Look the argument that somebody is the Mother of God because they bore God is wrong or else the Bishop of Antioch who bore God in his heart should have been called the Virgin Mary according to Cyril who made this false analogy.
No, actually, what was and is said is that Mary is the Mother of God because she gave birth to God
No confusion...there is absolutely no way the Logos can be given birth to.
Yes there is, that is if He takes an instance of humanity as His own.
The Humanity it assumed seperately yes,
You are speaking nonsense. Assumption and separation are contradictory realities. Even Nestorian Christology necessitates inseparability.
it the Logos no since it is beyond birth, pain, suffering, hunger, neccesity, death, or anything else which we creatures of dust are subject to.
According to His eternal divine subsistence given to Him by the Father, yes. According to the humanity that He took from the Holy Virgin as His own, no.
The SOC broke away from the ACOE not the other way round.
This is a whole 'nother argument.
The Seleucia synod of 424 constitutes a declaration of total independence from the rest of the Church, to the point that the Catholicos could only be judged by God. This is not the ancient Collegial belief of the Church. The Church teaches that Catholicoi and Patriarchs can be judged in collective synods. Otherwise their effectively become numerous heads in the Body of Christ. The 424 synod was effectively schismatic in spirit.
Beyond that, we can argue about the nature of the faith, of which I believe you separated from the Nicene Christological faith, which taught that the Lord Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father, of one essence with Him, and became human. This is not reconcilable with Nestorian Christology which teaches that the eternal Logos did not become human.
The fables of the ACOE being a suffragan of a western SOC and so forth are from the middle ages. The ACOE has always been independent and shall continue to be so until the return of Christ.
I never stated a belief that the East Syrian church was a ever a dependent jurisdiction of Antioch. As far as I can tell, I recognize what you say as to this not being true. However, that is very different from the matter of influence. Saying that the West Syrian church never influenced the East Syrian church just seems ridiculous.