You fail to comprehend the distinction of Mary having been the mother of Jesus in the flesh but not the mother of Jesus - the second of the triune God-head. As God, Jesus has always existed and was not birthed by any human. As man, he came to Earth via birthing by the young woman, Mary. Scripture shows His relationship to her not being the normal one of son to mother, from the early record of Jesus being left behind, inadvertently, because He had to “tend to His Father’s business” in the temple. (Luke 2:41 - 52)
I did not say heavenly saints could not intercede for us, but that we are not to pray to them. We are to pray only to and in the name of Jesus - our high priest. The prayers of the saints mentioned in Rev 5 and 8 do not prove your point, as the word “saints” refers to any and all Christians - not those who have died in Christ. The context of these two chapters indicates that the prayers being handled by these heavenly elders and angels are those of the persecuted saints of God living on Earth during the Great Tribulation. Check out Rev 6:9 - 11.
I believe the Scriptures - I do not believe anything man says unless it line up with the Scriptures. To call Mary “the Mother of God” is to glorify a mere woman with merit that is not hers. Indeed, the Bible does not record that she sought to be looked upon as such. This is a tale of men for the worship of men. It’s heresy.
No, you don’t get it. You’re separating Jesus the Second Person of the Trinity from Jesus the man. What part of “and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” don’t you get? Are you not aware that the Word is the Second Person of the Trinity? Mary did not “create” the Second Person of the Trinity, but He grew in her womb, she gave birth to Him, and she nursed Him. That makes her the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. “The Word became flesh.” I know it’s hard to imagine Mary changing God’s diapers, but that’s Incarnational Reality.
It also says in Luke that “He went home with them to Nazareth and was subject to them”.
He spent 30 years there in the presence of Joseph and Mary and learned the skill of carpentry there.
The happening of the “finding Him in the temple” was much more of a lesson for us about his age at the time—the age of the male entry into the studies of their faith—and the meaning of his loss and finding are not meant to convey agandonment or neglect, To believe so is to fail to understand the true meaning of His deliberate plan to emerge at the 12th year of life in the temple with the learned men to bring to their minds the prophecy of Isaiah, which should have given them some understanding of the fulfillment that was at hand.
How can you say that her relationship with her Son was not normal, when Sacred Scripture tells us that she nursed him and cared for Him in infancy, childhood and adolescence?
If He was “not birthed by any human”, how then was it that she bore Him in her womb? Was his flesh and blood from some other source? If so, how so?
How is it then that Scripture tells us that Elizabeth said (in Luke): “Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb”?
Doesn’t St. Paul tell us that we are the “adopted sons” of our Heavenly Father through Christ Jesus? If this is so, and we are told that it is in the Epistles, then we who have no merit of our own may inherit our sonship through the redemption of the Cross. If that is so, Mary “merits” that redemption as much as we do, and in all cases, she and we become sons (and daughters)of God the Father through the merits won for us by the Son of God. Therefore, the merits are hers just as they are ours, through Christ Jesus.
Also, are those “persecuted saints of God living on earth during the Great Tribulation” the only saints who have died as martyrs to persecution because of the faith? If so, why is it so? Are the lives of all those who died for the faith from the time of the birth of Christianity up to the Great Tribulation to come not saints also?