Oh, oh. You have mixed dogs and geese to get a barking quackery. Her is the correct approach:
Jesus is the God-man.
Mary is the host mother of the man part of the God-man.
The God part of the God-man Jesus pre-existed Mary.
Mary pre-existed the man-part of Jesus.
Therefore, Mary is the surrogate mother of the man part of the God-man Jesus but not the mother of the God part of the God-man Jesus.
Mary is therefore not the mother of The Pre-existing God.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
THANK YOU!!!!!
"Mary is therefore not the mother source of The Pre-existing God."
Every word you wrote in the above line is true, if you substitute the word "source" for "mother."
Mary is not the SOURCE of the pre-existing God. That's for sure.
So read through your whole list and substitute the word "Source" for "Mother," sharpening up the distinction between "person" and "nature,"and you've got it!
She's the natural (not surrogate!) mother of the God-Man precisely because birth-giver conceives, gestates, and gives birth to a Person, not to a "part."
- Jesus is the God-man.
- Mary is the source only of His human nature.
- The Divine nature and Divine Person of the God-man Jesus pre-existed Mary (for all eternity!!).
- Mary pre-existed the human nature of Jesus.
- Therefore, Mary is the natural source of the human nature of the God-man, the divine Person Jesus, but not the source of the Divine Person and divine nature of the God-man Jesus.
- Because of the Incarnation, through Mary, God experienced every aspect of what it means to be human: including being an unborn baby, and being born.
- Mary is therefore His mother (but not His source) in that through her --- at a point in time --- He, the omni-present, eternal One who existed before time began, had the experience of birth
Because of the Incarnation, the eternally pre-existing GOD also had the experience of birth the experience of assuming a human nature and living as an embryo, living and growing inside of His mother, and being pushed out of the womb into the air-breathing world, having his umbilical cord cut, nursing on her mama-milk, being cuddled in her loving arms, etc.etc.
She was not his source. But she gave Him that experience, because He was a Person having an experience.
Otherwise you're denying that the divine and human natures of Christ are united in One Person, and you're instead saying they constitute two "persons," one of whom has experiences and one of whom does not. Do you see the problem here?
Because of the Incarnation, the one Person experienced what it is to be born; to grow; to live truly as a baby, a child, a man; to eat and sleep; to sweat and suffer; to die and be buried; to experience Resurrection and Ascension into heaven.
He who was, is, and always be in heaven, because He is omni-present.
This is not to say "God grew" or "God died," but it is to say He experienced all this ---the growth of the body, the dying of the body--- as one Person.
Jesus Christ, (the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, the eternal, omnipotent, only-begotten Son who is limitless and is everywhere and knows everything) has two natures. But he *IS* only one Person. And it is the Person who chooses, desires, experiences, acts.
Jesus, the God-Man, is one Person, He experienced everything we experience. It is written that He even experienced temptation, but without sin.
Slipping in a conclusion as a premise isn't normally allowed in logic. You've demonstrated nothing -- except perhaps that you deny that Christ had any human ancestors, that He is not of the seed of Abraham, the seed of Isaac, the seed of Jacob, and certainly not of the royal line of David, and not even Jewish, since Jewishness comes through the mother. Your "argument" seems to imply that He's not even human -- more a fabricated simulacrum cunningly devised to appear humanm.