There are a ton of gymnastics! Everything that we point out as Scriptural, you have to find another, not usual, meaning to. Scripture says that Joseph and Mary came together as husband and wife, but that before that, while she was yet a virgin, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. Scripture says that she gave birth to her firstborn son and laid him in a manger and that Joseph didn't know her physically as his wife until Jesus was born. Scripture names Jesus's brothers and speaks of his sisters. Scripture shows Mary referring to God as her Savior and she even gets a mild rebuke from Jesus when she asks him to turn the water to wine before it was his time to reveal himself. Scripture is clear. Mary was an ordinary but virtuous woman. She was from the line of David and was chosen by God to be the vessel through which He would enter the world as man. She was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. But, Scripture strongly implies(in the above mentioned portions) that she and Joseph had a normal marital life including the more intimate parts of marriage. It names Jesus' brothers and sisters and does not call them the children of Joseph by some other wife or cousins, but His brothers and sisters.
You may deny it but it is only gymnastics and a stubborn tendency to hang on to the extra-biblical doctrines gaining popularity in the 4th century on that leads you to dismiss the Scriptural evidence and conform Scripture to your church's dogma. Again, firstborn doesn't indicate a second. Before they came together doesn't indicate that they came together. Until after doesn't mean anything happened after. Brothers and sisters don't mean brothers and sisters. Savior doesn't indicate someone actually in need of a Savior.
As far as Mary's title goes, Mother of Jesus. Period. Jesus defines himself, unless you believe calling Jesus by the name Jesus denies His deity. It's ridiculous.
As far as what occurred when God became flesh, again, it is an unexplainable feat; yet we know that God does not change and His divinity was unaltered.
The confusion is in your own words. You have said
"God the Word has no flesh, no form, nor shape, no humanity."
Now you say "Yet that same God the Word took on flesh and became human"
Your explanation? You weren't referring to the incarnate God the Word but rather God the Word pre-incarate who "IS" present tense without flesh.
Olga Korbut couldn't have done better.
Why do you believe the NT you have and quote from and interpret by sola scriptura isn't a 4th century (or for that matter a 16th century) fabrication, Blogger?
No, the scripture doesn't "strongly imply" that. When it names Jesus's brothers and sisters, most of them are also named elsewhere children of another woman. We have been here before; if you want to imply something from what reading you do, that is your right, but for what the scripture does or does not say, I have better authority and they disagree with you.