You keep saying Jesus received the "flesh of His mother." No, he received the flesh of his mother and father through their DNA. The Holy Spirit supplied the DNA for the father, Mary the DNA of the mother. While God is not a being of flesh, God can and has created flesh and human DNA. The fertilized egg in Mary's womb was a normal fertilized egg but the method by how that egg can to be fertilized was different. Just because Jesus did not have an earthly father does not mean his flesh is 100% from Mary. It is those chromosomes mixing in the egg that create the flesh.
Even a human child does not receive the flesh of His father. The mothers ovum, for the purposes here the unfertilized female egg, is the flesh of the women. It takes the the spark of life to make it a zygote (fertilized egg). Except for chromosomes, nothing of the father remains with the child. The flesh the child bears is that of its mother.
Federal Headship is found in the Bible as Christ is called the "second Adam." It was not invented nor was an attempt to explain away anything regarding Mary. I don't see where Federal Headship is married to "once saved always saved" either.
You've completely failed St. Paul's lecture. Roman's 5:12-21 does not revel 'headship'. And the "second Adam" is said to be the last Adam
[1 Corinthians 15:45]. The interpretation is a way to justify "once saved always saved", another false doctrine most always found with the false doctrine of "sin nature".
You are assuming sin nature is passed by physical means. Our sin nature is a spiritual affliction that is part of our spiritual nature. It is not something found in the father or mother's DNA. This should not be surprising as our redeemed nature is also not gained through the flesh. Mary was a sinner but that does not make Jesus a sinner because he was not given that sin nature which is considered passed on through the father but not in his DNA. It was not necessary for Mary to be without sin for Christ to be born without a sin nature.
Sin is not innate part of man's nature.
The main focus in Scripture is on the sin of Adam, not Eve. Although Eve did sin, and sinned first, it is Adam's sin that is the focus.
where does it say man's sin is greater than woman's (Eve's)
Scripture never calls Mary a "New Eve", and any parallels between Mary and Eve are largely man-made by the Catholic church. Many Old Testament saints were saved before Mary was ever born.
Mary was a blessed vehicle through whom God gave us the incarnation. She was not born sinless, likely did not remain a virgin, and no doubt sinned during her lifetime. That does not diminish our admiration for her in believing by faith the incredible news she was given by the angel Gabriel. She is a model wife and mother. Why must we make her into something more she is not?
Mary was born sinless, remained a virgin, and never sinned. Your teachings are not found in the Bible, indeed are contrary to a true understanding of Holy Scripture and go against the teachings found in the early Church.
Non-Catholics demand that everything be in the Bible. Catholics do not make the same demand for the obvious reason, it may not have been revealed to the Church by the Holy Spirit for hundreds of years. Mary was said to be Aeiparthenos, “Ever Virgin”, by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and by the Lateran Synod (649). Prior to those concils the early Church Fathers honored Mary as Ever Virgin:
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
JoeT