Contradiction of terms. . .the divine cannot be physical.
It was not the traditional view that Jesus was 50% human and 50% divine.
"He became" and "he came as" are not the same.
We find this viewpoint in the viewpoint that asserts a female ovum was provided by Mary. That is, unless you think the ovum Mary contributed was not a human ovum.
Exactly. An ovum contributed by Mary would not be divine. It would be fleshly, humanly fleshly. Since Mary was a sinner the ovum contributed would be part of her sinful flesh, NOT something divine....... because the divine cannot be physical.
You do not seem to be following the actual content of my posts. You appear to be caught up and unnecessarily prejudiced by the doctrine of the Trinity, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the Trinity. My statement about the Mary-contributing-an-ovum-makes-Jesus'-physical-constitution-half-human caught your attention because you think it contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity when it has nothing to do with the Trinity. The word "constitution" is, in this sense, being used to mean his make-up. Jesus was made up out of th Spirit plus a human ovum. Half Spirit. Half human.
What is the difference between "he became flesh" and "he came as one of us (flesh)"?
Was the flesh he became partly due to Mary's ovum or entirely that of the Holy Spirit making him flesh in Mary's womb without an ovum from Mary?
No.
How would adding a human nature (becoming flesh) be a subtraction?
I've always said he had to be God, to pay for the sin of creatures —that is, that mere creature could not do it. I can't say I've really considered whether God could do it without becoming creature. Interesting. Feels balanced, and answers a lot of questions... Can't see any logical or scriptural reason to reject the notion. Particularly when it is obvious that is exactly what he did.
The "male half" [sperm as it were] 'contributed' by God, does not mean that contribution is no less human and more divine. It only means he was not a descendent of Joseph, but of God. Where's the problem?
Explain: "...the divine cannot be physical." Why? How not? Cannot God do as he pleases? Seems to me an unsupported assertion.
It wouldn't. Some think Jesus coming in the flesh is something taken away from deity.
That's a fail.
It seems you aren't, because with two natures, Jesus is both 100% human and 100% divine in one and the same person, not 50/50 of each.
The latter posits flesh before his physical existence on earth.
The human can't merit forgiveness for offense to the Divine.
How does adding sin subtract from goodness?
Jesus' flesh was not sinful, or it could not have served as the redeeming sacrifice.
The original comment was not about his nature. Thinking it is about his nature is a mistake. Do you know and understand the differences between mereology (the study of parts and their relationship to one another), teleology (the design, function and purpose), and ontology (the nature of a thing)? The original comment in Post #47 has nothing to do with ontology, or the nature of Christ.
Please re-read the thread, or at least the set of posts that led to my inclusion of the words, "the divine cannot be physical," because I was quoting another poster. Those were not my words, nor is that my position and I explained how and why that is not my position so Post 70 is not only misguided; it's unnecessary. Every single one of those questions have all already been answered.
