Why Christians Call Mary the Mother of God.

[Moonwood]

Physically, not spiritually.

The issue is not whether Mary is the mother of Christ's divine nature. Catholics do not claim that She is. Mothers do not give birth to natures; they give birth to persons. Jesus is one Person, not two persons. The Person Mary bore is the eternal Son of God incarnate.

For example, my mother did not give birth merely to my body while someone else gave birth to "the real me." She gave birth to me, the person. Likewise, Mary did not give birth to a human person separate from God the Son. She gave birth to the Person who is Jesus Christ. That is why Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, calls Mary:

"the mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43).

And why the Church defended the title Mother of God (Theotokos) at Ephesus. The title protects the truth that the child Mary bore was truly God incarnate. So yes, Mary did not originate Christ's divine nature. No Christian claims that. But the Person She bore was God the Son made flesh. Therefore, calling Mary the Mother of God is a statement about who Jesus is, not about Mary being the source of God's divinity. In that sense, "Mother of God" means "Mother of the Incarnate God." The title is ultimately a confession about Christ's identity: the child born of Mary is God in the flesh.

 

[David1701]

You say:

"the prohibition is against making statues or images that have not been commanded by God."

But where does Exodus 20 actually say that? The reason I raised the cherubim is because your interpretation of Exodus 20 was that the commandment contains three separate prohibitions:

1. Do not make images.
2. Do not bow before images.
3. Do not serve images.

The problem is that God Himself later commands images to be made. So the commandment cannot be an absolute prohibition against making images. Now you've introduced a new qualification: images are permitted if God commands them. But that qualification is not found in Exodus 20:4-5 itself. It is a conclusion you're drawing in order to reconcile Exodus 20 with Exodus 25. I agree that Exodus and Leviticus must be read together. That's precisely why I do not interpret Exodus 20 as a blanket prohibition on religious images. The commandment begins:

"You shall have no other gods before Me."

That is the context. The concern is idolatry. God's later commands regarding the cherubim demonstrate that images themselves are not the issue. The issue is treating an image as a god or an idol. You then say:

"Making idols of, for example, Mary, to bow down before and to pray to her, is exactly the kind of idolatry that the prohibition is against."

But that is the point under debate, not something that has been demonstrated. Catholics do not believe Mary is a goddess. Catholics do not believe statues of Mary possess divine power. Catholics do not offer Mary the worship due to God alone. Simply referring to a statue of Mary as an "idol" assumes the very conclusion you're trying to prove. The real question is: what biblical principle distinguishes the cherubim, the Temple imagery, and other sacred images commanded by God from Catholic statues? If the answer is that the former were not treated as gods, then we agree. But that means the issue is not the existence of an image. The issue is whether the image is being worshipped as a god.

The command was, as I posted in my last post, "You shall not make images to yourselves."; in other words, you will not take it upon yourselves to make statues or images.

There are a few main differences between the items that God commanded to be made and the ones that Romanism makes:

1) God does not command, or give permission for, statues or images of Mary, Jesus, or "saints" (but often not in the biblical sense) to be made.

2) He does not command, or give permission for, people to bow down before such statues or images.

3) He does not command, or give permission for, people to pray to whomever or whatever those statues or images represent.

What do idolaters do? They bow down before statues, or images, of their idols and pray to whatever they represent, sometimes making offerings to them. Such actions are forms of worship...

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus never called “His Church”
catholic

And your point is??

God didn’t originally call the Israelites “Jews”. The FIRST place in the OT that we see this word is in 2 Kings 16:5-6. The word "Jew" comes from the Hebrew term “Yehudi”, referring to a member of the tribe of Judah.

We get the name “Catholic” from the NT:
Acts 9:31 talks about how the Early Church grew throughout the region. The language used here describes the Catholic Church:
“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.”

The Catholic Church gets its name from the GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal” - εκκλησια καθ ολης, which is pronounced “katah-holos”.

Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly; CHURCH
καθ (katah) - Through out, according to
ολης (holos) - All, whole, completely
"ekklesia Kata-holos" = CATHOLIC CHURCH.

This name was already being widely-used by the beginning of the SECOND century.
Ignatius of Antioch - a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans:
“Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the Apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, WHEREVER JESUS CHRIST IS PRESENT, THERE IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH "(Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Hmmmm -
“Follow your Bisop . . .”
“Oey your Clergy . . .”
“The sole EUCHARIST . . .”

Sounds pretty CATHOLIC to me . . .

Sect… ?

Yes – non-Catholic splinters are sects of the Original Tree that is the Catholic Church.

Like it or NOT – you’re all splinter-sects of the original Church. You wouldn’t even have a Bible if not the Catholic Church . . .

Amazing what happened when men learned to read!

Yup.

But unfortunately, they quickly became filled with human PRIDE and splintered into tens of thousands of sects – ALL believing that THEY had the “Truth”, based on the personal interpretations of their human founders . . .

Please identify the Letters and quoted excerpts from the Apostles Jesus appointed and Sent out to Preach…
specifically the TRADITIONS the Apostles practiced regarding Mary

Let’s start with John 21:25, which tells us about the countless things Jesus did and taught – too NUMEROUS to write down. Can YOU point to these things?
I didn’t think so . . .
- THAT’S why Jesus left us with a CHURCH to lead and teach His followers.
- THAT’S why the office of Apostle was a SUCCESSIVE one (Acts 1:20).
Acts 1:20
'Let his days be few; and let another take his OFFICE.'
The Greek word used here for “office” is actually Episkopay, which means BISHOPRIC.

- THAT’S why Jesus the leaders of His Church and their successors –
Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

- THAT’S why He told them that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to ALL TRUTH (John 16:12-15)
- THAT’S why He told the Apostles:
Matt 16:16-19, 18:15-18
WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

- THAT’S why Paul wrote about the fact that the TRADITIONS they taught were just as binding as the Scriptures, which HADN’T been written or compiled yet (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Cor. 11:2).

1 Cor. 12:27-30
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all APOSTLES, second PROPHETS, third TEACHERS, then MIRACLES, then gifts of HEALING, of helping, of GUIDANCE, and of different kinds of TONGUES. 29 ARE ALL APOSTLES? Are all PROPHETS? Are all TEACHERS? Do all work MIRACLES? 30 Do all have gifts of HEALING? Do all speak in TONGUES? Do all INTERPRET?

We ALL have a role in the Body of Christ – and they are NOT all the same . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

continued . . .

So…which Apostle… started the binding on earth…of
Statues of Mary?
Bowing before statues?
Crucifix trinkets?
Prayer Beads?
Calling on Mary ( after her bodily death? )
Calling out to departed souls or spirits?

Depends on WHICH Apostle or successor – and what century . . .

Okay Gospel according to Luke…
Where are Luke’s’ Traditions Regarding Mary?

The entire Bible is a collection of Traditions.
Read C-L-O-S-E-L-Y . . .

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER by an ORAL STATEMENT OR by a LETTER from us."

Sacred Tradition is handed down both ORALLY and by the WRITTEN word.

Yes… the Early Church …
Jesus called His Church…

Soooo – were they all damned to Hell because they didn’t READ the Scriptures and were taught by MEN?

Name Change..
Men hearing but not reading / verifying.

Yup. Faith comes from HEARING His Word - and NOT necessarily READING it . . .

Rom. 10:17
"So faith comes from HEARING, and HEARING through the word of Christ."

Printing presses…
Books scarce / expensive.
Men broadly illiterate for centuries.

Uh huh.
So MILLIONS never read a WORD of Scripture – but they HEAR the Word from the Church.

Thanks for making my point . . .

Inferences “the Catholic Church is Jesus’ only True Church”… (but not Taught by the Apostles)

As I already showed you above . . .

"ekklesia Kata-holos (Acts 9:31)" = CATHOLIC CHURCH.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Ug, The notion of the Church as catholic (universal) is older than the formal New Testament canon. “Catholic” simply means “according to the whole”—the Church in its entirety, not a later institutional brand. By definition the Church is the one Body of Christ: all believers united not merely across geography but across time (Eph 4:4–6; 1 Cor 12:12–13; Col 1:18).
One of the clearest scriptural pictures of this is the twenty-four elders around the throne in Revelation (Rev 4:4, 10; 5:8, 14; 11:16). The number twenty-four is never given an official apostolic commentary, yet twelve is unmistakably symbolic: the twelve patriarchs/tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles of the Lamb. The twenty-four elders therefore function as a vivid emblem of the Old Covenant people being joined to the New Covenant people in Christ—one royal priesthood, one holy nation, one Body (cf. Eph 2:11–22; 1 Pet 2:9–10).
That union was publicly inaugurated at Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out and the Gospel began to go to the nations (Acts 2), and was then deliberately confirmed by the Jerusalem Council when the apostles and elders recognized that Gentiles were full members of the same covenant community without first becoming Jews (Acts 15).
The Church is catholic because she is theophoric — God-bearing. She is the one people created in His image in whom God Himself dwells by the Spirit, and who therefore carries His message, the Gospel of the Kingdom, to every nation and every generation (Matt 28:18–20; Eph 2:21–22; Rev 7:9).

---

 

[Taken]

But that's precisely my point. You are already recognizing that not every religious image is forbidden.

Att… @BreadOfLife

Your Point Omits
The One determining Factor —->
What God Says TO DO.
What God Says TO NOT DO.
And “doubt” you understand WHY.

You keep saying "Do NOT DO," but that's just repeating your conclusion.

No. That is acknowledging the Scriptural Fact.

I'm asking for the principle that allows the cherubim, the Ark decorations,…

Gods Word. Gods Command.
Accept or Reject, your FREEWILL.Catholics do not believe statues of Mary are gods.

Catholics do not believe statues possess divine power. Catholics do not worship statues.

Utter Nonsense…That you imply you have the super power to KNOW the Hearts Truth of over 1 Billion Catholics…to Speak for Each of them.

You're arguing:

1. We should pray to God alone.
2. We should pray for others.
3. Therefore we should not ask Mary for intercession.

Exactly.
Leave the Departed souls and spirits of men, in Heaven TO their Rest and Service to God…

We agree completely that prayer, worship, and petition are ultimately directed to God. Where we disagree is that you seem to assume that asking another member of Christ's body for prayer somehow becomes a rival act of prayer to that person.

The departed souls and spirits in Heaven ARE No longer a Person…!
Their Body’s are mortally DEAD.

You HAVE…a Living, Body, Soul, Spirit in INTERCESSOR IN Heaven, JESUS…That was Appointed For You.

Why promote Dismissing Him, Gods Provision…and instead… Condone, promote, argue Against Gods Way?

When I ask a friend, pastor, spouse, or church member to pray for me, I am not ceasing to pray to God. I am asking another believer to join me in prayer.

You are asking a Person…whole, intact, Body, Soul, Spirit TO Pray to God, with you, for you.

So when you repeatedly quote Matthew 6, you're proving something Catholics already believe: "Pray to your Father." Catholics do pray to the Father. Catholics pray to Christ. Catholics pray directly to God every day. The question under discussion has never been whether Christians should pray to God. The question is whether those alive in Christ in Heaven can pray for us.

Mary is not and other Departed saints ARE Not Appointed intercessors.
There is No Teaching the Departed Can Hear You or are To Know your Prayers or Answer your prayers.

You wrote:

"THEN... Praying 'TO' other than 'your Father', IS settled."

But that's the point you're assuming rather than proving.

Pray TO your Father…
If that be God or Satan… your FREEWILL.
It is Not Mary!

Asking Mary to pray for us is not the same thing as directing worship to Mary.

So What? Some do, some don’t… their Consequence!

I

The problem with this argument is that it seems to separate the human Jesus

Another of wayward word…
Jesus was NOT a Human…
He appeared AS a human man…

Humans come from their habitat… Earth…the Earth is the source of the Minerals / Water required to maintain a Humans Life…

Jesus’ Time on Earth was Not dependent on
Minerals, water, out of the Earth to maintain His Life ON Earth!

He could have walked about the Earth a thousand years and never ate or drank a thing …. He IS the Spiritual Life… regardless of WHAT body humans SAW, that God prepared For Him when He came into this world!

Go ahead, Exercise your FREEWILL to promote, defend, engage to Pray to dead humans and their departed souls and spirits…because apparently Catholic folklore “of they you call on”…supersede Christ Jesus’ intercessory Appointment.

Be Prepared;
The Judge will burn your corrupt works.

1 Tim 2:
[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Moonwood]

What God Says TO DO.
What God Says TO NOT DO.

You say the determining factor is:

"What God Says TO DO. What God Says TO NOT DO."

But that's not actually a principle. That's just restating the question. My question is: what is it about the cherubim, the Ark imagery, and the Temple imagery that makes them permissible, while making a statue of Mary impermissible? Earlier you seemed to object to religious images themselves. But God commanded religious images. So now you appear to be saying that religious images are permissible when God commands them.

Fair enough.

But then where does God say that all other religious images are forbidden? Exodus 20 cannot mean "never make an image of anything in Heaven or on Earth," because God Himself later commands exactly that. Therefore, something more specific must be prohibited. The most natural reading is the one given by the context:

"You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3).

The issue is idolatry. That's why I'm continually asking what distinguishes the cherubim from a Catholic statue. If the answer is that the cherubim were not idols, were not gods, and were not worshipped as gods, then we agree. But that means the issue is not simply the existence of an image.

The departed souls and spirits in Heaven ARE No longer a Person…!

You say:

"The departed souls and spirits in Heaven ARE No longer a Person...!"

I don't see any biblical basis for that claim. Scripture consistently presents the departed righteous as remaining identifiable persons. Moses is still Moses at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-3). Elijah is still Elijah. The souls under the altar in Revelation 6:9-10 are conscious, speaking, remembering, and petitioning God. If a departed believer ceases to be a person, then Moses and Elijah are no longer Moses and Elijah, which is not how Scripture presents them. You also say:

"You HAVE... a Living, Body, Soul, Spirit in INTERCESSOR IN Heaven, JESUS..."

Catholics agree completely. The question is why Christ's unique intercession excludes all subordinate intercession when Scripture repeatedly commands Christians to intercede for one another. If Christ's role as intercessor prevents anyone else from interceding, then Paul's command to offer "supplications, prayers, intercessions" for others becomes difficult to explain. Catholics do not believe Mary replaces Christ's intercession. Catholics believe any intercession by Mary depends entirely upon Christ and participates in His work. You then say:

"Mary is not and other Departed saints ARE Not Appointed intercessors."

But where does Scripture teach that physical death removes a member of Christ's body from the ministry of intercession? That remains the unanswered question. Finally, you state:

"There is No Teaching the Departed Can Hear You or are To Know your Prayers or Answer your prayers."

But there is also no teaching that those alive with Christ are unable to know of earthly events, unable to pray for believers on earth, or unable to intercede before God. In fact, Scripture repeatedly depicts the righteous as alive and conscious after death. Moses and Elijah converse with Jesus. The souls under the altar cry out to God. Jesus says that God is "not the God of the dead, but of the living." So we're back to the same point:

Since you agree that Mary is alive with Christ in Heaven, where does Scripture teach that physical death prevents a member of Christ's body from praying for another member of Christ's body?

Because that conclusion is being asserted, but I still haven't seen it demonstrated from Scripture.

Another of wayward word…
Jesus was NOT a Human…
He appeared AS a human man…

Humans come from their habitat… Earth…the Earth is the source of the Minerals / Water required to maintain a Humans Life…

Jesus’ Time on Earth was Not dependent on
Minerals, water, out of the Earth to maintain His Life ON Earth!

He could have walked about the Earth a thousand years and never ate or drank a thing …. He IS the Spiritual Life… regardless of WHAT body humans SAW, that God prepared For Him when He came into this world!

Go ahead, Exercise your FREEWILL to promote, defend, engage to Pray to dead humans and their departed souls and spirits…because apparently Catholic folklore “of they you call on”…supersede Christ Jesus’ intercessory Appointment.

Be Prepared;
The Judge will burn your corrupt works.

1 Tim 2:
[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I think you're actually proving my point. If Jesus was merely a spirit appearing as a man, then He was not truly human. But Scripture says "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14), not merely that He appeared to be flesh.

Before His incarnation, the Word existed eternally with the Father (John 1:1-2). But when "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14), He did not merely appear as a man or temporarily wear a body. He became truly human.

After His resurrection, Jesus did not say, "I am a spirit appearing as a man." He said, "A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39). He invited His disciples to touch Him and even ate before them (Luke 24:42-43). Angels may appear in human form, but Jesus explicitly distinguished Himself from a spirit by pointing to His real, resurrected body.

Likewise, Scripture does not say a human son was born and later became God's Son at age 30. The One conceived in Mary's womb was already called "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). The child born of Mary was not a separate human person who later received divine status.

Romans 1:3-4 distinguishes Christ according to His humanity and according to His divine sonship, but it is speaking of the same Person throughout: "His Son Jesus Christ our Lord."

So the question remains: Who was Mary the mother of? Was it Jesus Christ, the eternal Son who became flesh?

 

[Moonwood]

The command was, as I posted in my last post, "You shall not make images to yourselves."; in other words, you will not take it upon yourselves to make statues or images.

There are a few main differences between the items that God commanded to be made and the ones that Romanism makes:

1) God does not command, or give permission for, statues or images of Mary, Jesus, or "saints" (but often not in the biblical sense) to be made.

2) He does not command, or give permission for, people to bow down before such statues or images.

3) He does not command, or give permission for, people to pray to whomever or whatever those statues or images represent.

What do idolaters do? They bow down before statues, or images, of their idols and pray to whatever they represent, sometimes making offerings to them. Such actions are forms of worship...

But where does Scripture establish the principle that religious images are forbidden unless God gives an explicit command to make them?

The cherubim, Temple imagery, bronze oxen, palm trees, pomegranates, and other sacred images demonstrate that images are not inherently violations of the Second Commandment. So the commandment itself cannot simply mean, "Never make a religious image."

What I see in Exodus 20:3-5 is a prohibition against making images as idols and then bowing down to and serving them as gods. The context is, "You shall have no other gods before Me."

As for your three points, they seem to assume the very issue under debate. Catholics do not believe Mary, the saints, or their statues are gods. So calling those statues "idols" doesn't prove they're idols; it simply restates your conclusion.

The question remains: What biblical test are you using to distinguish a lawful sacred image from an idol? If the answer is merely, "God explicitly commanded one but not the other," where does Scripture say that every religious image requires a specific divine command in order to be lawful?

 

[Peter1]

Jesus was both fully human and fully divine you cannot separate them

 

[Taken]

You say the determining factor is:

"What God Says TO DO. What God Says TO NOT DO."

But that's not actually a principle.

That’s the Option God Gave you.

That's just restating the question. My question is: what is it about the cherubim, the Ark imagery, and the Temple imagery that makes them permissible, while making a statue of Mary impermissible?

The images God instructed were per
His Instruction, His Design, For His Purpose, of angels He Created.

Your Statues are From “men’s imaginations” that NO Sculptor, Stone/smith EVER saw, them, their likeness, appearance, or image.

Earlier you seemed to object to religious images themselves.

Do not still stands.

But God commanded religious images.

Made by men WITH Gods instruction.

So now you appear to be saying that religious images are permissible when God commands them.

Precisely.

But then where does God say that all other religious images are forbidden?

Do not, should suffice.

The issue is idolatry.

Part of the issue.

But that means the issue is not simply the existence of an image.

Correct… as I mentioned THE “WHY”.

You say:

"The departed souls and spirits in Heaven ARE No longer a Person...!"

Correct.

I don't see any biblical basis for that claim.

What was ADAM…
Between…
God Forming His Body…
and (conjunction)…next
Blowing a soul into his Body?

Scripture consistently presents the departed righteous as remaining identifiable persons.

Does a man lose his identity because his body is dead. his soul is departed, his spirit has departed ?
No.

Moses is still Moses at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-3). Elijah is still Elijah. The souls under the altar in Revelation 6:9-10 are conscious, speaking, remembering, and petitioning God. If a departed believer ceases to be a person, then Moses and Elijah are no longer Moses and Elijah, which is not how Scripture presents them.

Nonsense.
Moses’ body, soul, spirit, IS Moses.

You also say:

"You HAVE... a Living, Body, Soul, Spirit in INTERCESSOR IN Heaven, JESUS..."

Catholics agree completely. The question is why Christ's unique intercession excludes all subordinate intercession when Scripture repeatedly commands Christians to intercede for one another.

Do you really Not comprehend to PRAY FOR the Living ON Earth…
Do you Think spirits and souls in Heaven are Suffering fears, worries, debts, diseases, wars, liars. thieves, wackos …and Satan…
As ON they ON Earth?

If Christ's role as intercessor prevents anyone else from interceding, then Paul's command to offer "supplications, prayers, intercessions" for others becomes difficult to explain.

Been explained. Cant understand it FOR you.

Catholics do not believe Mary replaces Christ's intercession.

If Mary is your intercessor… No need for Jesus.
There is no First chair and Second chair.
Pick one.. Your FREEWILL.

Glory to God
Taken

 

[David1701]

But where does Scripture establish the principle that religious images are forbidden unless God gives an explicit command to make them?

The cherubim, Temple imagery, bronze oxen, palm trees, pomegranates, and other sacred images demonstrate that images are not inherently violations of the Second Commandment. So the commandment itself cannot simply mean, "Never make a religious image."

What I see in Exodus 20:3-5 is a prohibition against making images as idols and then bowing down to and serving them as gods. The context is, "You shall have no other gods before Me."

As for your three points, they seem to assume the very issue under debate. Catholics do not believe Mary, the saints, or their statues are gods. So calling those statues "idols" doesn't prove they're idols; it simply restates your conclusion.

The question remains: What biblical test are you using to distinguish a lawful sacred image from an idol? If the answer is merely, "God explicitly commanded one but not the other," where does Scripture say that every religious image requires a specific divine command in order to be lawful?

<sigh>
Already answered...

The command is not to make statues or images, not to bow down before them and not to pray to them. Bowing down before a statue of Mary and praying to her is, by definition, idolatry. We are to pray to our Father in heaven, not to people or anything else.