Well it's not at all surprising, dear brother in Christ, that you find the description of Mary as "the temple of God" ISN'T "biblical."
I readily concede: It ISN'T, in the sense that that particular "label" is not to be found explicitly stated in the biblical texts.
But that does NOT make it specifically UNbiblical, either. What biblical truth does it contradict?
And even you conceded it's "logical."
Nevertheless, Christ as God censured them most fiercely for layering on top of God's commandments commandments of men . . . and engineering excuses thereby to render God's law and will of no effect.
RELIGION does that.
The tedious rationales for a lot of the Marian stuff
SOUNDS logical to a point, particularly when one puts one’s self as best as one can within the frame of reference and skin of a Roman Catholic et al.
However, building such enormous sky-scrapers of EXTRABIBLICAL MARIAN STUFF [to put it politely] on top of the
Biblical toothpick ‘foundation’ of “Mary full of Grace . . . “
From Mary ‘temple of God’ we end up by incremental evolutionary steps to
“6 - ‘As Mother of the Word Incarnate, Mary was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father.’”
nihil obstat (n h l b stät , -st t , n -)
1. Roman Catholic Church An attestation by a church censor that a book contains nothing damaging to faith or morals.
2. Official approval, especially of an artistic work.
RICHARD CARDINAL CUSHINGS IMPRIMATUR
--John Ferraro's TEN . . . MEDITATIONS . . . OF THE ROSARY
That level of UNMITIGATED IDOLATROUS BLASPHEMY is screamingly outrageous, to me. I have difficulty understanding how even any Roman Catholic et al/Vatican associate who puts God first would fail to see it similarly.