I don’t want to get into theological disagreements with you, because I agree with almost everything you said. However, Jesus did not call Mary “woman” because she was without sin. Mary was a woman blessed by God, but that doesn’t make her sinless. She died just like all mortals do and required assistance in her older years.
Jesus refers to Mary as “woman” multiple times including in John 19:26-27:
26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
What Jesus is saying here is that Mary is his earthly mother and the one who bore him, but she is a woman blessed by God who is a human just like any other. She is not sinless. Jesus is the only person to ever walk the earth who was sinless - he is God incarnate. If you say Mary is sinless she is then on the same level as God, which is not biblical.
Also, Matthew 12:46-50:
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside, waiting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother”.
Jesus is showing his divinity in these passages. Mary was a human vessel to allow Jesus to be incarnated into the world. In that regard she was blessed by God. Still, she was a human mortal and was definitely not sinless.
I know exactly where you are coming from and your understandings would be in alignment with many friends I have, as well as a minister that just retired from a large church that I have a lot of respect. I have a different understanding, but what I fear is that someone will point to different understandings as a means of saying there is so much contradiction between denominations or understandings that none of this can be true.
However, on the really important things there is agreement. My understandings were like yours for most of my life and those understandings are pretty well based in Central Indiana.
I think we can agree that Mary was the Arc of the new covenant. Those that are believers understand the Arc was covered in pure gold and contained God’s word. I don’t think there are disagreements there. Understand everything I write will be of the perspective that believers might have. I don’t expect those that are not there to understand any of the following. Mary was described in Luke as “"full of grace, found favor with God" , "most blessed among women"
Lk 1:28. 30 - angel: "full of grace, found favor with God"
Lk 1:42 - Elizabeth: "most blessed among women"
Lk 1:48 - Mary: "all generations will call me blessed"
We also agree that Mary was the mother of Jesus as noted below.
Lk 1:43 - Elizabeth call her "mother of my Lord"=God Mt 1:23 - virgin bear a son, Emmanuel = "God is with us"
Lk 1:35 - child born will be called holy, the Son of God
Gal 4:4 - God sent his Son, born of a woman
It is reasonable to reflect on the angel’s comment on Mary being full of grace, found favor with God. Some think she was a vessel and little more, while others think she was much more. Would the mother of Christ…that was chosen and prophesized be impure…unlike the first Arc? The first Arc would be taken into battle and as the story goes would turn the tide to victory when raised. The Arc of the New Covenant (Mary) is also referenced in battle in Revelations as the Arc in heaven…the woman clothed with the sun that in Rev 12:17 the dragon waged war with the “womans” offspring…the offspring describe at the cross when Jesus stated to John that Mary was the mother of Christians and for him to take care of her. Jesus and John both knew she was not John’s mother and there were no children to leave Mary’s well being to…else it would make sense to leave Mary to one of the children instead of John. There is no word for cousin in the bible and so brethren is used for cousin. We know of such instance where I think it was Mary the wife of Cleopas (Clophas) who was a sister in law to Mary and her sons were cousins (James & Joses )by marriage to Jesus.
In the beginning (Genesis) the “woman” is mentioned. “I will put enmity between you and the “woman”,
and between your seed and her seed;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.” and then at the end of the bible in revelations the “woman” is referenced again angering the dragon. In which the dragon would wager war with her offspring or us.
Rest assured that when you hear the song “Mary, did you know?”…she did. We know not only due to the immaculate conception that she was blessed among all women, but that she also knew Jesus was more than a man. In the wedding of Cana where so many were drunk and having a good time that the wine was running short, the first recorded miracle took place. Jesus didn’t want to do that. He stated his time had not yet come (or be revealed). However, having his finger on the 10 commandments he was fully aware of honoring his mother and so He did her will. Even 600 years later Mohammed thought higher of Mary than his own daughter Fatima. One of the things that an eye can see is that during a time when woman aspired to be as high as a second class citizens, Mary was reverend above all the others outside of Jesus. Much of what I got to see were from the twelfth century on in Rome, but did go underground to see a 4th century church of St Clement. I think it was in 397 A.D. when the NT was formed.
I know exactly where you are coming from and your understandings would be in alignment with many friends I have, as well as a minister that just retired from a large church that I have a lot of respect. I have a different understanding, but what I fear is that someone will point to different understandings as a means of saying there is so much contradiction between denominations or understandings that none of this can be true. However, on the really important things there is agreement. My understandings were like yours for most of my life and those understandings are pretty well based in Central Indiana.
Basilica of Saint Clement is an early Christian church, which has been reconstructed in various periods, dedicated to Pope Clement I.
www.rome.net
Anyway, none of this is to suggest your understandings are in error…just that I have a different understanding. I’m sure you are a much better Christian than I am and in no way is there any attempt to disparage you and your considerations...I'm only sharing a different opinion. In many locations in the world there are stated relics of historical religious figures. Those relics bring in a lot of money to the locations claiming to house them, but there is no relic for this woman anyplace and yet we know if someone was able to support a contention for Mary like others...that destination would have a lot of visitors. If there was a scam on relics...Mary's bones would be a great start for a lot of money and yet nobody makes this claim.
