The scripture you started out with is fine. The elaborations needlessly made on them via logic and reason turn them into an inferrance that Mary gave birth to God - which she did not. Which is the target of what I said. Such stupid statements as these are not in the Bible for a reason - chiefly because it isn't true.
The scripture you started out with is fine. The elaborations needlessly made on them via logic and reason turn them into an inferrance that Mary gave birth to God - which she did not.
Mary didn't give birth to God? I think you mean it gives an inference that Mary existed before God did, is a superior creature. Well, it is a chosen theological term that does not mean that, by definition.
If you wish to remain ignorant and keep other people ignorant by refusing to understand what a term means, that is your choice. That you can not indicate where the flaw in my logic is or point out which of the two supporting statememtns is false means that you must agree with the conclusion.
Which is the target of what I said. Such stupid statements as these are not in the Bible for a reason - chiefly because it isn't true.
Again, which isn't true or where is the flaw in the logic?
SD
Do you then believe that Jesus became God after he was born? If so your not the first to blaspheme this way. Or do you believe the Christ/God came into the body of Jesus after he was born? not the first to entertain that nonsense either.
Once again we see you equating birthing with generation. They are not the same thing. Try again.
Pray for John Paul II