Replies

Not to ignorant and untrained ears. To natural ears. You change the definition of Mother to get where you are getting. I don't mean to be crude here which is why I'm taking it out of the Mary context. Here is a story for you. September 1726: The Woman Who Gave Birth to Rabbits
Mary Toft
18th-century depiction of Mary Toft
Mary Toft, a young woman in the town of Godalming located in the south of England, began to give birth to rabbits. Her condition soon attracted the attention of medical doctors who watched, to their amazement, as she produced one rabbit after another. The King sent his personal physicians to witness the phenomenon, and they reported back that it was not a fraud. Mary was transported to London, but under constant supervision she failed to produce any more rabbits. Sir Richard Manningham declared that he should surgically examine her to determine where the rabbits were coming from, and at that point she confessed that she had been putting them there herself when no one was looking. Remarkably, a year later she reportedly gave birth to a healthy human baby, despite the damage that she must have done to herself in the course of the rabbit deception.

Now this incident was obviously a hoax (and a very sick one at that); and I will admit that it is an awful illustration to try to make my point (but please take it for the point that I'm trying to make not for the crudity of the illustration). The rabbits were already rabbits before they were in her body. But, because they passed through her body, does this make her the Mother of the Rabbits? Of course not. First, she placed them there (whereas the Holy Spirit placed the incarnate Christ into Mary's womb through miraculous means). Second, she contributed NOTHING to their being rabbits or beginning (Just a Mary contributed NOTHING to Jesus's deity which existed before he was ever in her womb). Mary's womb was a vessel that God chose to dwell in for 9 months. In that way, it was no different than a house for God. However, in the miracle of the incarnation God became a Man. This aspect of his nature is what Mary contributed to. Not his deity. She gave him no beginning. She gave him not one shred of His deity. She contributed NOTHING to His being God. He passed through her birth canal to become a man. She contributed to His humanity. As God, he needed no physical nourishment. As man, he took nourishment from her blood supply in the womb and from her body outside of the womb. Yes, her Son was indeed God - but the emphasis should eternally be upon Him and not on Mary. If you want to say that Mary is mother of Jesus who was God - I have no objection. To take the emphasis off of Christ, however, and use a phrase like Mary mother of God, I do take issue.