Wow....inserting something which isn't in that scripture nor in the context of what it is written in. That's why you guys end up twisting your own understanding of scriptures..you just can't let stand as it is written and learn from it! Sheesh!
In fact throughout that entire testimony of John's not once does He mention Mary...there's not a single reference . But let's see who all IS mentioned just to prove my point....you guys miss the mark time and again trying to pretzel your theology into the scriptures rather than let them speak to you......
We have God We have the Word...Christ.... We have John... we have the Jews.... We have all who receive him..believe
We have the children of God...... ......not born of the flesh..or decision, or a husbands will...'But BORN OF GOD"...(note not Mary)
We have the law... We have grace and truth... We have the Glory of the One and Only..Jesus.... We have the Pharisees and Priests...
All and more but not one mention of Mary in this fabulous testimony about Christ. Yet you just had to insert Mary into the picture when she is absolutely absent in this... and is the nature of your religion.p>
Unfortunately for you apparently, she's in the picture of the Incarnate Word irrevocably, you cannot "absent her" from it.
You still show a persistent aversion to the fact of the Incarnation or at least to orthodox Christian theology. Which part of: "The Word became flesh… "was born of a woman"… and walked among us.' is not true? If it is true, why such a problem with it?