[HarleyD]

But I finally see that you do and therefore the term offends.

Ho, ho. You obviously don't know me very well. I'm not offended in the least. All of us are account to God for our own actions. What you believe is your business. I can only point out where I believe you are in error. Many can tell me where I'm wrong and I'll investigate whether these things are so. We'll see in the end.

The rest of the theology is really not my interest here. It's the Incarnation and the important and simple fact that Jesus had a mother.

If we're going to argue whether our Lord had a "mother" then there's not much to discuss. I'm sure the rest of the theology isn't of interest here; certainly not to discuss Mary's capability for sin.

How about "mother of our Lord"? You are ok with this, yes?

Didn't I say somewhere back this was the proper interpretation? Everyone would agree to that.

[D-fendr]

I'm not offended in the least.

Didn't mean anything by it, should have used "object to."

If we're going to argue whether our Lord had a "mother" then there's not much to discuss.

Good. That's what I was focusing on. "Birthgiver" to me sounds something like "biological mother" or a term used to mean someone who gave birth then dissappeared from the baby's life. It's incomplete compared to "mother." I think it's a key point of the Incarnation, that Jesus had a mother, shared in our humanity in this regard. It's also an important point in theology, Christology, the Trinity, Christ is God and had a human mother, but that's not what I was focusing on.

Didn't I say somewhere back this [Mother of Our Lord] was the proper interpretation?

Then I'll take it. :) Thanks for your reply.