[armydoc]

Interesting logic, I guess this means Jesus sinned then right? For is he not part of “All”?

Paul didn't think it necessary to point out the exception of Jesus in this Romans passage. Probably had something to do with the multiplicity of other passages that explicitly claimed Jesus' sinlessness. It would be redundant. However, if Mary was indeed sinless, it would have been very logical to claim her as an exception here, as there are no explicit (or even valid implicit) claims to her sinlessness elsewhere in scripture.

[jafojeffsurf]

Interesting logic, I guess this means Jesus sinned then right? For is he not part of “All”?

Paul didn’t think it necessary to point out the exception of Jesus in this Romans passage. Probably had something to do with the multiplicity of other passages that explicitly claimed Jesus’ sinlessness. It would be redundant. However, if Mary was indeed sinless, it would have been very logical to claim her as an exception here, as there are no explicit (or even valid implicit) claims to her sinlessness elsewhere in scripture.”

So then my only question is for someone to say scripture only then imply a unwritten meaning is that not doublespeak and what they accuse Catholics of?