This also seems logical: If Mary is NOT the Mother of God while she IS the Mother of Jesus, then Jesus is not God.
Your argument depends on the usual being the essential. Certainly no other Mother did not precede what she bore. Ours depends on the copular verb, though in MY construction even that is not used in its usual commutative sense.
Every mother bears what is partially of her own and partially of some other. MAry is no different from other Mothers in that respect. What is different, as we keep on saying, is the other, not her.
My whole point is being PRECISE in the language. Mother of GOD is not precise. It IS confusing. And, taken in its most natural sense would lead you in all sorts of directions.
God means all sorts of things. God the Father is God. God the Spirit is God. God the Son is God. Three persons, one God. Not three Gods. One God. Mother of God? What does that tell me. Nothing precise. Mother of Jesus tells me more.
Mother means all sorts of things and the nearly exclusive definition of a biological mother is one which includes preceding that which you bear.
I am told that "IS" in Jesus is God doesn't necessarily mean that God is Jesus. Why can't the same apply to Mary? Mary IS the mother of Jesus, who is God. But Mary is NOT the mother of God? After all, it is the incarnation and some leeway should be given to the miraculous.
Kolo, I have also been meaning to ask this. Is there a problem with saying Mother of God verses Bearer of God? I know that the Greek term is different for Mother and Bearer, though the "tokos" implies motherhood.
I would say, to be logically consistent, if I bear something I have to exist. The dictionary definition of mother includes one who is the source of a person or the origin of the person or concept/idea (i.e., mother of invention, etc.,).
The term Theotokos may have sufficed with the theological eggheads at Ephesus. Reading their explanations, their intent was good. But, I still say that the term is inappropriate for the reasons stated.