I just noticed this thread, and ignoring every post sandwiched between page 1-4, I have some insight to offer, if anyone cares, regarding the title of the thread.
----------
Way back in the day, aka ''The Early Church'', there were two heresies that threatened to divide Christianity for ages to come. They were called Arianism and Nestorianism. Both heresies were part of what is called the Christological Controversy, Christology being concerned with the nature of Christ.
Arianism, in layman's terms, is the denial of Jesus's divinity. Nestorianism, on the other hand, is a denial of Jesus's humanity.
Arius and Nestorius, from whom both heresies are named, were both priests of the early Church. Each one of them had tons of scripture to back up his point. But, like anyone with a Bible, reading the scriptures do not guarantee full understanding of them, hence: heresy is easy! So what did the early church do? They had councils, debates, meetings, and all sorts of fun activities to figure our what the heck was going on.
The Problem with Arianism: is that Arius was proposing the idea that there was a time when Jesus, the Son, was created by the father. The problem here is that Jesus is demoted from Co-equal, Co-eternal Son of the Living God to a mere creature.... Everything from the most glorious angel to the lowliest single-cell organism is just a creature...but not Jesus, not God. He cannot have been created as Arius proposes...or else the salvation he offers by his incarnation and sacrifice is still not enough...for a creature cannot redeem the created. Only the creator can redeem the created.
The council of Nicaea, called together by Emporer Constantine more out of an interest in keeping the empire together than giving a rip about theology, defined that: "Those...who affirm that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or substance, or a creature, or mutable or subject to change, such ones the catholic and apostolic church pronounces accursed and separated from the church." In other words, Jesus Christ, Son of God, second person of the Trinity, is GOD, not creature.
The Problem with Nestorianism: is that Nestorius could not accept the idea of the title given to Mary, that is, of Theotokos, or God-bearer...ie, Mary, Mother of God. In his mind, this insinuated that the Son of God was born of Mary in the sense that, before being born, he did not exist. Of course, if that is what the term Theotokos means, then it is not acceptable. But, in actuality, the title Theotokos is not meant to insinuate anything other than the fact that the child Mary bore to the world was, in fact, God in the Flesh: The Christ.
Nestorius felt that it was being said that the Creator was brought into the existence by a creature, Mary. Instead, what everyone else meant is that the second person of the Trinity, through whom all things were created, was brought into the flesh by birth, through Mary, from whom he acquired his human nature: "“As to his deity, he was born from the Father before the ages, but as to his humanity the very same one was born in the last days from the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, for our sake and the sake of our salvation: one in the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only Begotten, acknowledged to be unconfusedly, unalterably, undividedly, inseparably in two natures” - Council of Chalcedon.
So, while I know that it bothers many folks to hear someone call Mary the ''Mother of God'', the term is not meant to glorify Mary, but to remind Christians that Jesus Christ was in possession of a fully Human and fully Divine nature. The title points to the glory of God and the root of our Salvation in Christ: That he, who was Divine, took on our humanity so that we, fallen and sinful, could hope to find salvation in the one who even saved our human nature by taking it upon himself.
The Incarnation...what joy!