[mfblume]

[QUOTE=Brother Strange;220967]

So you agree with her that emotion is what makes us human?

She never said that. She did not say that emotion alone is what makes us human. Emotion is only PART of human nature, amongst many other qualities.

You also agree, as she said, "Having divine natures is what makes Him God..."

Just how many of those divine natures do YOU propose that Jesus had/has?

I would phrase it differently and say that the single "divine nature" has many qualities, and not say that they are divine "natures" (plural).

Do you also agree, as she said, "This doesn't mean he's part divinity..."

Exactly. We went over that eons ago. The Son of God is is wholly God and wholly human. Not part of what a human is and part of what God is. It is not that He is part God and part man. "PART" does not even enter into the concept in that manner.

Please explain the "part" business according to her beliefs, since she HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.

You are not getting her point. When you can understand that we believe JESUS IS PART OF NOTHING, then we can relate to you. Until then, your definition of NATURE is something we are not referring to.

The discussion is rapidly descending into silliness. A nature is PART of a person???

Yes, of course. Brother, your definition of NATURE and now I see "PART", is not what we are thinking about when we use those terms. The more you say these things, the further you depart from what we are actually saying.

When a NATURE IS PART OF A PERSON, we are saying that the person is integrally connected to the NATURE, and vice versa, or they are both not a person and non-existent. You are not using the term in that sense. So you are not getting our point. Without this NATURE, they are not a person. But the nature is not the person no more than emotion, which is PART of human nature, is a person.

Nature is simply the qualities and traits that make up what a being is. Human nature is simply the set of qualities that make a being HUMAN. If a being has all the same qualities, not just emotion, that belong to human nature, then that being is human. You are not using that definition for NATURE. So you are making statements that do not apply to our beliefs when you try to describe our beliefs.

A NATURE is what makes a person a certain sort of being. There are cats which have FELINE nature.

This would be a new discovery in the field of anthropology. Can you imagine a person having only a part of the nature of a person?

This statement shows you are not following what we are saying, for if you were you would not make such a statement. We believe no such thing.

It can't happen unless you can congure up the image of dear ol' Pagesus.

You mean "Pegasus".

In that case, he had a part of a nature...one part was that of a man the other part was that of a horse.

It is impossible to have part of the nature of a man and not have a man.

Again, that terminology makes no sense. No one has PART of the nature of a man.

If a man is not whole in his nature, he is not a whole man.

Exactly.

Extract any portion of the nature of a man and you have NO MAN.

EXACTLY. So why do you speak about