Correct me if I am wrong.
The Catholics believe that jesus was God in the the flesh so
therefore believe that Mary is the mother of God.
The Protestants believe Jesus was God in the flesh but deny that
Mary was the mother of God, talk about hypocrictical.
Or is it just stupid?.
Not at all.
GOD has no mother.
Jesus did.
The Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Naw, you’re just ignorant. Who existed first, God or Mary the mother of Jesus? A deeper issue, do you believe Mary the Mother of Jesus could impart Spirit Life to the being she conceived in her womb?
Jesus existed BEFORE Mary was even born.
He was NOT 'carnate' at that time.
When the GODhead decided (all 3 of them) that the 'time had come'; Then THIS occurred:
Matthew 1:18 D-R
Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.
To claim that Mary is the mother of GOD, is simply incorrect.
To continue to make the claim, after being shown multiple times the writing that states otherwise; well, let's just say it's a wee bit more than mere obstinance.
It is rather foolish to argue that Protestants have a uniform view, but as regards the logic that Jesus was God in the the flesh so therefore Mary is the mother of God, the problem (as I have before times expressed) is that while even if allowable in that specified sense, yet yet this lack of specification of Mary being the mother of the Divine Christ who created her versus what the normal use of "Mother of God" naturally conveys. As would be calling the mother of Mary the grandmother of God (and all the way back to Eve), being contrary to the language of Scripture, and its careful distinguishing btwn the Creator and the created.
While in a specified technical sense Mary could be called the mother of God as the bearer of the incarnated Divine creator Son, like as Israel itself could be called the God-bearer as qualified, (Rm. 9:5) yet the uncritical common use of the formal title "Mother of God" is misleading and even a blasphemous use since its normal denotation is that of ontological oneness, while Mary contributed absolutely zero to the deity of Christ, and was not responsible for the Divine nature that makes Him the very Son of God.
In contrast, the Holy Spirit is careful to add the qualifier "according to the flesh" and emphasizes Deity ("and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever") when stating that the Divine Christ came out of Israel. (Rm. 9:5)
While "mother of my lord" as specifying Christ can be used, (Lk. 1:43) "Mother" of" and Deity are not to commonly go together, and at best, what Ratzingers states regarding "Co-redemptrix" applies to "Mother of God," as concerns the language of Scripture:
"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).
“Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter 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)