Replies

Maybe I can clarify the viewpoints here. PNAMBC is not saying that Jesus was not God in the womb. She is saying that Jesus received his humanity from Mary and his divinity from the Holy Spirit at conception. When a baby is conceived it gets traits from both the father and the mother. So Jesus received His humanity (trait) from Mary and His divinity (trait) from the Holy Spirit. Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. He was 100% man and 100% God in Mary's womb as well, but He did not receive His divinity from Mary, but rather from the Holy Spirit. Receive here may not be the best term as it presupposes not having, but I hope you see what I am getting at.

Thank you. Yes I do see your point, but I wonder if any see mine. Theotokos does not mean that Mary created God, or gave Jesus his divinity, or any of those things.

Yet every, every, Protestant here objects to the term because of what it explicitly does not mean. I can accept that some untaught folks will misunderstand the concept. But why do those who are told exactly what the term means and what it does not mean insist on fighting against what it does not mean?

I have no problems with saying Mary is the mother of Jesus, but the RC doctrine states, correct me if I'm wrong, that Mary had to have been sinless in order to conceive Jesus in her womb, which implies that she passed on divinity to Christ, which is what I object to.

JM

Protestant here objects to the term because of what it explicitly does not mean.

If they agree to the underlying point (Jesus being fully God and fully man and his being fully God from "the primordial beginning" (ever)) I don't see why you're pushing so hard to get assent to the term "theotokos." I think that makes them doubt your agenda. If we agree as to Jesus being fully God and fully man, and that He was God from the beginning, I don't see a point in wrangling over a name, i.e. - Theotokos.