XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.christnet.christianlife   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:11:57 +1000, r  wrote:   
      
   >Steve Hayes wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:52:03 +1000, r  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Indulge Yourself wrote:   
   >>>> Then there was no reason for incarnation, was there.   
   >>>   
   >>> 'Incarnation' as in in-the-flesh, yes.   
   >>>   
   >>> Christian use of 'incarnation' differs from other religions' use of the   
   >>> term in that it refers to the "embodiment of God the Son in human flesh   
   >>> as Jesus Christ"   
   >>   
   >> The Indulgent One appears to be the latest incarnation, or should one rather   
   >> say inpixellation, of one PeterB.   
   >>   
   >> The evidence is that they propound a unique heresy, based on a wilful   
   >> misunderstanding of "incarnation".   
   >   
   >Yea. Verily.   
   >   
   >Does your ch ever teach that Christ took over an existing body?   
      
   No, never. That is the heresy of adoptionism.   
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.   
   Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?   
   A: Top-posting.   
   Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)