If you had directly asked each of us here, rather than presume that we "will not answer" the question concerning Jesus' nature, you would have known that most all of us have defended the divine and human nature of Jesus repeatedly on this forum. What seems to be missed is the actual point of the disagreement, it is not the denial of Jesus being God in the flesh, it is the doctrine that makes Mary the "Mother of God" and, in turn, the absolute insistence by the church of Rome that all Christians MUST believe it, too, or be anathematized.
To explain my objection to the title for Mary, let me just say that I believe that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God, ALWAYS existed - he was eternal (co-eternal) with the Father and Holy Spirit. When the Son of God took on flesh, Mary was blessed to be chosen to bear His human body as he formed within her womb. She became His physical mother - though it is a deeper theological discussion whether the embryonic Jesus was placed within her womb or one of her own eggs became his body "through" the Holy Spirit. I guess we can ask him when we see him.
Mary, then was NOT the "mother" of God, though she WAS the mother of the incarnate Son of God - who is God made man. God had no mother - he is the eternal, self-existent one. I object to what I think is the inordinate glorification given Mary for her role in bearing Jesus - ascribing sinlessness, co-redeemer status, mother of all Christians role, etc., when Scripture tells us no such thing and rather commands us to glorify ONLY God and no one else besides Him. I have no issue with Mary being called Christ bearer, the Mother of Jesus Christ, Mother of Jesus and so forth, but calling her the Mother of GOD is taking it too far and has caused her to be worshiped AS God is worshiped. Though I know it is not sanctioned by the Catholic Church, not much is done to discourage it either.
So, before you make a statement that "most of the Prots here will not answer that question", actually ASK the question first and allow those who choose to answer speak for themselves. I know I would appreciate it.
boatbums:
Nobody believes that Mary gave birth to Christ Divine Nature, he was consubstantial with the Father from all Eternity. When Catholics and Orthodox speak of Mary as Theotokos, they are only speaking of Mary giving bith Christ, the 2nd Person of the Trinity so as the article that I linked notes [it is wikipedia, which perhaps would be seen as a more neutral source] somtimes Theotokos is translated in English as “Mother of God Incarnate” which from what your post implies, you seem more comfortable with. I think that term does translate the essence of the Dogma of the Council of Ephesus 431AD and communicates what St. Luke was meaning in Luke 1:43.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos
But you, I think, appear to have enough theological depth to realize that in NO way does the Catholic, or the Eastern Orthdox Church’s use of the term Mother of God or Most Holy Theotokos [Orthodox term] mean that either Chuch is suggesting that Mary gave birth to God from eternity, nor does it indicate that Mary give birth to the Father or Holy Spirit.
Nevertheless, after reading your post, you are the first Protestant in this thread that I would 100% state is not a Nestorian [based on your last post] and that is good thing so in future posts in this thread, at least on the Nestorian controversy and the canons and decrees of Ephesus in 431AD, your views are divergent from said Council.