Jesus is fully his mother's son, and therefore fully human. He is fully his father's son too, and therefore fully God
Mary is fully her mothers daughter, and that makes her fully human. Mary is fully her fathers daughter too, and that makes her, well, it doubles down on her humanity.
The problem that the IC attempts to resolve is whether or not Jesus was polluted by original sin through his mother. For certain, his Father had not been polluted by original sin, so it is all about Mary.
The original poster of course believed that Jesus was polluted by original sin through his mother, but that argument never really went anywhere
I_C on the other hand refutes such a pollution based on the idea that Mary was cleansed of any original sin by special dispensation. It is a reasonable enough argument, but it is kind of a 'cavalry rushing in at the last minute to save the day' sort of argument. There is absolutely no historical or Scriptural precedence for this argument.
The Eastern Orthodox have an interesting solution in that they can claim original sin does not exist, and problem solved. We are all born good and become sinners through our actions. The only problem with that is that the Bible itself does not support this point of view. The case to be made for original sin, by any other name, from the Biblical text is actually quite a powerful one, and from my understanding, it is not really the Eastern Orthodox belief that we are born good anyway.
It is really not a simple solution then to how Jesus did not inherit original sin from Mary's humanity. It is entirely possible that Jesus got a special dispensation too, like was the IC claim for Mary, but that too is a 'cavalry to the rescue' fitting the facts into the desired theological outcome. It is unconvincing from the point of view of a systematic theology that builds on known theological and Biblical precedence.
Standing up so far has been one of the few who has offered a simple solution to this theological knot, in that he maintains that the problem for the ancients that a baby shared the blood of the mother in utero is scientifically incorrect, and it is scientifically incorrect.
It is an interesting theory, but to become accepted it would have to be shown that
1. This was indeed problematic for the ancient Christians in terms of Jesus's sinlessness
2. That the inheritance of original sin indeed comes from the blood of either the mother or the father.
If we look at the Biblical evidence from Saint Paul that sin entered the world through Adam alone, through one man, Adam, the prototype of all fathers to come, and not through Eve, the prototype of all mothers to come, this supports a solution for the sinlessness of Jesus that does not rely on either scientific knowledge about blood, or the cavalry to provide a miracle dispensation.
The New Testament evidence is quite clear that original sin comes through one man, the Father of humanity, Adam, and not through Eve. Ergo, the new Adam could not inherit original sin from his mothers, the daughters of Adam, because original sin comes through the father, and his Father, God Almighty, was unstained by original sin in the first place.
The Bible does say that sin entered the world through one man, Adam, and not through a man and his woman, Adam and Eve, does it not? If indeed this is the genesis of original sin, and it is inherited from the father only, and not the mother, then the sinlessness of Jesus does not contradict Scripture as the OP holds that it does, and ergo, Jesus did not die for his own sins, but for our own.
