XPost: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, alt.christnet.christianlife   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:36:56 +1000, r  wrote:   
      
   >Indulge Yourself wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:14:21 +1000, r  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Indulge Yourself wrote:   
   >>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 07:36:41 +1000, r  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>> In some places yes, but how was that constituted? How did He make   
   >>>>>>> it "His"?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> There is no "his" to take.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Yea. Verily.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I doubt anyone takes the POV that Christ 'took over an existing body'.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In other words one is free to ignore what is taught? You don't   
   >>>> think that they meant a body? Then what? and when, and how?   
   >>>   
   >>> Scripture tells us that He was conceived, that it was His body, and that   
   >>> He came in the flesh [en sarki].   
   >>   
   >> Back to the scripture, again? Good. He had no body though when He   
   >> was conceived, He also had no flesh. So Incarnation was NOT   
   >> possible at the moment of conception.   
   >   
   >Incarnation [in the flesh] is exactly how scripture describes it.   
      
   I have come across only two persons in the entire world who maintain this   
   absurd notion of incarnation -- PeterB and the Indulgent One.   
      
   It is adherence to this strange doctrine that makes it seem that they are two   
   persons in one substance, one heretic. They are possibly incarnated in the   
   same body.   
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   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)