Now, as to the issue at hand. When a woman has an embryo implanted in her uterus which embryo was conceived in vitro, she is absolutely called the mother of the child who gestates in her womb. We agree that Mary was the Mother of Jesus and that he was conceived in her uterus, I take it.
Sadly, you have not offered a single thing to show Biblical proof of Mary being the genetic Mother of Jesus, yet that is what you were up about. Adn BTW, I happen to believe Jesus could well have been born from Mary and she remain a Virgin. Jesus did, fater all, leave the tomb without rolling away the stone, so how much easier to leave Mary's womb in the same fashion.
Our discussion must needs always come down to the miraculous, authored by God Almighty. What miracle is not yet decided, IMHO. I see several very plausible miraculous ways God could have 'done it', brought Jesus to Mary's womb AND conceived Jesus without using an ovum from Mary. If you refer to believe Jesus is genetically descended from Mary, I warmly support you faith in that. I just have no evidence from scripture, so far.
In assuming Mary's ovum was used by God, you take that belief by faith alone.
We have Biblical declaration that Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb, by The Holy Spirit of God. How the zygotic Jesus arrived in Mary's womb will be miraculous in any final analysis, if one believes The Bible. I believe the Bible.
And one last point to ponder: did you know that when a woman gestates a child in her womb, there remian alive in her body cells built by that child during gestation, likely for the rest of her life. The Science of Embryology discovered that fact within the past 15 years. An amazing thing that! Something physical of Jesus remained with Mary long after He was born from her womb.
Well, MHGinTN, this is moving quickly toward the pointless. You specifically declared that Mary was not - NOT - genetically the mother of our Lord. Now, you are saying that maybe she was, and that we can’t know.
You are also redefining the term “mother of.” You seem comfortable saying that He was conceived within her and that she gave birth to Him. What you seem to be avoiding is calling her His mother, which the Bible has no hesitation in doing so, e.g., Luke 2:33, in which context her relationship to Him is strikingly noted as different than that of Joseph to Him.
I find your insistence that the Scripture would need to say explicitly that Jesus is of Mary’s ovum before one could say that she is His biological, genetic mother to be very troubling. Words have a meaning. In the given contexts where Mary’s motherhood of Jesus is noted in the Holy Scriptures there is no call whatever to take the word mother in any metaphorical manner, which is what you are saying whether you agree or not.