Mary as Immaculate Conception

[Leslie_Polley]

Prove it.

you prove she was not…You know the old verse…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and since Jesus was Gods Son He would be the only wone exempt of sin or He could not have died for us…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well I’m not assaulting anyone’s belief here
What I’m saying is If the Catholics want to pray to Mary or the saints then that’s their business.I’m not coming on here telling them that what they do is wrong and I’ve seen that on here from other non_Catholics.If a Catholic feels this is in with accordance to the word of God,let them knock themselves out doing it I’m not here to preach them down about it.
Somehow I’ve been caught in the crossfire on here and got my feathers ruffled.
I don’t pray to know one but the Lord but that’s my business and it would sorely upset me if someone came here and told me differently.
Good grief I was taking up for the Catholics and the fact they pray to Mary,don’t really matter to me anyhow but like I said Got caught in the cross fire.

Louemma-

This is fair and balanced.

Catholics can pray to saints if they want to, but they are not required to do so.

Non-Catholics can also pray to saints if they want to, but they are not required to do so.

Catholics are not wrong if they do; non-Catholics are not wrong if they don’t.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

[Randy_Carson]

you prove she was not…You know the old verse…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and since Jesus was Gods Son He would be the only wone exempt of sin or He could not have died for us…

That’s not how the burden of proof works. You wrote:

Originally Posted by Leslie Polley forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
She was born with original sin…the sinless bloodline to Christ came from this Father. You cann think what you want, and the CC has proclamed it, but God and the Bible have not.

You have made an affirmative statement, “She was born with original sin”, and either you can prove it or you cannot. (We both know you cannot.)

Now, regarding your misunderstanding or Romans 3:23, I have the following:

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)

**Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “**for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

lol, that’s just crazy talk. I can hardly see Christ going against the Will of His father just to save someone some embarrassment.

Did you by any chance happen to notice that nowhere in Her response, does it even imply she felt like she did a bad thing where She wouldn’t dare do something like that again as you stated. There was no: “Oops, sorry Son, my bad. I should have known better.” http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/Escape_bucket/oops.gif
Because not a second later, she completely ignored being reprimanded chuckles when She said: “Whatsoever he shall say to you, you do”. That to me sounds like a Woman who’s pretty sure Her request wasnt a bad one as well as having the certainty of it being met. The Mother of God would never ask of Him something that was totally againt His will.

You see, your interpretation Leslie has no flow with the rest of the passage. It stops abruptly. Where as ours goes perfectly with the Sacred Traditions of our Blessed Mother, being the great Intercessor that She is.

I am sorry I missed the “chuckle” in the verse. I do know that she never asked Him for another miracle…and I suppose you also missed the fact that He ignored Mary and His brothers when they wanted to come in and speak to Him later in His ministry. He loved Mary and respected her as His earthly mother, that was it. At the cross He spoke to she and John. Mary does not apear in scripture as much as Peter, James, John, etc. think about it.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

That’s not how the burden of proof works. You wrote:

You have made an affirmative statement, “She was born with original sin”, and either you can prove it or you cannot. (We both know you cannot.)

Now, regarding your misunderstanding or Romans 3:23, I have the following:

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)
I attacked no one
**Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “**for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.
I think it is pretty straight forward…he did not stutter
The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. It may not be likely, however if thats what it says, thats what it meansThe author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, Yes but in Revelation it speaks of them coming back, being slane, and raisinng again in 3 days…they die…so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Again all fall short…all have sinned. Paul was a very educated man, so I am sure he chose his words very carefullly.

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? none are rightious except through ChristOf course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man Just yes, perfect of sinnless no, God uses imperfect to make perfectMt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous Yes but, not perfect or Zechariah would not have been punished for doubt (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.He was inn the New Testement, not the Old

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to …assume?.. that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.All arer born with original sin…without excetion …non but Christ…He is not of this earth, He is of His Father.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; Original sinrather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. YesHe is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.He is not omnipotent, but he knew that all are sinners

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

Just did, she was born with original sin.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

I agree with you here. Mary has a special relationship with each member of the Trinity, daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and spouse of the Holy Spirit. What you say makes great sense to me, but don’t be discouraged if Leslie doesn’t buy it!

And Leslie doesn’t buy it…If someone is impregnated by “someone”, they have the baby and then get married to someone who is not the father of that child…was she married to the first person, or just impregnated. If says that Mary and Joseph where married. so does that mean that they are bigamists…You cannot be both…married and not married. She was not married to the Holy Spirit…He impregnated her for the purpose she agreed to…they were not married, and NOWHERE does it say they where…I really don’t think God would marry a mortal since when angels left heaven to have sex with humans, they did not pay a hugh price. Now you are being blasphimus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just did, she was born with original sin.

Questions for Leslie:

1. Have children under the age of reason committed personal sins?
2. Have adults who are mentally retarded have the capacity to commit personal sins?

If you answer “no” to either of these questions, then:

All have not sinned.

End of discussion.

 

[jrgiancola]

The sinless Christ could not be born of a sinful woman. Sinlessness is incompatible with sinfulness. What is your real beef, Leslie? Suppose Mary, for the sake of argument, was born without original sin. Why would that offend you? Joe

 

[Louemma]

We could lay all things aside on what we have come to believe on Mary and take an new angle and ask questions such as perhaps…
(1) Why did God chose Mary?
(2) What made Mary a special girl,surely there were other virgins that God could have choose?
(3) Why was Mary’s cousin Elizabeth with child,a child that happened to be John The Baptist?Was this a coincident or did God plan Elizabeth and Mary who happen to be cousins to both be with child?One child who would pave the way for the other child?
(4) Why would Jesus be concerned for Mary’s well being as he hung from the cross dying by asking John to take Mary as his Mother OR did Jesus give John to his Mother Mary ?

Clearly I understand that in spite of how one views Mary,these questions deserve to be looked at and certainly reflected on.Clearly we know Jesus loved his Mother dearly and as most son’s he wanted to please his Mother(Jesus wanting to please his Mother is a precious thought however we know he did just that when he performed his first miracle.John 2 :1-11 His Mother ask him to help out with the shortage of wine.From Jesus’s answer we know he really did not want to do this because he told her “My time has not yet come.” but he did not want to disappoint his Mother and thus performed his first Miracle and he did this in pleasing his Mother?

Laying all beliefs aside,and we consider the answers to the above questions.Then perhaps one might consider that Jesus loved his Mother and perhaps could this mean Jesus might want his children to also love his Mother?
Just something to ponder over

 

[zach_dunn]

Questions for Leslie:

1. Have children under the age of reason committed personal sins?
2. Have adults who are mentally retarded have the capacity to commit personal sins?

If you answer “no” to either of these questions, then:

All have not sinned.

End of discussion.

Good luck getting an answer, Randy. I’m still waiting for her to respond to my posts number 335, 337, 342, 343, and 380 . . . so yeah, you get the idea. And, I’m sure you’ve witnessed this quite enough, having been here for so long.

 

[jrgiancola]

Dear Leslie, if Paul meant "ALL’ have sinned, etc., what about Jesus? Although He is true God, He was also true man. Was Jesus born with original sin? The Bible says he was sinless. If He was not born with original sin, then Paul’s “ALL” obviously does not apply to “ALL.” If Jesus was not born with original sin, then why should not the same be for his mother who conceived by the Holy Spirit? Can the Holy Spirit place the fetus of the true God into the body of a sinful woman? I don’t think so. Besides, Mary Herself proclaimed “I am the Immaculate Conception” at Lourdes. What further proof is needed besides a vision from heaven itself? Joe

 

[adriancombe]

Louemma-

This is fair and balanced.

Catholics can pray to saints if they want to, but they are not required to do so.

Non-Catholics can also pray to saints if they want to, but they are not required to do so.

Catholics are not wrong if they do; non-Catholics are not wrong if they don’t.

Thanks for your understanding.

Actually I’d argue Catholics are required to pray to saints, we ask them for prayers at Mass in the Confiteor.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Hmmmm…maybe to ‘win souls’ to her religion?

I have not one time tried to win souls “to my religion”. My religion is Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Holy Spirit…following the Bible and doing what it says to the best of my ability and with the help of God…Do you feel you need to be won?

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Good luck getting an answer, Randy. I’m still waiting for her to respond to my posts number 335, 337, 342, 343, and 380 . . . so yeah, you get the idea. And, I’m sure you’ve witnessed this quite enough, having been here for so long.

I have answered every question I have been asked. Here is the answer to all of your questions AGAIN Randy…We are ALL born with original sin…a chhild is not held accountable until the age of reason…it depends on the mental retardation. If something is done intentionally, yes its sin…Instead of saying I don’t answer things…how about getting things in order so you can finnd them…my answers should be right under your big question, but it is NOT…Paul is talkingn about original sin…do you consider stretchingn the truth a sin…it is, do you consider any kind of a lie a sin…it is, do you believe just looking at someone and wanting them is a sin…it is…when you are given to much change and you say nothing…is that a sin…it is…and so on…As for this other person who says that I have not answered them…I am going back to find what was ask and then tell you where you could have found my answers…I get sick of hearing how I don’t answer question…Two sights that I answered questions on are now closed, of course MY final answers are not on it…I wonder why? ? ? Wow these letters ar really big…I hope you can find this

 

[Leslie_Polley]

See, now this makes me think you are purposefully being intellectually dishonest. Read Randy’s post again. He is not trying to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin with this post, he is demonstrating that there is more than one meaning of the word “until.”

This is also the dictionary:

Until
Conjunction

• up to the time that…you are able, etc…
• up to such time as…you may full fill what you where assigned to do…

As you can see, these do not imply a cessation of a past action. This definition is verified by all of the Scriptures Randy gave. There you have it Leslie, there are two, count 'em two, definitions of the word “until,” you can no longer escape this fact and if you keep doing so no one will take you seriously.

Now that we have undeniably established that there are two meanings of the word “until,” you cannot say that Mary had to have had sex with Joseph because we know that the word “until” can mean two different things here. And, with the help of Scripture and history, it is obvious that “until,” in Mt 1:25, means the past action continued.

You are wrong…I can say whatever I belive it good and true. you take it two ways if you wish, that is not what the dictionary says, nor the Bible. I read what Randy said, but thank you for telling to read it again…you would be surprised after I wiped the slober from my face, I accutally knew what he meant. I can carry on a conversation with him and understand every word,. I will let you know when I need your help again…Oh, I am sorry, I don’t need your help…sorry.

Now she completely ditches the history of her faith and all of the the people who created her faith in the first place! All of these posts easily demonstrate that Mary was indeed a perpetual virgin, all evidence points to this fact. You have nothing on your side except your own twisted and one century old interpretation of the Bible.

This is simply incorrect as Randy has repeatedly shown you.

Well I think you both are incorrect as I have repeatedly shown you…

It is truly saddening to see people with such hardened hearts . . . you have given us absolutely nothing in your favor and you expect us to just follow you? You are absurde to think I want you to follow me…You have made yourself your own Pope and spoken “ex cathedra” on the seat of 21st century Protestantism, it only goes downhill from here.

I have NEVER elevated myself to anything other than a Bible beliveing Christian…I don’t expect or want you to follow me, have you lost your mind…I am only sharing scripture. You know nothing, anbsolutaly nothing about what a full gosple church teaches apparently, but you attack it as though you did. The penticostal church, simply teaches the love of Christ, and that the Bible is our source. But let me tell you long before I found Christ as my personal saviour, my heart was NEVER hard…My words may be to the point, but you do not know me…you cannot jugde me, and you have no right, ONLY God knows my heart and you have no right to attack me as a person. Now I hope you can find this post, as people keep saying I do not answer.

Went back to check on posts 264/273,In 264 Randy told me to look Nastor…whoever , because I havvd never heard of him, and there WAS an answer there from me…and in 273 you said that he, this Nestor…whatever taught that Jesus is not God and and implied this is what I believe…I never even HEARD of the man…and I have NEVER believed anything like that in my life…and I answered that post too…so far I am finding that I AM answering the posts…now what…I check on 335…that one answered too. I will continue to check…You had better check thing out before you accuse me of not answering post my good man…well Zach

 

[zach_dunn]

I have answered every question I have been asked. Here is the answer to all of your questions AGAIN Randy…We are ALL born with original sin

You have just proved Randy’s point . . . I’m sure you’ll agree that Jesus never sinned or had original sin (yes, He counts, He was human too), so it follows that NOT ALL HAVE SINNED.

I have to continue this again later. I’m doing this from a phone and can’t use it any more.

 

[guanophore]

I do know that she never asked Him for another miracle...

Actually, no. There is no way for any of us to know this, as there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded. We don’t know how many private miracles he did for her prior to this, either. At the very least, we know she was in the upper room with the Apostles, ready to welcome the miracle of Pentecost. What would make you think she was not asking Him for that which He promised, the HS?

and I suppose you also missed the fact that He ignored Mary and His brothers when they wanted to come in and speak to Him later in His ministry.

No, Leslie, you don’t know this either. All you can know is that those who obey Him as she did will be counted as close to Him as she is. For all we know, when He finished with the lesson, He went out to them.

He loved Mary and respected her as His earthly mother, that was it.

What does that mean? “that was it”? Perhaps you have a very limited experience of the love of an earthly mother? I find that most folks who disparage Mary suffer from such wounds.

At the cross He spoke to she and John. Mary does not apear in scripture as much as Peter, James, John, etc. think about it.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

In John’s gospel, which was written last, we see Jesus referring to Mary by the title “woman”. In this way, He identifies her as the mother of all living, the new Eve.

I think it is pretty straight forward…he did not stutter

You are confusing your perception with the meaning of the author. It seems straightforward in that way to you because that is how it comes in through your personal filters.

Paul was a very educated man, so I am sure he chose his words very carefullly.

Indeed, he was very educated, and did choose well. However, these are not his words, but those of the Psalmist. And, if you look at the Psalm from which they were taken, it is clear that there are two categories of people being described, the righteous, and the unrighteous. This verse, taken from to passage describing those without faith. If you read further down the Psalm, he praises the righteous, in contrast to those who have all sinned and fallen short (because of lack of faith).

What you say is true, the words are carefully chosen. When you check the source of them, you can plainly see that the verse is not all inclusive. Paul is making the point that both Jews and Gentiles can be faithless.

Just did, she was born with original sin.

I wonder why it is so important for you to cling to this?

 

[Leslie_Polley]

I feel bad saying this and I really mean no offense, but could you type a little slower and try spelling a little better? I really didn’t understand this part of your post . . . I’m sorry! If you download Mozilla Firefox as your web browser, that might help as it has a spell checker built in.

If you say that the Holy Spirit is with every individual Christian and gives them each the ability to interpret the Bible authoritatively by themselves, why is my interpretation wrong and yours right? Why is the pentecostal’s interpretation wrong and yours right when said pentecostal doesn’t agree with you?

Read what I said just above this . I said the Holy Spirit is who Jesus left here on earth for us…THAT IS WHAT I SAID.

You believe that Christendom is in “good order?” With at least 2,000 different Christian denominations that are vehemently opposed to each other, I would hardly say that Christianity is in “good order,” this is completely the opposite of what Jesus wants [Jn 17:11], and completely opposed to the reason of sending the Holy Spirit in the first place.

So when Jesus was assending into heaven He did not leave the Holy Spirit here for us…is that what you are saying.? Man, read your Bible…start with Matthew and don’t stop untill you reach the end of Revelations…I hope you could understand this…I know you have alot of trouble understanding me…Read what I write more than once . This is my answer to 337

Opinions are good when they are based on fact and are themselves fact, just as my opinions are (in respect to this topic, that is).

 

[Leslie_Polley]

What you say makes no sense. You believe that when the word “until” is used, it means the action that does not before a certain time or event does happen afterward. Randy showed you why this is not always correct when he wrote “my mother . . . never smoked again until the day she died.” If your understanding of the world “until” was always true, it would mean that the mother smoked after she died, this is impossible which means that is not how the word “until” is supposed to be understood 100% of the time.

This doesn’t make sense and it is just wrong. The statement “my uncle never touched another drop of alchohol until the day he died,” means that every day after escaping the automobile accident (including the day he died), he did not smoke. By your understanding, the uncle would have to have had a drink after his death. If you applied this same line of reasoning (yours) to Mt 1:25, you would have to say that Mary and Joseph had sex on the day Mary gave birth to Jesus, that’s just silly.

You have no scriptural evidence to support this theory. It is evident that the raven did not come back because Noah had to send a dove after the raven [Gen 8:8], why would he send a dove if the raven had done its job? Also, the dove comes back to the ark two times [Gen 8:9, 11], if it was recorded that the dove came back, why wasn’t it recorded that the raven came back?

“Until” doesn’t fit, to you. This is because you do not understand the proper usage of that word. “Until” does fit when you look at it the Catholic (and normal) way; in this way, “until” can mean that the action did not occur then did, OR it can mean that the action did not happen to a certain point, then afterward we are not sure (we can be sure, though, in many cases. Like Randy’s examples). Until does fit if you look at it the proper way.

This quotation isn’t in your Bible, so don’t bother. Look it up here.

Now you’re trying to say that “until” = “when”? That’s not good, you run into problems like Mt 1:25, do you think Mary and Joseph had sex the day Jesus was born? Also, Randy provided these verses because they contradict your notion of “until.” If your understanding of “until” is correct, then John would have had to move out of the desert after his public ministry, which we know he didn’t, thanks to Scripture.

It was referring to the present, what else?

Even though you agree, your ideas of “until” have been proven false, and you acknowledge that here without thinking about it. In your understanding, Jesus should not reign after his enemies are under His feet, because in your definition of “until” the action that did happen before must cease to happen. This verse utterly defeats this notion.

Ephesians 4:11-13
“11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” [KJV]

The passage is saying that Christ gave Apostles, prophets, etc., for those three ends. Are those supposed to stop after we are united? Nope, that’s another reason your idea of “until” is false.

You completely misunderstand what Randy meant. The verse says that God never said that to an angel which implies that He did say it to Jesus. If we apply “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” to Jesus (which is what Randy was trying to do when he said “or Jesus” in parentheses), “until,” by your understanding, would mean Jesus would not sit at God’s right hand when all of His enemies were made a footstool; we know this is false. Please ask for explanations before spouting off peoples beliefs.

← continued in next post →

I meant exactly what I said.

 

[adriancombe]

In John’s gospel, which was written last, we see Jesus referring to Mary by the title “woman”. *In this way, He identifies her as the mother of all living, the new Eve.

Correct. In fact, John refers to Mary only as Woman or Mother of Jesus. When he does use the name Mary, it refers to someone else. Thus, we can safely say that ‘Woman’ is her name for the purposes of John’s Gospel.
This also makes it that much more obvious who the ‘Woman’ in Revelation 12 must be.