[kosta50]

Perhaps you have a problem with the English language

Perhaps I do. But, unlike some who think they understand English better, I use dictionaries just to be sure.

If you carefully review my wording I believe I said "took on" human nature. I believe that would qualify as "assume" human nature, just as "taking flesh" is synonymous with taking on (assuming) human nature.

It seems to me that perhaps you have difficulties with finer points of the English language.

I believe that the phrase Assumption of Mary is the same as taking Mary into heaven.

Perhaps you need to re-examine your Christology, for if you believe that He existed in flesh as man EN APXH your belief is not what Christianity taught from the beginning (no pun intended).

Athanasian Creed says

"our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds : and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world; Perfect God, and Perfect Man : of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead : and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood. Who although he be God and Man : yet he is not two, but one Christ; One, not by the conversion of the Godhead into flesh : but by taking of the Manhood into God."

[P-Marlowe]

If you carefully review my wording I believe I said "took on" human nature....

No, this is what you said:

God the Word has no flesh, no form, nor shape, no humanity.

Your explanations which followed did nothing more than dig a deeper hole.

BTW The Word BECAME FLESH.

He didn't put on a human costume. He didn't clothe himself in a human form. He did not "assume" a human form. He BECAME FLESH.

Hence your statement is just plain wrong.

Have you ever once admitted that you were wrong about anything on this forum?