“Having said that, if you can show where I cited something that would change its meaning “in context,” I’d like to read that.”
You opined out interesting things that are not taught. You use it to make Mary into something God didn’t teach. A “type” that isn’t revealed as a type, is an interesting observation and no more.
You can see a horse in the clouds, but it isn’t a horse. It remains just a horse-shaped cloud. When you insist it is sky horse and teach horses have power over the sky, you’re just making up things that go far beyond reality.
Really?
The problem I have with the statement is that you haven't shown me that God has taught otherwise. In essence, my interpretation of what you wrote is that although I have cited Scripture and cited it in context, I've applied an improper interpretation to the passages I've cited.
Yet this has been the orthodox belief since the beginning of Christianity. To demonstrate that,
At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the “ark overlaid with pure gold,” with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the “ark” made manifest. Hippolytus, in Daniel 6 (From around 200 AD)
Or, from a few decades later:
Most of the holy fathers, and patriarchs, and prophets desired to see Him, and to be eye-witnesses of Him, but did not attaint hereto. And some of them by visions beheld Him in type, and darkly; others, again, were privileged to hear the divine voice through the medium of the cloud, and were favoured with sights of holy angels; but to Mary the pure virgin alone did the archangel Gabriel manifest himself luminously, bringing her the glad address, "Hail, thou that art highly favoured!" And thus she received the word, and in the due time of the fulfilment according to the body's course she brought forth the priceless pearl. Come, then, you too, dearly beloved, and let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, "Arise, O Lord, into Your rest; You, and the ark of Your sanctuary." For the holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Homily 1 On the Annunciation (from c. 260 AD)
Again, I have no interest in posting all of the respective quotes. Nor am I trying to assert that the above two that I did quote are Divinely Inspired and on a par with the Scriptures...so don't go there. The reason I did quote those two is to show that this is no new idea. It is not a product of the medieval Church (in fact, both those quotes pre-dated the First Council of Nicea and even the Edict of Milan. So they would both be from a period before Constantine went and "paganized" the Church (an Alexander Hislop allusion with the last). I also don't believe that either Hippolytus or Gregory created that belief out of whole cloth and, considering one was in Rome and the other in Asia Minor, it's doubtful that they were horribly close collaborators.
The point is that the interpretation I offer is one that is consistent with the vast majority of Christian thought for the Church's first 1,500 years (the only Patristic writer that I can think of who said anything contrary was Irenaeus, who thought of the Ark as Christ's body...and I can see some major issues with that thought -- on the surface, it sounds almost Nestorian). But you say "you're wrong" without showing where I'm wrong.
So where am I wrong?