“Oh good grief. Yeah, that’s why they included it in scripture for all generations everywhere.”
Yep. Exactly.
“Ok!!!! Here we have it folks. A Catholic claiming the separation of Jesus into man and God as two separate entities.”
I did no such thing. Jesus is God and man, but as God He was not bound by the law - just as He was not bound by the laws of nature.
“One was subject to the law the other wasn’t.”
No, Jesus’ humanity was bound by laws but His divinity was not.
“Show where it was ever called food.”
If you’re eating it, it’s food.
“Whoa, wait...You just said Jesus the man was subject to the laws.”
No, I never said that. I said bound. For some reason you keep saying “subject”. I guess you didn’t know the two words mean different things. Public school education, right?
“Are you now saying that only Jesus the God ate the blood at the last supper but not Jesus the man?”
No, I’m not saying that.
You said:
>> Jesus is God and man, but as God He was not bound by the law - just as He was not bound by the laws of nature.<<
Then you said:
>>No, Jesus’ humanity was bound by laws but His divinity was not.<<
In post 28 you said:
>>No, actually it only says He was a subject of the law as a man.<<
Also in post 28 you said:
>>Jesus is GOD. He is not bound by the Mosaic Laws on kosher<<
Also in post 27 you said:
>>actually it only says He was a subject of the law as a man. Note, I said GOD. Jesus was not bound to the law in His divinity. He preceded the Law and will outlast it as well. He is not bound by it.<<
So you clearly said Jesus was both bound and subject of the law.
So I said:
>>"You just said Jesus the man was subject to the laws."<<
And your response was:
>>No, I never said that. I said bound. For some reason you keep saying “subject”. I guess you didn’t know the two words mean different things. Public school education, right?<<
You have two problems there. You say Jesus is both bound and a subject of the law as a man but then deny you said subject. You also claim that Jesus is both God and man and cannot be separated yet you separate them when they are eating the blood since only the man part is subject to that law but the God part isn't.
Did only Jesus the God part eat the blood since you claim it is that part that is not bound by the law but not the man part since He would be bound and subject to the law? And how would that be possible when you claim that Jesus is inseparably both God and Man when claiming Mary is the mother of God? I expect more double speak is coming.