XPost: alt.christnet.christianlife, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.reli   
   ion.christian.east-orthodox   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On Sep 17, 2022, servant wrote   
   (in article<63262b0f$0$2254$1c4686b2@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>):   
      
   > > > Robert offfered originally:   
   > > >   
   > > > > > > This is one of the places that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is   
   mentioned   
   > > > > > > in   
   > > > > > > the   
   > > > > > > OT along with some references.   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > Isa 7:14   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > 14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, the   
   young   
   > > > > > > woman   
   > > > > > > who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and   
   shall   
   > > > > > > call   
   > > > > > > his name Immanuel [God with us]. [Isa 9:6; Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3-5]   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > Yes, as John also provides "Word,ie. God, became flesh and dwelt   
   among   
   > > > > > us".   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > A related topic, was Christ,ie. Word/ Immanuel therefore divine from   
   His   
   > > > > > conception in Mary's womb?   
   > > >   
   > > > Robert speaking via his sock puppet "dr. who;" does an unexplained   
   > > > scripture dump as to relevancy. It fails to address the divinity of   
   Christ   
   > > > as Word/ Immanuel from the beginning ing Mary's womb.   
   >   
   > Robert suggests:   
   >   
   > > Because you find it difficult to understand the Word of God, you therefore   
   > > accuse others of a "scripture dump" instead of asking for clarification.   
   > The dump did *not* address the question of above, therefore it was   
   > irrelevant to it.   
   >   
   > Robert does a dance of words rather then answer directly the question on   
   > the table:   
      
   The question had nothing to do with what is on the table. Because you could   
   not, and evidently cannot read the scripture with comprehension does not   
   constitute what was written to you as a dump.   
   >   
   >   
   > > There is no beginning to the divinity or deity of Christ. Neither is there   
   a   
   > > beginning of the divinity of "The Word".   
   > That seems a word dance to directly and specifically avoid answering once   
   > again the question above. Instead it appears to invent a new "theory of   
   > scripture" that Christ and Word are different persons.   
      
   That statement alone shows you lack comprehension of the scriptures as they   
   are one and the same. Scripture points that out quite succinctly, sadly you   
   have shown that if I were to post the oppropiate scripture you would call   
   that a dump also.. :(   
   >   
   >   
   > John has already refuted that "theory of scripture", "Word was God ... Word   
   > became flesh and dwelt among us". Which can be no other then the physical   
   > person of Christ. The very one as fully man and fully God who was   
   > concieved in Mary's womb, no? The question above remains stubbornly on the   
   > Table.   
      
   Dr, Who pointed that out in the first post that you replied to in this   
   thread, so what can I add to it?   
      
   Why is it that you snip out so much of the threads you reply to? Is it so   
   that you can pretend your intelligence why you ask fool questions? You also   
   failed to address the questions asked of you.   
      
   Good thing you post with nyms, this way only God knows about your integrity.   
   But for His sake you should be more honest than for the sake of your own   
   name.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)