The essential point in our argument is that "all" in Romans 5 does not refer to Mary. Neither did I mean that "many" in Romans 5 means people commonly are born and live without sin.
so Mary is not called ‘the mother of those obey the commandments of God’ while Sarah figuratively is in Scripture
Mary (the mother of Christ) is called that in Rev 12, and one thing does not exclude the other.
By Paul's words they have been given that “spiritual body” upon resurrection.
Indeed, but the resurrection of the dead in their bodies is generally going to happen as the Second Coming of Christ and not right after death. The soul is taken up to heaven right after death, and then it remains separated from the body till the consummation of this world.
is a teaching based upon fraud and myth
It is a teaching not reflected in the scripture. It is however belief of the Early Church which has been recognized dogmatically at Vatican I because, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the Catohlic faithful kep the belief. The "De Obitu S. Dominae" is a witness to the ancient nature of that belief. The fact that is in not canonical that is to say, is apocryphal, -- nothing of 4c. is canonical -- is irrelevant. All patristic writings serve a similar purpose: unless we see heresy in them, they testify to a belief of the Early Curch and therefore teach us what to believe. This is a fundamental difference we Catholic have compared to the Protestants: out beliefs did not come from 15c charlatans, but rather form the Holy Apostles and their immediate pupils.
“It is a teaching not reflected in the scripture......”
Precisely! Jesus warned that the fine wheat planted would be oversown with the poisonous pseudo wheat or weeds and Paul said that,
“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:29, 30)
“All patristic writings serve a similar purpose: unless we see heresy in them, they testify to a belief of the Early Curch and therefore teach us what to believe.”
Who do you think Paul was talking to and about?
He was talking to the “older men, the elders” of the Ephesians, men who had been taught by an apostle, from those leaders of the flock would arise men who spoke perverse and twisted things, things not taught in God's word.
“The essential point in our argument is that “all” in Romans 5 does not refer to Mary. Neither did I mean that “many” in Romans 5 means people commonly are born and live without sin.”
The essential point is that what you have been taught and have argued is unscriptural and based upon a false teaching of men, a teaching based upon fraud and myth, by the Catholic Church’s own statement.
A 4th. century charlatan is in no way superior to a 15th. century one. But as Jesus further said in his illustration, when the weeds and wheat were fully developed in this harvest time then it would clear one from the other.
“The fact that is in not canonical that is to say, is apocryphal, — nothing of 4c. is canonical — is irrelevant.”
Not if we take Jesus’ own words at John 4:24 seriously about worshiping God “in truth”, That “truth” being God's word. (John 17:17)