Why should an infinitely holy God wish to be incarnated of a sinful person? If He can creat Adam and Eve without sin, it's not a problem for Him to create a sinless vessel for His own coming to earth. And why would Mary need to have other children, prone to sin, after giving birth to the Savior of the world?
Indeed. Why, too, should an infinitely holy God wish to take on a human body and dwell among sinners in a fallen world? His thoughts are not my thoughts.
Lord help me if I fail to reject any attempt to add or subtract the truth of the Word of God through human 'reasoning.'
If Mary is "Blessed among women" she MUST be in all ways superior to every woman ever. So she must be superior to Eve who was created free from sin -- the Mother of God MUST be superior to the mother of Cain.
And if Mary did have other children, why is there no mention of them in scripture?
God Bless you red. I'm red headed 30 years removed. Matter of fact all of it has been removed.
And by the same rhetoric, shouldn't that Infinite God destroy men and created a better one? It is so easy for Him, right?
It's not God doing something for Him, but for us. It is because of His love for us that He was born from a woman and suffered and died as a man and not as God. His suffering and death redeemed us all. Why didn't God made us just and good so we wouldn't commit sin? Because He gave us a mind of our own with the freedom to choose between good and evil. God didn't create a sinless vessel, He picked a sinless woman... it wasn't a magic wand that made Mary, but it was her devotion and high morality that was the determining factor in her selection.
And why would Mary need to have other children, prone to sin, after giving birth to the Savior of the world?
Mary didn't have other children. Jesus was the ONLY one.
We know that Jesus was an only child, but some people disagree. The reason they disagree is that they deny the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, something that has always been believed by Christians.
Here's a proof that Jesus was an only child:John 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, "Woman, behold thy son!" Then saith he to the disciple, "Behold thy mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. If Jesus had brothers and sisters, there would be no need to put His mother under the care of John. In fact, it would probably be an insult to His siblings. On the other hand, if we assume Jesus had no siblings, the way He provided for the care of His mother makes perfect sense.
More here, if you are interested.
Matthew 1:25 "But he (Joseph) had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son."
Come on now. Why is it so hard to believe that Joseph and Mary enjoyed lots and lots of lawfully wedded SEX (after Jesus was born) and bore other children. For the life of me I cannot figure out why the RCC is so hung up about sex to begin with. Because Augustine mistakenly associated it with the curse the RCC has had to invent a fairy tale revolving around Mary's perpetual virginity and assumption. Oh but wait, we can't question it because it's "official" teaching and therefore undeniable. Something as important as this nonesense STILL being passed off as divine truth would not have been missed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or even Paul. Of course, one could say the same thing about a whole host of other uniquely Roman doctrines which require one to suspend reason and sound judgment.