First, that Mary is obviously not the origin of the deity of Jesus does not make her not a Mother of God. As I've been repeating ad nausea at this point. Motherhood in its definition does not entail sole authorship. The Fact that the there are two natures in Christ suffice for the definition. To be a Mother is to bear and give birth to a child. This passage (IS 7:14) suffices for the definition of Motherhood of Jesus.
The distinction that Mary is the Mother of God is not undercut by a non-mention of the word Mother in your quote from Romans. Much Like bachelor is an unmarried man a woman who conceives and bears a child is the Child's Mother. There's no way this could not be the case without saying something terribly awkward about Jesus and Salvation.
Who is Jesus? He is the Second person of the Trinity. (Heb 1:3) Jesus is God. At no time is he not God. You cannot separate His person from His two natures. He is always one Person with Two. Since Mary's Motherhood suffices for this Title.
It is also an important reminder that to say otherwise by any reason is to deny some aspect of the union of two natures in one person. No Mary is not the Sole author of the nature of God. She is the source for the flesh of Christ. But she bore a person. She gave birth to the second person of the Trinity. This is why in ad nauseam I'm forced to repeat a basic fact of Christianity.
If you deny this you deny the same reality that gives value to the meaning "God died on the Cross." Because two natures existed in the one person. Therefore, whatever is predicated of the person is predicated of the natures and vice versa.
Scripture calls us Children of God By adoption. This is because the Grace of Christ makes us like Christ, Children of God. When God looks upon His Children He sees the grace of the Holy Spirit at work making them adopted heirs(Jn 1:12-14; Romans 8:14; 1 John 3:2). Not Blasphemy, Jesus himself says something on this hinted new relationship in him (Mt 12:50; Mk 3:31).
You should come out of the cold and recognize that you have a familial relationship with God because of Jesus.
Your quotation of speculation from Cardinal Ratzinger, not doctrine, is in reference to a title I'm not discussing. It is a separate issue from the title Mother of God.
The term *mother of JESUS* is the term than actually suffices to address that Title.
It is specific enough, where as the term *mother of God* is too ambiguous to automatically imply that Jesus is the One who Mary is the mother of.
Or her parents not being the grandparents of God and so forth back to Adam and Eve, and the Jews and Romans murderers of God. You are simply refusing to see the point.
The distinction that Mary is the Mother of God is not undercut by a non-mention of the word Mother in your quote from Romans. Much Like bachelor is an unmarried man a woman who conceives and bears a child is the Child's Mother. There's no way this could not be the case without saying something terribly awkward about Jesus and Salvation.
Of course there is a way to qualify it, as the Holy Spirit does, as this birth was no ordinary birth, yet MoD is almost always used without any qualification and as part of the unScriptural hyper exaltation of the holy Mary of Scripture into an almost almighty heavenly demi-goddess with attributes of deity and which much parallel Christ.
Who is Jesus? He is the Second person of the Trinity. (Heb 1:3) Jesus is God.
And again, this makes Jews and Romans murderers of God, God-killers, which also can be said in a qualified sense as technically correct, but in the case of Rome it is a formal title which is part of a whole host of titles, attributes and glory that is way way beyond what is written of her or is even close to what is said of any created being. In essence they are adding to the word of God.
If you deny this...
I rejection the formal title MoG we are not denying that Mary gave birth to the second person of the Trinity no matter how often you resort to trying to charge this in order to almost demand she be called by this title as well as be given all the hyper-exaltion that Spirit of God nowhere provides in Scripture. But Scripture is only an abused servant for many RCs in wresting it to support of Rome.
f you deny this you deny the same reality that gives value to the meaning "God died on the Cross."
Exactly, and which is also nowhere said, though technically true, but misleading, as God also existed in Heaven while the Divine Lord Jesus died.
Your quotation of speculation from Cardinal Ratzinger, not doctrine, is in reference to a title I'm not discussing. It is a separate issue from the title Mother of God.
You are simply ignoring that the argument is applicable here as well, and that MoG is part of a the unScriptural elevation of a created being which goes way beyond what the Spirit says of any created being.
His body can and was separated from his natures...