And that is your interpretation
- it doesn’t follow from our ideas on the matter that she was not a sinner; there would be a certain “fittingness” if she had been. If He can have sinful women in His family tree (see Matt 1.1-17), why can He not be born of one ?
Analogy is no substitute for ascertained fact, whatever one believes.
And there is this - if she has to be sinless because she is so close to Jesus: why stop with her ? Why not say that Joseph, John the Baptist, Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon, Anna, Peter, James, John - why not say Herod, Pilate, Annas & Caiaphas - must also have been sinless ? How far does one go; & why ?
I’ve never seen this asked, so there it is
Jesus is the true Antitype of the ark, because He is the One in Whom “the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily”.
- the cherubim were set over the mercy-seat, the kapporeth - in Jesus, we find mercy
- they attend the ark - He is often ministered to by them in the NT
- it was carried by priests - He is Priest & Ark
- And so on…
It never returns - not as the Ark. Those passages, though significant, tell us 0 about Revelation 12 itself. Mary does not fit into it; if she did, every detail about the “woman” would fit her too. Only a few fit her. ## ## The New Covenant is never said to be made by the Holy Spirit. It is several times said to be made by Jesus. Besides, the BVM had a husband - Joseph. That’s what the Gospel says - to make the Spirit of God her husband is post-Biblical, anti-Biblical, & makes her (to be blunt
) an adultress.
As well turning the Gospel into a Mormon myth about gods “getting laid” with mortal women