The Holy of Holies in the Temple was only for the High Priest. No one else dared enter that special place of the sanctuary. Mary's womb is considered a taberacle. It was cleansed by the Holy Spirit and made pure. Christ is the High Priest. No one else was to occupy that womb.
Just a question.
Is this thread going to turn into another 15000 post monster like the Luther and Erasmus one? If so, can someone keep a scorecard so we don't keep wandering around in circles?
/joke. It is a Friday :)
On what is this comparison based? Is there any scripture? High priests who were only fully human came and went as they died and were replaced. As best as I can make some sort of connection to your line, this would support Mary having any number of children. But, you must be saying that this was different because it was Christ.
Among many problems with this comparison, the first one that comes to mind is that Christ, as the High Priest, ABANDONED the Holy of Holies after He was born. The Law specified that the High Priest shall enter the Holy of Holies once per year. Solely for the purposes of trying to understand your comparison, Christ abdicated His place as High Priest by not showing up once per year in Mary's womb. In cases of death, incapacitation, or abdication, another high priest would have to be named. As far as Mary's "Tabernacle" was concerned, Joseph would have been the logical choice to serve as "high priest" as far as I'm concerned. I'll bet he returned at LEAST once per year. :)
P.S. Whether or not there were any ropes involved is of course none of my affair. :)