Kosta, you have to go through verbal gymnastics all over the place. Mary is only "Mother of God" in the sense that she bore God in her womb but she didn't pre-exist Him. Firstborn in the book of Matthew was inserted there and in Luke it only means that He was legally entitled to the rights of the firstborn, not that He had brothers and sisters, which in the New Testament are really Joseph's kids or His cousins. Mary's saying "how can this be since I haven't known a man" is really a pledge of eternal virginity it isn't a simple statement that she was a virgin right then. He knew her not UNTIL doesn't mean that something happened after the UNTIL part. Came together in Matthew 1 doesn't mean that they came together physically as husband and wife, but that they lived together in a custodial relationship. Yada yada.
With all of that in mind, and given the UNCLEAR meaning of anything that is being said with all of your council definitions and such (I asked someone who is a Christian, but is not into theological studies what he gets from the title "Mother of God" and he said that to him that implies that she came BEFORE God- so, no, the title isn't clear)...what harm would it do to make the clarifying statement that prior to the incarnation, God the Word never became flesh, etc., etc., It would be true and there wouldn't be the confusion that has come along with your claim that He has never... He has never is simply not true. There was a point in time where the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, according to the Scripture. If the Scripture is not afraid to say that the Word BECAME flesh, and if they aren't doing the acrobatics that you are doing trying to justify your usage of tense - why not bow to Scripture. It would be a whole lot less confusing and would not detract from the eternal pre-existence of God whatsoever.
There are no gymnastics, Blogger. She is the Mother of God because in her God the Word took on humanity (human nature) and became man, and she is related to Him in her humanity and in her flesh that He used to assume human nature and become man.
In addition to that, she carried the incarnate God in her womb for nine months and gave birth to Him. The 'holy thing' she gave birth to is God. What else can she be called?
I asked someone who is a Christian, but is not into theological studies what he gets from the title "Mother of God" and he said that to him that implies that she came BEFORE God- so, no, the title isn't clear
I am sure if you asked him about the Holy Trinity or the dual nature of Christ, he wouldn't be clear on that either. It's not common sense, Blogger.
If the Scripture is not afraid to say that the Word BECAME flesh, and if they aren't doing the acrobatics that you are doing trying to justify your usage of tense...
What is your problem? Did I ever say that God the Word did not take on Mary's flesh and became human? He did that without alteration or change.
Surely you don't mean to insinuate that God the Word somehow changed and is no longer the same God?!? He took on human nature, at one moment in time, but without change to His divinity (divinity, divine essence, is incorporeal among other things). God does not change.
Yet that same God the Word took on flesh and became human (the property of human nature is corporeal), and He exists as both, divine and human, without confusion or mixing. Maybe Protestants believe otherwise. Based on what I am reading here, I wouldn't be surprised.