Besides your fallacious mind reading, I need not find all that you responded to, as it was you who first initiated debate with me by invoking a document which pertains to the use of Christotokos vs. Theotokos, and your slippery slope "drift" into heresy assertion which you bring me into.
Mother of Jesus is not a denial of His deity, Where exactly did I write that it was ? No where
You argued,
I have sympathy for those who realize they cannot remove "God" from "Mother of God (with us)," having been warned by others they are starting down the path of heresy.
And it seems in that interest you invoked "an OK English translation" of the Chalcedonian Definition - which pertains to the Nestorian heresy and its Christotokos vs. Theotokos issue- "in Greek with an English translation, aptly pointing out those teaching otherwise on the nature of Messiah fall into heresy," as if this Chalcedonian Definition was definitive and the rejection of "Mother of God" means one is are starting down the path of heresy.
Yet in reality the term Theotokos — Θεοτοκος — does not mean the same as “Mother of God” in English or the common Latin translation. ( (“The Significance of the Term Theotokos” from The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century (Fr. Georges Florovsky) June, 1987).
And the Chalcedonian Definition which pertains to Christology which the extensive and complex affair called the "Nestorian heresy" is part of and its Christotokos vs. Theotokos issue, but simply using Christotokos over MOG does not deny the Divinity of Christ.
The heres is in the details of Nestorianism, but the "drift toward heresy" either by ignorantly holding to a form of monophysitism or dyophysitism via the "slippery slope" principle, due to the use of "mother of Jesus" vs. MOG could be a charge against writers of Holy Writ themselves, and is manifestly a more valid charge as concerns the use of "MOG."
For evangelicals have overall been strong defenders of the deity of Christ, which i substantiate myself, and of basic Trinitarian teaching, leaving Sabellianism/OPC types being relegated as reproved heretics.
However, rather than even preferring Theotokos, Caths unequivocally invoke MOG as part of their elevation of the demigoddess Mary of Catholicism described before.
Moreover, . while I doubt first century converts (esp. new ones) had much of a understanding of precisely what was meant by Christ Jesus taking upon him "the form of a servant," and being "made in the likeness of men," (Philippians 2:7) taking on "the seed of Abraham," (Heb. 2:16) as the Word/God made flesh, (Jn. 1:1,14) they implicitly and explicitly ascribed deity to Him as the Son and Savior sent by the Father, and prayed to and worshiped as God.
But NT souls certainly did not engage in the supererogation of adulation given to the false Mary of Catholicism, including bowing down to statues of her in praise and supplications, and attributing to her Divine attributes.
It is such devotion and worship (if done by pagans it would be called that) under the pretense of "veneration" that makes reasonable debate over MOG difficult. p>
"We have to be careful not to be saying that Jesus had 2 natures, one divine and one human. It leads very easily into some of the gnostic misunderstandings. Jesus is and always will be the unique union of the divine and the human."
I understand our protestant urge to prevent Mary from being worshipped, but I really have no problem with her carrying from the moment of conception both the divine and the human in the person of Jesus Christ."