You might have missed out on the fact that it is the general consensus of the NCs here that Jesus was joking about that.
You are joking, I hope?
Like I said, no NC came to contradict that interpretation. And since the other interpretation helps the Catholic cause, it is not surprising that y'all want to be silent then, but act like you supported our view now.
SD
I'm not guessing. It is the consistent teaching of the Church that Jesus was truly Mary's Son. If He did not get His humanity from His mother, where woudl He have gotten it?
it's in your churches tradition. Where did this come from. Scripture?
It is the consistent teaching of the Church. If you accept the Bible as ambiguous on the matter, then this is a good example of how "Sacred Tradition" helps us to understand Scripture.
And it does indeed make a huge difference, as I have said before, whether God assumes the human nature we already had, or if He started a new humanity. If He was not truly one of us, related by blood, then He could not have bridged the gap between God and man.
. No way could God have made him like He did Adam, huh?
Why is this point not coming across? Is there any NC out there who can help me make this point?
Cindy, I ask and state quite clearly the idea that if Jesus was not related to us, then He was not "one of us." And if He is not "one of us" then He is not Our Redeemer.
Do you understand this argument? What difficulties do you have with it?
Do you think that God Incarnating Jesus from existing, fallen humanity is different from "making" Jesus from scratch, like Adam was?
SD