That is not an answer to my quite specific question, so I repeat, -
"To save all the arguments, show a single scripture that calls Mary, "the mother of God""
If you cannot provide such a scripture, then it demonstrates that your "Mother of God" theology is entirely man made.
Take a step back and examine your own argument here. Can you see how it might come across as, let's say, not very good?
If you can't, then let me help highlight the problem.
You have established hard parameters and rules here. You reject Luke 1:43, presumably because it doesn't use the phrase "mother of God". Thus while you don't come right out and say it, I can safely infer that all you will accept to satisfy your request is "mother of God" verbatim somewhere in Scripture. Is my analysis accurate so far?
If so, then let me continue.
Now with your rules, established as they are, opens up a pretty significant gaping hole. For example, can you use your own rules to establish that God is a Trinity? Namely can you find the word "Trinity" in the Bible? Because, in accordance with your own rules of argument which you yourself have established, if I can't find the word "Trinity" in the Bible, then "Trinity theology is entirely man made".
Or, perhaps, we could try another set of ideas:
"The Bible is God's written word" is found no where in the Bible, therefore it is a man made teaching.
"The Bible consists of 66 books" is found no where in the Bible, therefore it is a man made teaching.
Are these the rules you want to work with? Knowing that it is obviously problematic.
Or, perhaps you'd like to change your own rules here, so that anything resembling a meaningful conversation about theology can take place.
In which case the fundamental question isn't "Does the Bible use the phrase 'mother of God' in reference to Mary", but instead, "Is it true that Mary's Child is God, and thus in the Incarnation God the Son made Mary His mother?"
Because if Jesus Christ is truly God.
And if Mary really is the mother of Jesus Christ.
Then it follows that Mary is the mother of God.
Any meaningful objection to this statement must pass the rigor of theological analysis.
As such, "Mary is the mother of the humanity only" must be rejected, as this results in a separation of Jesus' humanity and divinity, as though there were a "human Jesus" and a "divine Jesus", that must be held separate from one another. Thus the human Christ was born, but the divine Christ was not. Except, and this again is really important, the divine Christ is the human Christ--it is one and the same Jesus Christ, in His one and undivided Person. Mary didn't give birth to a nature, Mary didn't conceive and give birth to an abstract concept, Mary conceived and gave birth to a
Person. She conceived and gave birth to a DIVINE PERSON, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Son.
Jesus Christ is God the Son, He is the Eternal and Uncreated Logos. Mary gave birth to the Logos, she gave birth to God the Son. The Person she mothered is God the Son. She is the mother of God the Son.
If one has a problem with the theology here, then they are--with no malice intended--a heretic. It is heretical to deny that Jesus Christ is truly God, the only-begotten Son, begotten of the Father before all ages, who became flesh, was conceived by the power of the Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary. That in becoming human He never ceased to be what He always was, God; but in addition united to Himself human nature, thus becoming truly man, and thus God was conceived and born as a man. Without any confusion between the Deity and the humanity, nor any separation. One undivided Person, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, fully God and fully man.
If one does not have a problem with the theology, but only with the choice in words, "mother of God", then they would probably benefit from asking themselves why. If it is true, then what is the problem? I suspect that what is actually underneath the objection isn't an objection of the doctrine itself, but rather a learned knee-jerk response to dislike anything that appears "Popish". Thus it stems from nothing more than anti-Catholicism, which as a position means one cannot engage objectively. And it becomes nothing more than an emotive response, and all one is left with is some form of the genetic fallacy "X is wrong because Y does/believes/thinks/said X".
Examine the matter on its own merits, objectively. If you do this, and you still have a problem with it, then see above in regard to basic Christology: Jesus Christ is one undivided Person, fully God and fully man.
-CryptoLutheran
