No you're not seeing my point. The divinity of Jesus although uncreated and not made is not in question when one says Mary the Mother of God. That is a misshapen understanding of what it means to be a mother.
Of course there is a way to qualify it, as the Holy Spirit does, as this birth was no ordinary birth, yet MoD is almost always used without any qualification and as part of the .
Scripture does say it was no ordinary birth precisely because Jesus is the Incarnate God. One person with two natures. That is not unscripturual unless you're wedded to the idea that the Trinity is not a valid term, and the Bible should be untranslated. The definition of the terms is contained within the statement mother of God. Its not ambiguous unless one believes Jesus divinity is ambiguous. It points to what reality is incredible about the birth of Christ, namely that he is divine.
This is why generations must should call her blessed (LK 1:48)
And again, this makes Jews and Romans murderers of God, God-killers, which also can be said in a qualified sense as technically correct,
Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit when she declared in Lk 1:41-43:
Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord (Kyrios) should come to me?
The divinity of Jesus is not a technically. Jesus is unambiguously God. Mary is unambiguously "Mother of the Kyrios, the Lord God." (Lk 1:43) His sacrifice is unambiguous. Jesus is unambiguously fully God and fully man. He is one person with two natures. Do you not believe in Christ's crucifixion as the means for mankind's salvation? If His nature was ambiguous, His sacrifice would therefore be ambiguous.
I rejection the formal title MoG we are not denying that Mary gave birth to the second person of the Trinity no matter how often you resort to trying to charge this in order to almost demand she be called by this title as well as be given all the hyper-exaltion that Spirit of God nowhere provides in Scripture.
The Second Person is Jesus and is God. His union of two natures in one person is not ambiguous. The Motherhood of Mary as Mother of the person Jesus also means she is the Mother of God. Since Jesus has ever not been God. This is why, Elizabeth declared it
But Scripture is only an abused servant for many RCs in wresting it to support of Rome. Oh that's rich, considering the Church wrote it, and protected it for 1500 years before you johnny come lately's rebelled to wallow now in ignorance of the basic truths of Christianity. Not even Martin Luther rejected the title of Mary as Mother of God, because he agree'd that it was an inseparable reality that Jesus is God and Man, which Mary as Mother of God points to.
Kyrios = Lord, not Theos = Deity/God.
Elizabeth did not say *mother of my GOD*. She used the word *Lord*.
The divinity of Jesus is not a technically. Jesus is unambiguously God.
I'm gettin' it...You figure Jesus' human body was divine...And this divine body had a divine nature and a human nature...
What do you continue to misrepresent the argument? Which is not that MoG necessarily denies the deity of Christ, but that it is inconsistent with the precise language Scripture to say God has a mother, or brothers, or that God was killed, and does not make the distinction btwn the Son of God and God the Father. But "Mother of God", "Brother of God," "God-killer" most naturally denotes Divinity as having relations who are of the same nature.
Theotokos as God-bearer better denotes Mary was the vehicle of the incarnation, but RCs mostly shun that in preference to Mother of God in their idolatrous quest to glorify her above that which is written, which they manifest that are far more committed to than protecting Mary from being venerated as basically a goddess.
Yet mother of God as a mere technically-allowed title would not be so objectionable were it not part of the egregious extrapolation of Catholics in making the humble pious holy mother of the Lord Jesus into
an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation."
But just as Caths care not that they think of mortals above that which is written, nor can the objectively see such as wrong here or admit it, and even contrive Scripture to say what is does not.
This is why generations must should call her blessed (LK 1:48)
Actually the end of the text simply says count/happy/blessed (makarizoÌ„) me" (μεÌ), while Judges 5:24 says of Jael , "Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent." Mary was more graced/blessed because of Who she carried, her incarnated Creator, the Son of God, not because she was the more virtuous and greatest saint as RCs make her into being.
Mary is unambiguously "Mother of the Kyrios, the Lord God." (Lk 1:43)
Once again the text does not say what you put in its mouth, but only says, "mother of my Lord," thus keeping the normal means of upholding deity as being that of God (the Father) and the Divine Son the Lord Jesus as well as the Divine Holy Spirit.
If His nature was ambiguous, His sacrifice would therefore be ambiguous.
Which is what is being muddled in the Cath quest to glorify the Mary of Catholicism, even to the point of saying that Christ owed His blood to her, and that she suffered and shed her blood for our sins as a redeemer, etc. (the argument that Christ's flesh came thru Mary who suffered because of our sins does not justify such unScriptural misleading assertions).
But Scripture is only an abused servant for many RCs in wresting it to support of Rome.
Oh that's rich, considering the Church wrote it, and protected it for 1500 years before you johnny come lately's rebelled to wallow now in ignorance of the basic truths of Christianity.
What kind of absurd argument is that? That the church of Rome wrote the entire Bible, or actually any of it (considering Rome is so different than the NT church that she is basically invisible in the NT ), and that in any case we are submit to the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture is ludicrous Roman reasoning. Is this still is your argument?