[daniel1212]

Again, the real objection is to what mother of God conveys, that of God having a mother.

MoG is not like the Ark of the Covenant, for while vessel would equate to ark, and so “vessel of God” would be correct, “mother of” denotes an ontological oneness with that which she is the mother of, but to which aspect she contributed nothing. Even though in the incarnation the two natures are co-mingled, Jesus was God before He took upon flesh, thus “mother of God incarnate” might be somewhat more acceptable. If her biological contribution makes her the MoG, so can Eve be called such, except for another Scripturally unwarranted tradition. While it can be said believers are redeemed by God’s own blood, (Acts 20:28) the ownership is His, and the efficacy of it is due to His sinless and righteous nature.

While MoG can be properly understood, when the Bible declares just whose Son Christ is, is, then it emphasizes His essential nature. Thus Jesus Himself objected to the use of the term “son of David” as denoting His real ontological father, and the Son of God was the real revelation. (Matthew 16:13-16; 22:42-45)

This said, the real issue is that of MoG being part of a larger exaltation of Mary, as in making her a prime heavenly object of prayer, due to the exaltation of tradition, which is even more the foundational issue.

[Quix]

MoG is not like the Ark of the Covenant, for while vessel would equate to ark, and so “vessel of God” would be correct, “mother of” denotes an ontological oneness with that which she is the mother of, but to which aspect she contributed nothing.

Even though in the incarnation the two natures are co-mingled, Jesus was God before He took upon flesh, thus “mother of God incarnate” might be somewhat more acceptable. If her biological contribution makes her the MoG, so can Eve be called such, except for another Scripturally unwarranted tradition.

While it can be said believers are redeemed by God’s own blood, (Acts 20:28) the ownership is His, and the efficacy of it is due to His sinless and righteous nature.

While MoG can be properly understood, when the Bible declares just whose Son Christ is, is, then it emphasizes His essential nature. Thus Jesus Himself objected to the use of the term “son of David” as denoting His real ontological father, and the Son of God was the real revelation. (Matthew 16:13-16; 22:42-45)

This said, the real issue is that of MoG being part of a larger exaltation of Mary, as in making her a prime heavenly object of prayer, due to the exaltation of tradition, which is even more the foundational issue.

#############

VERY WELL PUT. THX.

[roamer_1]

Again, the real objection is to what mother of God conveys, that of God having a mother.

... along with the fact that "Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" have been the titles of Semiramis (The "actual" Whore of Babylon), and her successors in the pantheon. There isn't *anything* in the Bible that promotes "goddess" worship, and MUCH that speaks against it.

[...] If her biological contribution [...]

That isn't said.

[Cronos]

she contributed nothing. Even though in the incarnation the two natures are co-mingled, Jesus was God before He took upon flesh, thus “mother of God incarnate” might be somewhat more acceptable

Your first statement that she contributed nothing does not gel with "He took upon flesh" -- Mad Dawg's post number 7724 puts it very well

Also, in a Catholic Mass, Mary is (outside of the Gospels) only mentioned in the recital of the Creed and when we ask saints to join us in prayer to God. The rest of the Mass, the holiest of worship to God is dedicated to God alone. To God alone the glory.

[Cronos]

As you can see by NoGrayZone’s posts, the term “Mother of God” hits right at non-Trinitarians and they cannot accept that.