. - 1 Chronicles 15:14 
Additionally this would mean that the tablets on which the 10 Commandments were written remained affected by the fall.
This leads to 2 conclusions.
a) God cleansed and sanctified the stone tablets of the 10 Commandments and Ark of the Covenant.
b) If the old testament is an imperfect prefigurement of the new, then if the old was imperfect the new was perfect. The tablets were an "imperfect" prefigurement of the perfect Jesus, as the Ark was an imperfect prefigurement to the perfect Mary.
Now Con's second argument here is that sin is passed on through the "Father's Line" or semen. This puts sin in a materialistic and not spiritual sense. In a patriarchal society, they write in a patriarchal style. Thus the talk is the line of Abraham or Isaac. This does not diminish the relevance of their wives, but only talks in a patriarchal style. Using Con's argument, if somebody were to genetically create a person in a lab by combining the genetic material of two female eggs, the resulting human being would be immaculate and without original sin. This person would not be in need of God's grace because they would be perfect. Instead, Adam & Eve's sin of disobedience passed on original sin to all of humanity. Jesus was free from all sin (personal and original) because he was God, and Mary was free from sin only through God's grace.
6. New Eve
Con argues that Mary cannot be the "New Eve" because the original Eve was originally sinless. To bolster this argument Con states that Eve's husband was the sinless Adam and Mary was married to the sinful Joseph.
This is a very weak argument as Jesus did not come from Joseph, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. In fact, if Jesus is the new Adam, then he should have begun his physical existence in a new Garden of Eden. Only the perfect unblemished womb of a sinless Mary could provide a new and perfect Garden of Eden for Jesus to commence his human life.
Con's second argument here is that Mary fulfilled the purification laws as per Leviticus 12:1-8 after giving birth to Jesus. Con also provided an excellent table that shows how perfectly the Holy Family fulfilled "the Law."
So let's break down Leviticus 12 and see if it says what Con thinks it says.
The Old Testament contains 3 types of law: moral, ceremonial and civil. Now it was incumbent on all Jews to follow all 3 types. Now since Mary and Joseph obeyed the Law so faithfully they must have been obedient Jews.
a) ‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. - Lev. 1:2 
Now menstruation cannot be sinful otherwise God would be responsible for all women sinning. And giving birth cannot be a sin otherwise God would have commanded sin:
And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth... - Genesis 1:28 
So this is a ceremonial law that Mary had to follow and not moral uncleanliness that the woman must be cleansed of. This is further confirmed:
Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. Lev 12:4 
Leviticus goes on to discuss how if it is a female child she is unclean for longer than for the male child. Once again, clearly ceremonial and not moral in nature. Con's entire argument depends on the following verse:
When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. - Lev. 12:6 
There is the word - SIN. Con's argument is that because Mary followed the Law she must have been sinful. Doesn't make sense does it? Since the Law had to be obeyed Mary was bound to make the offering regardless of whether she had sinned or not. Offerings can be in repentance, but they can also be in thanks, in that Mary was thankful for being spared from sin by God's grace.
Jesus also obeyed the law when not necessary. John the baptist proclaimed baptism for the forgiveness of sins and Jesus was baptized by him for the forgiveness of sins. Does that mean Jesus sinned or does it mean that Jesus submitted to the Law?
Clearly the Law was written for a normative state of sinfulness and not for those without sin. And yet those without sin humbly submitted to the Law. Thus Mary's adherence to the Law is not indicative of sin, but of obedience to God.
In this round I have logically and scripturally refuted all of Con's arguments and further reinforced the 6 primary arguments for the Immaculate Conception.
 H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b.
I. 4th Commandment
Unconditional election is not personal opinion. It is scriptural. If I show that it's is biblical, then Pro's argument will fall flat.
4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will"
So, believers are chosen by God (instead of believers choosing God). However, we know that God does not choose people based on any worth or merit they have (in this case the merit in question is Mary's motherhood to Jesus).
If God chose Mary for salvation because she was Jesus' mother, then God would be showing partiality and be electing her based on some worth that she has. However, Deuteronomy 10:17 (12) says that God is NOT PARTIAL. Thus, it stands to reason that God's election is indeed unconditional (not based on conditions or some other merit) and God bestowing her the grace for salvation had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HER BEING Jesus' mother, lest He becomes impartial.
So, in response to Pro's premise that God would bestow Mary every grace for being Jesus' mother, I say that is incorrect. The phrase "every grace" includes saving grace, and God would be unjust if He gave her saving grace for being Christ's mother. Again, God offers saving grace unconditionally. God would of course honor His mother perfectly, but it would be imperfect for Him to be partial at the same time.
II. Full of Grace
Geogeer's screenshot of Strong's Concordance (word 5487) only strengthens my argument, since it does not show that Mary's POSSESSION OF GRACE was full. It only shows that grace/favor was FREELY BESTOWED. I am not contesting that favor and grace are interchangeable, as mentioned by Strong's Concordance itself. I agree that they are the same thing, but I am arguing that grace was not FULL. Sure, she may have received grace, but did the amount of grace ever get full? It doesn't say that.
When Geogeer says, "Returning back to kecharitomene being in the perfect present tense means that Mary has been completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with the favour of God's graces", that only shows that God's ACTION of completely, perfectly, enduringly endowing her with the favor of his graces, that only shows that the ACT OF ENDOWING IT was in full intensity, for everything God does is perfect (13) (which is something we can both agree on). Just because the act of endowing itself is fully intense does not mean Mary's possession of it is full.
I have showed that Mary did have grace, but does not mean she was FULL of it. Thus, she was not free from sin.
True, newborn people have not committed personal sins, but they are still not "righteous" (human beings being unrighteous is the main point; their personal sins just DESCRIBE their unrighteousness as you can see that Paul CONTINUES TO explain their personal acts by starting with man's unrighteousness) since they inherit the sin nature (14). Furthermore, even if we exclude infants from the "ALL" category, we still have adults left. Mary is an adult, and she falls under the "ALL" category. The fact that Pro excludes infants won't help the argument that Mary is among the group that did not commit personal sin. Once again, my point about everybody sinning still stands. If the Bible said, "all EXCEPT MARY have sinned", then Pro's argument would make sense, but it does not.
The word "magnify" is synonymous with the word "glorify" and "praise". Pro took a very literal approach to this, which is fallacious. The NIV version says, "And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord" for Luke 1:46 (15). The NLT Bible says, "Mary responded, "Oh, how my soul praises the Lord" (16). Here are the other Bible versions that say pretty much the same thing (17).
Can someone that committed personal sins praise the Lord? Of course! King David had done this many times throughout his Psalms, even though we know that he was both a murderer and an adulterer as per 2 Samuel 11 (18).
Pro is talking about literal/physical sanctification here. That's not true, because you know that all of humanity has been affected by the sin nature due to Adam's fall. If pro takes the literal approach, then the priests and the Levites would still be un-sanctified, because that would not remove the sin nature in their genes. If that is true, then they would no longer have sin, but you know that whoever says that they're without sin is spewing falsehood (see 1 John 1:8 (19)).
So, we conclude that this must be talking about the spiritual sanctification as opposed to physical/literal sanctification. God makes us righteous through Jesus Christ, but we still have the sin nature. Without the imputed righteousness, the priests and the Levites would not be able to carry the ark of the Covenant as they would still remain unredeemed and thus dead in sin.
The truth is that God can of course sanctify and cleanse something (since He is omnipotent). However, we still retain the sin nature.
Regarding the tablets: True, ALL of creation got affected, so if the tablets were from the earth, then they were affected. However, they are holy in the sense that they display the holiness of God and how men were supposed to not break them.
Sin is both spiritual and physical. It's a spiritual matter because men go to hell for sinning, but physical because we sin due to our nature. If you have any children, pro, then you know that you never had to teach them to be selfish, angry, or to lie. Since they don't have to get taught to do these things, we conclude that this is one way of how sinfulness can be rendered as a physical thing.
Pro: "if somebody were to genetically create a person in a lab by combining the genetic material of two female eggs, the resulting human being would be immaculate and without original sin."
This is an "if" situation. We know that we need sperm and an egg to make a human being (20). Two eggs do not result in a human.
VI. New Eve
Of course, Jesus did not come from Joseph. What I was trying to convey was that Mary cannot be compared as the New Eve considering that she does not even fulfill the similarities that Eve has (like initially sinless husand, initial purity, etc.).
The scriptures may also say that Jesus is the second Adam, but we must think about HOW He is the second Adam. Obviously, Jesus cannot be like Adam in every sense. For example, Jesus can't be NOT divine like Adam, nor can He have a sin nature later on. Jesus cannot also stop being omnipotent, because He is God. So, it is capricious for pro to say that he has to be in a new garden of eden and then say that Mary's "unblemished womb" could suffice for his beginning of His human life.
So, in what sense is Jesus the second Adam? Obviously not in any way that compromises Christ's divinity. So, let's check the context of 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 (the passage where Geogeer got the new Adam argument from):
"45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven" (21).
Here, the context shows that Paul was showing the differences between the two types of bodies: natural and spiritual. As per Genesis 2:7 (22), Adam was made from dust and got the breath of life from God, and Jesus is the life giving Spirit (because He rose from the dead and had a new body that suits for eternal life, just as the first Adam's natural body suits the natural earthly life). Verse 46 says that the natural comes first, THEN the spiritual. People have natural earthly lives first, then they have the spiritual life.
Here is what Gotquestions.org says: "Paul is telling us that the natural man, Adam, came first on this earth and was made from the dust of the earth. While it is true that Christ has existed from eternity past, He is here called the second man or second Adam because He came from heaven to earth many years after Adam. Christ came as a human baby with a body like all other humans, but He did not originate from the dust of the earth as had Adam. He “came from heaven" (23).
Now, I am not saying that menstruation and giving birth are sinful. I am just saying that they are unclean, and since the uncleanness applies to Mary, then she is not clean as asserted by Pro. The thing we must ask is that would people have had the obligation to do all the ceremonial stuff if Adam had not sinned? No! They were doing all this BECAUSE of the fall. So, the uncleanness is applied to people, and Mary is among them.
For the sin offering:
I am arguing that the sin offering IMPLIES that Mary has sinned at some point. If not, then why does she even need to bother offering it? Of course the Law had to be obeyed, but you don't need sin offerings (which cover sins) if you have no sin to begin with. This makes sense considering that there was no report of Jesus giving sin offerings in any of the Gospel accounts, since there is no sin in Him. Offerings can also be in thanks, but those go by different names. There are thanksgiving offerings (Leviticus 22:29) and sin offerings, which is a totally different term.
Pro has not provided any proof that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.
My thanks to Con.
1. 4th Commandment
Con has essentially dropped my argument how God can perfectly honour Mary without giving her every Grace. Con's rebuttals have brought us to Catholic vs. Protestant salvation theology. This topic is by far too great to be fully debated in this brief round, so I'll provide a brief rebuttal.
We are in full agreement that the grace to desire God comes not from us, but from God:
But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13
Con uses Deuteronomy 10:17 to show that God is not partial, let's see what it says:
Because the Lord your God he is the God of gods, and the Lord of lords, a great God and mighty and terrible, a who accepteth no person nor taketh bribes.
This shows that God judges all equally. It does not state that he gifts all equally. In the parable of the talents God (Matthew 25:14-30) he gives one man 5 talents another 2 and a third 1. He judges each of them fairly based on what they did with what they were given. In fact Christ confirms this in Luke 12:48:
And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.
Thus it is not that God cannot choose which graces to give us, but that we are responsible to the level of grace that has been given unto us.
Thus sanctifying grace is a supernatural disposition that perfects the soul to enable it to live with God, just as Mary lived with Christ in her womb. This grace is normally conferred at baptism and lost with mortal sin or as St. Paul states:
I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (1 Cor 9:27)
That God uniquely applied this grace to Mary at the moment of her conception thus preventing her from being subject to Original is uniquely graced to her because of God Perfectly honouring her.
2. Full of Grace
Con has argued that "but I am arguing that grace was not FULL. Sure, she may have received grace, but did the amount of grace ever get full?"
Con is arguing that when almighty God fully graces you that... eh you might get some you might not others it really is a toss up.
To make graceful, to endow with grace. As previously stated Greek verbs ending in oo "frequently express the full intensity of the action."  The perfect present tense of the word notes that it is an act that occurred in the past and continues in effect up to the present.
Thus Mary has been made graceful with the full intensity of the action in the past (i.e. every possible grace) in a manner that continues to the present. Thus Luke 1:28
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 
Is perfectly valid in what it says.
Con has conceded that grace can prevent one from sinning.
Con concedes that "All" in all have sinned does not mean "All" it now just means all adults. And that my argument would only make sense if "Bible said, "all EXCEPT MARY have sinned"". Where all does not include newborns, toddlers and Jesus - none of whom were exempted from all in the first place. So basically Con is arguing that all includes everyone - except those that don't seem to agree with what he wants "all" to mean.
So let's consider this passage:
And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. - Mark 1:5
Does this mean that everyone who was not Jesus, a newborn or an infant went out to be baptized? No. Both use word 3956 in Strong's Concordance  and yet neither is an absolute. If we use HELPS Word-studies:
3956 /pas ("each, every") means "all" in the sense of "each (every) part that applies."
So whole in this case is in a global sense and not in an individual sense and is for "each part that applies." Thus Jesus is not included here because he does not apply. If Mary had not sinned she would not apply. This verse is not damning (so to speak) of Mary's sinful nature and thus does not prove Con's counter assertion.
Con also argues that magnify (My soul doth magnify the Lord. - Luke 1:46 ) does not mean magnify, but instead glorify and praise. Con uses modern protestant translations that would obviously seem to deny the reality of the word. So let's look at the Greek:
the word is Megalynei  and is word 3170 in Strong's Concordance:
Definitions: (a) I enlarge, lengthen, (b) I increase, magnify, extol 
As an example in 2 Corinthians 10:15 in the NIV  and NLT  (Con's two quoted translations) use the same word to mean "grow". Thus magnify is clearly the correct translation.
Con here argues that none are sinless according to 1 John 1:9 instead of Romans 3:23. So let's look at 1 John 1:8-10
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 
Once again it is clearly evident that here St. John is referring to personal sin and not original sin and all of the exceptions and arguments made above under enmity apply in this section as well. Thus, this does not prove that Mary was guilty of sin.
Con further argues that God's purification / sanctification can only affect the spiritual and not the physical and that all of creation essentially carried "sin" within it and cannot be sanctified. Now both Con and myself agree that Christ was free from sin - no doubt about it. However, if what Con says is true then the act of eating by Christ must make Christ sinful and impure because it is impossible for God to purify physical matter. Thus Christ would be ingesting that which is impure and thus defiling his body.
Yet Jesus says:
understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him...But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man. - Mark 7:18,20
Thus the physical world cannot be intrinsically defiled in the manner that Con describes. Instead original sin causes concupiscence in us. It is this inclination to unjustly desire that which is sinful that causes us to sin. Thus it is not the physical that is innately responsible, but instead that the act of sinning occurs through the physical.
Once again this does not prove that Mary was stained with sin. Instead I have shown that the physical does not automatically defile that which is held pure - as was Christ. Thus, if Christ can be maintained pure in a fully impure world, there is no reason that if He graced Mary with an immaculate conception that she too could remain unaffected by a fallen world - if indeed the physical world is fallen in the manner that Con argues.
Con does not truly address my argument on scientists combining two eggs to create a new human even though this has been accomplished in other primates.  I am providing a very real situation that could be physically accomplished using modern technology. This clearly disproves con's assertion that our sinful nature is passed through sperm.
6. New Eve
The similarities between Eve and Mary
Eve came from Adam's flesh, Jesus came from Mary's flesh.
Eve said yes to a fallen angel, Mary said yes to a righteous angel.
Eve gives birth to sin and death, Mary gives birth to grace and salvation.
Adam and Eve cause creation to fall, Christ and Mary bring about salvation.
Adam names Eve Woman, Christ names Mary Woman.
The parallels between the two are unmistakable. As Con's quotation of 1 Corinthians clearly demonstrated, Adam was an archetype for Jesus. Adam was the original creation who fell that required a new Adam to redeem creation. As Adam was originally without sin, so was the new Adam without sin. Thus as Eve was without sin the new Eve, Mary, was also without sin.
Con concedes that menstruation and birth do not create sin, but uncleanliness. Thus uncleanliness is not related to sin, but is merely ceremonial in nature.
Con asked for the bible relating to John the Baptist:
Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the country about Jordan:And were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. - Matthew 3:5-6
As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance - Matthew 3:11
Did Christ confess his sins? Did he need repentance? If not, this clearly shows that it was out of obedience to the Father that He was baptized and not because of having sinned. Thus both Jesus and his mother acted out of humble obedience to God the Father. Mary followed the law as required of her even though it wasn't necessary for forgiveness of sin. Like the rest of us Mary's salvation came from Christ, not from herself, however it was applied to her in a different manner.
I have defended each of my proposals in this debate.
God perfectly honoured Mary by giving filling her perfectly with every grace from the beginning of her existence. Grace has the ability to prevent us from sinning and God promised to put enmity between the Woman and the serpent (devil). To be at enmity would mean that she has no desire to sin, but would instead be free of the concupiscence that comes from original sin. Mary is also the purified perfectly crafted Ark which holds the priest, prophet and kingship of God. And finally Mary is the new Eve - as the original Adam and Eve were sinless so were the new Adam and Eve. Mary was saved by God's grace, but in a unique manner.
Thanks to Con and all readers who took the time to read this debate.
GOP forfeited this round.
As established by the rules, I will not be posting any arguments here. Goodbye.
P.S. I ask voters not to hold GOP's final round forfeit against him as I believe that he failed to post due to the recommencement of school.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|