Christ assumed not life (which He already had, being Life itself), but flesh. In assuming flesh, he assumed mortality, i.e. the susceptibility to death. You're not defending kosta's statement are you?
Are you two in the same boat on this one? Be warned, your boat is sinking.
You seem to be taking issue with the claim that Christ
assumed flesh, because you think that the sense of the term 'assume' is not as ontologically unitive as "became". But 'assume' in its broader sense simply means 'take on' or 'put on'. Christ did take on human nature. He did put on flesh, not just as an extrinsic accident, but in a hypostatic union, unlike the theophanies of old. By way of the hypostatic union, He actually became man and thus flesh and blood. So I think that you are taking the word 'assume' in a much weaker ontological sense than is intended by kosta and myself, and hence you are inferring docetism where there is none.
-A8