Mary BEGAN to be the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, who existed from all eternity, when He took a human nature by being conceived in her womb.
The objection that Mary cannot be the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity because that would necessitate God’s having a beginning, is an idiotic objection that would have got you laughed at by any catechized eight-year-old from the First Century to this century.
Every catechized Christian child knows that in Christ there is one eternal Divine Person, and, since the moment of His conception in His mother’s womb, two natures.
Any catechized Christian child would laugh at an adult, claiming to be a Christian, who thinks that, if Christ’s human NATURE had a beginning, then His divine PERSON must have had a beginnong.
Yet, that is the ENTIRETY of the argument you have been making to me: If Christ’s human NATURE had a beginning, then his divine PERSON had a beginning.
I see you’re not answering my question.
Which is why the title "Mother of God" is not Scriptural. You even tacitly admit that when you explain who Mary is. You call her "Mary the Mother of Jesus, the Son of God" or "Mary the Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity". You use these words to clarify that you aren't implying Mary is THE mother of the Trinity. Why isn't Scripture sufficient to call her what the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to call her, "Mary, the mother of Jesus"?
Also, your gamesmanship over demanding Ealgeone answer your question EVERY TIME YOU ASK IT, in the way you expect it to be answered, is exposed for what it really is....a game.
No, Mary began to be the mother of Jesus.
The Second person of the Trinity pre-existsed Mary before the Incarnation.
He did not begin with the Incarnation as your statement says.