Then it may be said to you:

You have stated: “The creating Word descended, took flesh from Mary, and hid itself within a created human being that it fashioned for itself,” and you have also said: “Mary conceived the creating God and gave birth to Him—the One who is the Son.”

If you deem it permissible for Mary to be the mother of the Creator—namely, the Son—whom she carried and delivered, why should it be impermissible for her to be the wife of the Creator—namely, the Father—seeing that the Creator, according to you, took flesh from Mary?

You have likewise said: “God has never been without His Word or His Spirit, nor has the Word ever been separate from Him, from His creating Spirit, or from His essence.” By this you have made the Spirit a creator, and God, who is the Father, a creator as well; and you claim that the Messiah became incarnate from the creating Spirit and from Mary. Therefore, just as Mary is his mother, the creating Spirit stands in the position of his father.

Moreover, Mary is connected to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, and—according to your own statements—both of them are fathers of the Messiah. Since Mary is thus linked to each one you have designated as the Messiah’s father, and you say that the Creator took flesh from Mary, this is the clearest possible way of making the Creator Mary’s husband.

Whatever explanation you give for the union of the al-lāhūt (divine nature) with the nāsūt (human nature) of Christ—who was created from her—the explanation that the al-lāhūt fused with Mary’s nāsūt so as to become her husband is even more plausible and more compelling. There is no imperfection or blemish in that idea that is not found to an even greater degree in making the divine nature the son of Mary.

It is well known that a man regards his mother as higher in status than his wife, and that his authority over