"Ezekiel mentions the eastern gate; but it was shut; and the Lord confirms to him: “This gate shall be shut; It shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. As for the prince, because He is the prince, he may sit in it to eat bread before the Lord; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway, and go out the same way”(Ez 44:2-3). What is the shut gate, through which the Lord entered, and goes out, and will stay shut, but the undefiled virginal womb of St. Mary; in which the Lord came to incarnate from her by the Holy Spirit? She gave birth to Him, proving that her virginity remained sealed and is why St. Mary could be a mother and a virgin at the same time and she even returns as the “Ark of the Temple”:
Here we have an “ark” coming from this temple, who is a “woman” “crowned” as a Queen stomping the devil and the red dragon. If this woman is strictly Israel or the church, as they say, how can the dragon be angry at the woman [the Church] and then makes war on her offspring who are also the Church? The woman and her offspring are separate individuals of mother and Son. It is here that we must apply the “two senses” and even “three senses” since it is also the church and redeemed Israel in metaphor."
I cringe at the idea that somehow the shut gate of the temple is somehow Mary's womb. I am sorry but I don't know how you could read that into Ezekiel.
The woman in context is not a reference to Mary, It is a reference to the church and redeemed Israel.
I would recommend seeing Keith Thompson's video on Revelation 12 for more information:
"Ezekiel first talked about the gate through which the Lord entered; then about those who minister in the new temple; introducing a special law for them, that fits their work and their priestly mission.
Besides the issues regarding Mary, and I am familiar with all the objections, we must now return to our original case study: the abomination of desolation. It is what defiles the believer’s temple as sin cannot be cleansed without confession and Eucharist (grain offering) both together."
Again, grain offering and drink offering are not a reference to the Eucharist, I need not comment on this again.
"This then relates to the forgiveness of sin. How else must the prophecy of John 20 be fulfilled:
The whole story of Daniel, Ezekiel, Joel, Malachi with the “grain offering” is definitely the Eucharist, which defies what non-apostolics say, that according to the words of Christ in the gospel, is to be strictly taken with only a remembrance of Him. This can never be just for remembrance only, but it is also his body and blood as it is stated in Daniel 9 “he will stop the and ” altogether which is done daily, not only once a month or every other Sunday as non-apostolics do."
The grain offering does not refer to the Eucharist at all, I refer to the previous article regarding Malachi, Daniel and the grain offering: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-abomination-of-desolation-response.html
But what does John 20:23 mean? Does it refer to a priests authority to forgive one of their sins? Or is it a declaration that the person has been forgiven of their sins? It is the latter.
There are some other links I recommend written by others on this issue:
(More may be added if the Lord Wills).
"Daniel here uses the term “sacrifice” not “remembrance”. This is the same sacrificewhich was offered by the apostles, and in all Christian ages; and is this same sacrifice, according to the prophecy of Malachi 1:11 shall be offered in “ to “. This doctrine and practice was witnessed by as far back as the ancient Fathers and interpreters. (1)
This is impossible to answer unless we accept an apostolic succession view where Christ will continue this institution “even to the end of the age”."
Just go to the article above because I refuse to repeat my point about the grain offering, as well as Daniel and Malachi, it's getting tiresome. for that matter, The early Christian believers did not hold to transubstantiation and it is anachronistic to try to shoehorn that doctrine into the New Testament: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/john-6-does-it-teach-transubstantiation.html