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.
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.