Why do so many non-Catholics/Orthodox deny Christ's Divinity?

[a_mirror_dimly]

This seems to be the recurring problem with it, but it’s really not why the term came into usage, or what it currently means. From my understanding, it shows:

1. That the child of Mary is God. By affirming Mary as “Mother of God,” we are without reservation acknowledging Jesus as fully God, not simply Divine. On occasion, people will say, “Mary’s not the Mother of God, she’s just the Mother of Jesus.” That person is misunderstanding Jesus’ place as God, and as equal to (though subservient to) God the Father.

…but again, the phrase is less precise than the two phrases:

Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God

Those two statements convey the significance of Mary and Jesus both without carrying any additional notion of Mary being the mother of the Father or the Holy Spirit, and less connotation of Mary pre-existing God.

Alternatively, I have absolutely no problem with the more literal translations of Theokotos, “God-bearer” or “the one who gives birth to God”. Especially the first, God-bearer, as it contains little to no connotation of Mary pre-existing or creating the Divine.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

…but again, the phrase is less precise than the two phrases:

Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God

Those two statements convey the significance of Mary and Jesus both without carrying any additional notion of Mary being the mother of the Father or the Holy Spirit, and less connotation of Mary pre-existing God.

Alternatively, I have absolutely no problem with the more literal translations of Theokotos, “God-bearer” or “the one who gives birth to God”. Especially the first, God-bearer, as it contains little to no connotation of Mary pre-existing or creating the Divine.

If you affirm that Mary is Mother of Jesus, and that Jesus is God, but disavow that Mary is Mother of God, the message conveyed is that Jesus had two personages: that Christ the God came and inhabited the body of Jesus, the man born to Mary. Even if you don’t read those connotations into it presently, the term dates back to an age when there were arguments being put forth that Jesus was two persons, and that the Divine person simply overpowered the human person.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

If you affirm that Mary is Mother of Jesus, and that Jesus is God, but disavow that Mary is Mother of God, the message conveyed is that Jesus had two personages: that Christ the God came and inhabited the body of Jesus, the man born to Mary. Even if you don’t read those connotations into it presently, the term dates back to an age when there were arguments being put forth that Jesus was two persons, and that the Divine person simply overpowered the human person.

Read my initial response above. I agree with the semantics of what is meant when a Catholic says “Mary is the Mother of God”, but rather I find the expression unnecessarily ambiguous when given without accompanying explanation, and therefore prefer the more precise statements “Mary is the mother of Jesus” and “Jesus is God”.

I’ve already said it twice, but if you say Mary is the Mother of God and the Father is God, would you agree that Mary is the mother of the Father?

The Trinity makes what at first seems a simple syllogism rather more complicated, which account for my preference to use two statements, which assert the same truth but with less ambiguity.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Read my initial response above. I don’t agree with the semantics of what is meant when a Catholic says “Mary is the Mother of God”, but rather I find the expression unnecessarily ambiguous when given without accompanying explanation, and therefore prefer the more precise statements “Mary is the mother of Jesus” and “Jesus is God”.

I’ve already said it twice, but if you say Mary is the Mother of God and the Father is God, would you agree that Mary is the mother of the Father?

The Trinity makes what at first seems a simple syllogism rather more complicated, which account for my preference to use two statements, which assert the same truth but with less ambiguity.

I understand what you’re saying. My point had simply been that no term is devoid of possible misunderstanding.

It makes sense, in a vacuum, that if the Father is God, and Mary is the Mother of God, that Mary is the Mother of the Father. But by that same logic, when we say the Father is God, and Jesus is God, to say that Jesus is the Father: the nature of the Trinity makes things confusing at times, certainly. But I don’t think any of us shun the term “God” for Jesus to use “Divine Son of God” or a similar term - even if it tries to be more accurate, those kinds of terms make it sound like you’re avoiding the term “God” (or in Mary’s case “Mother of God”).

So I agree with you that Mother of God has possibly confusing implications without a lengthy disclaimer every time the term is used, but as the original post shows, refusal to use the term can cause confusion, too.

It sounds from the nature of you posts that you’re not against the term Mother of God, as long as the listener and speaker both understand what is meant… is that right? It also sounds like you’d affirm without hesitation that Mary is the Mother of God - you just think that there are more illuminating ways to word this (which there may be, depending on the setting: I find “God-bearer” strange in English… it sounds like an old Hollywood take on a Native American name).

I guess my question is, do you think that Mother of God is an acceptable shorthand for the complex relationship being described?

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

I understand what you’re saying. My point had simply been that no term is devoid of possible misunderstanding.

It makes sense, in a vacuum, that if the Father is God, and Mary is the Mother of God, that Mary is the Mother of the Father. But by that same logic, when we say the Father is God, and Jesus is God, to say that Jesus is the Father: the nature of the Trinity makes things confusing at times, certainly. But I don’t think any of us shun the term “God” for Jesus to use “Divine Son of God” or a similar term - even if it tries to be more accurate, those kinds of terms make it sound like you’re avoiding the term “God” (or in Mary’s case “Mother of God”).

So I agree with you that Mother of God has possibly confusing implications without a lengthy disclaimer every time the term is used, but as the original post shows, refusal to use the term can cause confusion, too.

It sounds from the nature of you posts that you’re not against the term Mother of God, as long as the listener and speaker both understand what is meant… is that right? It also sounds like you’d affirm without hesitation that Mary is the Mother of God - you just think that there are more illuminating ways to word this (which there may be, depending on the setting: I find “God-bearer” strange in English… it sounds like an old Hollywood take on a Native American name).

I guess my question is, do you think that Mother of God is an acceptable shorthand for the complex relationship being described?

Well, I’d disagree that refusal to use the shorthand causes confusion. If I say “Jesus is God” and “Mary is the Mother of Jesus”, I don’t see any way for someone to interpret that as me denying the divinity of Christ unless they’re purposefully trying to distort my words. It really doesn’t get any clearer than “Jesus is God”.

As for the rest, I’d affirm that Mary is the Mother of God as long as it’s understood as we’ve described it here, and I wouldn’t object to the use of that shorthand as long as its meaning has already been properly explained to anyone hearing it. On the other hand I don’t think it’s wise to use it without explanation among people not familiar with the term, and I don’t see any reason to start using the term myself.

edit – oh, and I also realized that I made a pretty important typo in my previous post…I said “I don’t agree” in my second sentence when I meant “I agree”…it has now be corrected.

 

[Lilyflower]

That’s really a misleading and uncharitable characterization of the issue. When we break down the statements, we find that Protestants and Catholics are in agreement on the facts, but that the exact semantics used are somewhat charged. So first of all, what we all agree on.

Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God

Ok, so at first glance “Mary is the Mother of God” seems to follow directly from the above statements, and in a sense that is true: that Mary bore and raised Jesus. However, the title “Mother of God” gets a little more complicated than that. If Mary is the Mother of God and the Father is God, is Mary the Mother of the Father? How about the Holy Spirit? There’s also the fact that motherhood generally implies creation, which is normally the case, but in the case of Jesus, He was not simply created in the womb, but has existed eternally. (I’m not entirely sure I’ve described this well, but we all agree that Jesus existed prior to His conception and birth, don’t we?)

All of these complications and the imprecision of the simple statement “Mary is the Mother of God” account for why Protestants tend to shy away from the title. It’s certainly true in one sense, but the proposition is very vague and prone to misinterpretation.

While it is true to say ‘The Father had no mother’, by definition Mary has to be the Mother of the uncreated eternal unborn Father because Christ is in the Father and the Spirit, so mystically His Mother must also be Mother of Christ in the Father. Bizarre but logically it can be no other way.

The only other way it is possible is to be able to separate the Son from the Father which denies the essence of the mystery of the Holy Trinity. So Mother of one Person because of their inter-relationship with the other Two, Mary has to be mystically Mother of all Three since One is in the other Two.

Please note: I have used capital where the words which do not ordinarily warrant a capital, refer to the Holy Trinity
Blessings and peace

 

[peary]

I do not understand why it is that so many non-Catholics & non- Orthodox believe that Christ was a mere mortal man.

It appears that lots of Protestants deny Jesus Christ is Lord.

To say that Christ is Divine is to say that Mary is the Mother of God

To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny Christ’s Divinity. It is as simple as that.

Blessings and peace.

**I know of no Orthodox or traditional protestant who believes that Christ was a mere mortal man.

The Orthodox refer to Mary as the Theotokos - the “God-bearer.”
As such, she is the highest and most sanctified of all mortal creatures.

Theologically, there is a difference in referring to Mary as “God-bearer” and “Mother of God.” The protestant theologians pointed this out which erroneously led them to reject Mary as Mother of the Church and her intercession. For them, just because Mary was the “God-bearer” did not mean she was sinless or remained a virgin throughout her life. They added to the meaning, which was not what was originally intended, and proceeded to reject the Catholic Church’s understanding of Mary as “Mother of God” - the actual human mother of the actual 2nd Person of the Trinity incarnated. The Son always existed, but took on human form (and took on the DNA) of Mary, His finite human mother. You are correct in understanding that Jesus was both fully human and fully Divine, and you cannot separate the two natures. **