Now in human terms being the mother of someone means that the someone came into existence in that mother's body. Jesus The Son has always been with God and Is God, so He did not come into existence in Mary's body, but His physical body did. And ya know what, Scriptures tell us that for a season He made Himself a little lower than the Angels, to be our Savior.
Mary could not be the one in whom even a part of the Godhead came into existence, because God exists before Mary. Mary therefore is not the mother of God, since God pre-exists mary, but she is the Mother of the physical body God The Son of The Almighty Father occupied. Of course, you nor I can say precisely when The Son began to occupy that gestating body, but it had to be pretty early since the six months old nane in Elizabeth's body recognized His Lord's Presence.
Now ask yourself if the body Jesus now occupies had a mother. If you recognize that God made The Son new, in a glorified body, then the answer is that the current body Jesus occupies did not have a mother to gestate in.
Meant to ping you ...
Excellent point(s)!
You need to study some Christology. Virtually everything you say in those several paragraphs is heretical—and I’m talking about the classical Christological definitions of the first three or four Christian centuries.
Mary is the mother of God BY VIRTUE OF the fact that the flesh of Jesus Christ came from her body.
Because Jesus Christ is ONE PERSON, the eternally-existing Second Person of the Trinity, Mary is called the “mother of God.” Mary is NOT the source or origin of the DIVINE PERSON, the Second Person of the Trinity, but because she is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is ONE PERSON, Mary can be truthfully called “the mother of God.”
The body of the Risen Christ, who is in Heaven, is the SAME body that was conceived in the womb of Mary, lived in Nazareth, hung on the cross, lay dead in the tomb, and rose from the dead.
You desperately need to acquaint yourself with the Christological dogmas solemnly defined in the first several centuries after Christ.
I don’t get why there is all this HARD work and explanations of how to get around saying that Mary is the Mother of God, but not all persons of God when scripture makes that a moot exercise by the title mother of Jesus. Why go to such hard work to explain what a term does not mean when you have a perfectly good term to use?? And one that the Holy Spirit uses.
And it begs the simple question - if it is so hard to explain what you mean and what you don’t mean by a descriptive phrase, then why NOT use the simple one that everyone knows what you mean? What is the reason, what is the spirit behind all of this?
RC does that in other areas, not just the title they plop on Mary when the title mother of Jesus works. Why make life more complicated? This tells me many things.
The only Magic thinking here is you who want to insist that Christianity does not have a comprehensive understanding of the Trinity, of Mary as the Mother of God, and the Two Natures in one Divine Person Jesus. What you have difficulty with is is Theology. Try not to be ignorant of your faith. Your objections thus far have been have absurdly been denying the reality that the divinity and humanity exist in one person Jesus.
Now in human terms being the mother of someone means that the someone came into existence in that mother's body.
Your mistake is here. That the motherhood implies that the existence of the person rests solely on her authorship. It does not. No mother is the sole author of the existence of Her child. They do not spontaneously conceive alone.
His Human nature came into existence in Her womb. God is outside of time. He therefore does not have a beginning or end. The Second person came into creation in her womb with Her cooperation. What the incarnation means is that Jesus came into the world as a Human being, who is both God and Man. He, outside of his creation, came into creation assuming the flesh of his creation. Once again, a twisted interpretation of the definition of Mother is at work in your understanding. It is not implied that the sole authorship of the persons existence begins in the womb.
And ya know what, Scriptures tell us that for a season He made Himself a little lower than the Angels, to be our Savior.
You are describing his humility, He is the refulgence of the Glory of God.(Heb 1:3) His condescension does not change His identity as the Son of God. For he was always in the "form of God."(Phil 2:6) The fact that infinity is contained in one person is a mystery, but if you want to believe in infinite salvation for mankind you have to put together the infinite and the finite. They exist only in one person.
Of course, you nor I can say precisely when The Son began to occupy that gestating body, but it had to be pretty early since the six months old nane in Elizabeth's body recognized His Lord's Presence.
Stop right there. What you're advocating is Adoptionism which is wrong. At no time what so ever is Jesus ever not fully God and fully Man, from the moment of his conception unto the present age. Otherwise, the divine person did not fully assume the humanity of Man. Because therefore there was a time where the nature of Jesus' humanity was not united to his divinity. What makes it so hard for Him to have fully assumed our Humanity? 1 john 2:22 speaks here.