And what would "Mother of Jesus" tell anyone? That Mary gave birth to a son?
That would be remarkable to... no one.
The fact that Mary gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, in the Flesh of Jesus, is what makes the birth of Jesus remarkable. This is the significance of the title, "Mother of God." It points to the Incarnation.
Sure, why not? She gave birth to Jesus, didn't she? How about going about establishing the Jesus was; God with us, a begotten son of God (not merely 'adopted' or "as a son", or "like a son" in some hazy philosophical sense) but was truly both God and fully man at the same time, using other means of description which; adhere more directly to scripture, and does not introduce yet other contemplation which must be hedged against by yet more talk and instruction?
One cannot go from, as place of beginning, describing Mary as "Mother of God" in order to establish to nearly anyone who does not already know the story as it is written -- that the one we call Jesus was (and is) God. Doing it that way is not only kind-of backwards, what's worse is that if those who are told of Mary as quote-unquote (and capitalized, no less) "Mother of God" are not well versed in how the relationship is actually written in scripture -- and that in yet fuller context ---can begin to create in their own minds inflated role for Mary, which appears to be so much in parallel with a variety of pagan 'goddess' myths, Greek myths, Egyptian myths, Mesopotamian myths, in ending results conceptions of Mary becomes as a chaste Inanna & Diana combination, all dressed up in Christian clothing.
The birth of Christ, the Messiah of Israel was a miraculous event, far outside of more ordinary occurrence, even though life itself and life processes are something of a miracle all on their own, too.
Well look-ee here. You're having to explain it with additional information! So much for the phrase being entirely workable, short-hand description which does not need many times over additional words in order to keep it straight. One may as well have stuck with speaking of Mary as mother of the incarnate Christ, and then add sufficient additional explanation such as; Christ was in the heart of the Father from the beginning, etc.
Without extra explanation and reasonable limitations put on the phrase -- to make certain that when speaking about "Mother of God" were are not talking about Mary being capital "M" Mother of God, uh, woops, I meant the First Person of the Trinity (to fully import the 'style' which you were utilizing) then there is still the need to backtrack and qualify the phrase. Or else Mary becomes the one who gave birth to God, thus an Uber-God-ess (potentially greater than the Eternal for having, uhm, er, pre-existed eternity.
That it was a virgin birth itself, and the conception brought about by her being 'overshadowed' by the Spirit of God, those aspects singularly and together are what matters.
But the title given her at Ephesus was not quote-unquote "mother of God".
A term which would have denoted that more precisely could have been coined, but it was not. The term Theotokus used slightly in the 3rd century, used a bit more widely (in an influential, much copied Liturgy) in the 4th century, and finally adopted more formally in the 5th century (but adopted amid notes of violence, at some cost of schism) translates more directly as "God Bearer", indicating there was still some degree of deliberate avoidance of use of the Greek word for mother to be coupled with the word Theos to be used as descriptive term for Mary.
In application, it appears to also point away from Christ while the attention (devotions & prayers) are aimed not towards the Heavenly Creator, but to her, instead.
Some people go so far, when referring to "Mary" as to capitalize the word "Her" in mid-sentence.
What "pointed towards the Incarnation" prior to the crib-notes short-hand version widely adopted some four hundred years after the birth of the incarnate Christ?
What did the early, most primitive church call Mary? I'm persuaded they thought highly of her --- yet still did not phrase her relationship with Jesus as herself being capital M Mother of God --- even though that very same most primitive church obviously taught that Jesus was the begotten son of God, and under Hebrew religious traditions that would make Jesus equal to God & thus God. Some of the Jewish people who rejected Him when He told them that He was (literally!) the son of God tore at their garments in outrage -- "blasphemer!" they shouted. Yet Jesus spoke no blasphemy, but instead spoke the truth.
Ya HOO!
I can be a GOD; too!
So you don't think that giving birth to Jesus is remarkable? No one would be impressed? Except John the Baptist in his mother's womb. Except the angels that filled the skies and announced His birth. Except the shepherds who went and saw the child and told everyone they met about what happened
That would be remarkable to... no one.
Gamecock, over here.......
Have you informed the Holy Spirit of your low opinion of how HE decided to breath out the Scripture HE inspired? It is staggering to me that anyone would sit in judgment of the inspiration of Scripture and find it wanting.
What gall....
The fact that Mary gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, in the Flesh of Jesus, is what makes the birth of Jesus remarkable. This is the significance of the title, "Mother of God." It points to the Incarnation.
Now wait a minute, youi just said taht giving birth to Jesus wasn't remarkable. Now it is? Can you make up your mind?
*Mother of Jesus* does not point to the incarnation. The term *mother of Jesus* is not about identifying who Jesus is, it's about identifying who Mary is.