None of those verses support the concept that Mary is the mother of God.
These verses clearly support the concept that Mary is the mother of God. Why do non-RCC so adamantly deny what is so clearly stated?
The angel of the Lord told Joseph that Mary shall bring forth a son, who shall save his people from their sins; that this was done, to fulfill that which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. This clearly shows that Mary is the mother of God.
Gabriel told Mary that she shall conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus; that He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. The angel further said The Holy Ghost shall come upon her, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow her: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of her shall be called the Son of God. This clearly shows that Mary is the mother of God.
Elisabeth’s womb leaped in her womb when Mary greeted her; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? This clearly shows Elizabeth calling Mary the mother of God.
After Mary gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem, the angel of the Lord told shepherds that unto them is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. Mary is the mother of this babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, which is Christ the Lord. This clearly shows the angel telling the shepherds that Mary is the mother of Christ the Lord.
It was revealed to Simeon by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, Simeon took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel, and Simeon said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. This clearly shows Simeon saying that he has seen the Lord to Mary his (the Lord’s) mother.
When the wise men come into the house where they found the King of the Jews, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him. This shows that Mary is the mother of the Christ the King.
If you can show me how all these verses do not show that Mary is the mother of God, please do so.
Because the normal and natural connotation of mother denotes ontological oneness, making Mary as a goddess begetting a God after her nature.
While Mary gave birth to and mothered the incarnate Christ, she contributed nothing to His Divine nature, and owes her own existence to Christ. Giving her the formal title Mother of God disrespects how the Holy Spirit describes and gives titles to created beings, which works against exalting them as RCs extremely do with Mary, thinking of her "above that which is written," which the Spirit warns against. (1Co. 4:6)
The terms "God-bearer" which some of the ancients used is less misleading, but Caths largley refused to use that in deference to the term "Mother of God," as they seek to exalt her, ascribing things to her which are nowhere ascribed to any created beings, but many parallel the those of Chris t.
What Ratzinger wrote about the title Co-redemptrix” departing to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers applies to is akin to "Mother of God " departing to too great an extent from the language of Scripture
When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, then-Cardinal Ratzinger responded that “the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (53).
He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as their Latter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” (God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306