For shortness of time, I hurried my last comment, so here is somewhat more:
**Ark contained signs of God’s presence, providence and power (the manna, the tablets of the Law, Aaron’s staff) but Mary, in a way far excelling this, contained the Living God Himself.**
Mary symbolizing the ark...Far excelling?? For your review again:
The ark was made of wood, covered with out and within with gold. The wood was dead (no life in it), but kept from decay by the gold. The body of Jesus was kept from decay: “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thine holy one see corruption........ David.....therefore being a prophet.....seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.”
The manna, Aaron’s rod, and the stone tablets were hidden IN the ark. “IN him was life; and the life was the light of men”. John 1:4
“IN whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Col. 2:3
“For IN him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily.” Col. 2:9
**but just to remind you that Catholic exposition of doctrine is not confined to proof-texting.**
That reminds me of going to a birthday party while in 5th grade (5 decades ago). We played games that we all thought we knew the rules to, but he added to them when it seemed that they would help him win.
Anything revealed by the Holy Ghost is in complete agreement with the teaching of the Word. That’s why Paul could say to Timothy that all scripture was given inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION in righteousness: The the man of God may be PERFECT, THROUGHLY furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 16,17
**1. an explicit Scriptural statement**
...which must be in context or agreement with other scriptural statements.
**2. a strictly logical corollary from Scripture**
...which can be yopios (even if constructed 1900 yrs ago. Didn’t take long. Approx 15 yrs after Pentecost, where there were Jews from many nations present, Paul ran into some in Cyprus that perverted the right way of the Lord. He, John, Peter, and Jude warned in their epistles of such present in their time).
**3. a reasonable inference from converging lines of thought founded in Scripture**
...which can be yopios.
**4. a proposition strongly attested by Sacred Tradition and not ruled out by Scripture**
...which can be yopios.
**Jesus Christ is God**
Jesus Christ was both human and divine. Mary was used to bring forth the human part, God inserted the divine part (himself).
**Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ.**
True, but did not make the soul, and did not fill him with the Spirit; God did those things.
**Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. (Logical corollary, defined by Church**
Their definition is crediting Mary with creating MORE of the infinite God. Not possible.
**As to Mary being “ever-Virgin,” it would be an example of #3 and #4, above. It derives from converging lines of Scriptural thought, and it is an ancient belief embraced in all the ancient churches, and not ruled out by Scripture.**
Converging lines of thought.....kinda like ‘Judas hung himself’...’do as you see me do’? There simply isn’t any scripture to even hint that Mary continued as a virgin, while several that point to possiblity of her having a normal marriage and giving birth to more children.
Scripture must harmonize with scripture:
Good example....
is the glorified Christ speaking as God, referring to the man Jesus Christ in the second person: “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem”.....”but tarry ye in Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high”. Luke 24:47,49
So, beginning at Jerusalem we find..”Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remmission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. Acts 2:38
Bad example:
Using the OT/NT prophecies/passages of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, choosing to include Rev. 12:1-5, but EXCLUDING verse 6, where it says (AFTER the child was born AND caught up unto God in verse 5)”..that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and three score days.” That passage is clearly about the nation of Israel when compared with OT prophecies.
"In Him (Christ) was life; and the life was the light of men”.(John 1:4) and “ In whom(Christ) are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Col. 2:3)
That's right. All these things are true primarily of Jesus. By God's will, Mary contained him (for 9 months), so was a container=Ark.
It would be like if my son said, “I left my shoes in the garage,” and his brother said, “No you didn’t, you left them in the box.” If the box was in the garage, both are true: he left them in the box, and he left them in the garage.
About proof-texting:
“PROOFTEXTING ONLY” was never one of the rules. The Lord Himself authorizes the use of reason ( Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD) (Acts 17:17 So he (Paul)reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.) --and in fact commands it whenever He commands us to show “just judgment.”
None of this will contradict Scripture in terms of context, and it will be in agreement with other Scriptural statemnts. “A strictly logical corollary from Scripture” cannot be merely yopios, because right reason applied to truth, necessarily yields truth.
My #3 (Reasonable inferences from converging lines of thought founded in Scripture) and #4 (a proposition strongly attested by Sacred Tradition and not ruled out by Scripture) COULD be in error (mere yopios), but that’s what Church councils (like the one in Jerusalem) are for: to make an authoritative judgment based on what the Holy Spirit is telling the Church.
Now, back to your argument:
**Jesus Christ is God** Jesus Christ was both human and divine. Mary was used to bring forth the human part, God inserted the divine part (himself).True, yet it needs clarification, since Mary didn’t just bring forth a “human part,” she brought forth a person. (Mothers are mothers of persons, not just of parts.) It’s like if I’m a Smith and my husband is a Longfellow, and we have a son, I’m not just the mother of “the Smith part,” I’m the mother of our son, a person: I gave him birth. I am not, however, the origin of his Longfellow genes.
But if what you’re trying to say is that Mary was not the source of Jesus’ divinity, then we are in agreement: the Divine Word, Second Person of the Trinity, pre-existed Mary and all created things, from eternity. Mary is not the mother of the Godhead.Exactly correct.
**Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. (Logical corollary, defined by Church**
Their definition is crediting Mary with creating MORE of the infinite God. Not possible.??? “Their”??? definition? Who would that be? The Catholic definition has nothing to do with Mary “creating” “more” of the infinite God. That is, as you say, impossible. We mean in English (“Mother of God”) what the Councils of Ephesus said in Greek: “Theotokos.” She is the birth-giver of Jesus Christ, who is God. She is NOT “older than God” or the source of His Spirit. His Spirit pre-existed from all eternity, as the Council of Ephesus said.
**As to Mary being “ever-Virgin,” it would be an example of #3 and #4, above. It derives from converging lines of Scriptural thought, and it is an ancient belief embraced in all the ancient churches, and not ruled out by Scripture.**
There simply isn’t any scripture to even hint that Mary continued as a virginAh, but there is: right in Mary’s words: (Luke 1:34)”But how shall this happen, since I do not know man?” She is clearly astonished --- revealing that she was not only a virgin, but committed to virginity.
Think that’s a stretch? Consider this example:
You are at a bridal shower for a friend and somebody remarks to the bride, “You are going to have such adorable kids!” Everybody laughs, but the bride draws back in astonishment and says, “But...but...how shall this be? Since I do not know man.”
Everybody would think, **Huh?**
For a woman who is engaged to be married, there are only two possible explanations for such a reaction: either she has no idea where babies come from —or she has every intention of remaining a virgin after marriage.
Why else would Mary be astonished? She’s a woman betrothed to Joseph, she knows about the birds and the bees. Yet she reacts with amazement at the news that she, a woman betrothed, will bear a son.
Notice that the angel does not say “You are pregnant.” He says “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son” (Luke 1:31). This is a promise that has been made to other women in Jewish history such as Sarah and Hannah. All of them understand the promise to mean, “You and your husband will conceive a child.” So why should the same promise astonish and trouble Mary, a young woman who also plans to marry—unless she had already decided to remain a virgin throughout her life?
You say that other Scriptures point to possiblity of her having a normal marriage and giving birth to more children. This is because of the Scriptures’ saying that Jesus has adelphoi ((brothers)
However, the possibility that these adelphoi are children of Mary, is struck down by two other Scriptures: first, Luke 1:34, in which Mary reacts with a bewilderment which only makes sense if she is committed to virginity; John 19:26-27, when Jesus, from the cross, entrusts his mother to the care of the Apostle John. He would not have done that if she had other children to care for her, especially in the light of Mark 7:11, in which Jesus says that the obligation to care for one’s own aged parents is a strict commandment of the Law.
Therefore, we're obliged to think, "Who else would they be, if they weren't Mary's children?" Then examination of the Hebrew and Greek yields the conclusion that they could have been near kin: half-brothers, step-brothers, cousins. Some people think Joseph may have been a widower with children, who would have been Jesus' step-brothers. But we don't know for sure. What we DO know for sure is that both Hebrew and Greek, as used n the Bible, frequently use the word "brother" to mean not a sibling, but near kin. You can find that in your own concordance: there's lots.
We are in a great deal more agreement than perhaps we thought at first. Thank you for the thought and care you have put into this discussion: I hope it continues to be valuable to both of us.