@LCIII Where are you from? What do you do?

The thing about jokes is that they're funny.

I'm a software engineer in the upper midwest. C# and SQL mainly, but I've done a lot of web programming as well and love jqueryui

@Flimzy I think Christianity has way fewer localized/specialized terms than Judaism. Not sure about Islam. My trouble with that site is that they don't seem too concerned with post quality. They're both just okay most of the time, and off-putting the rest of the time.

See two of the three recently questions have this issue. 1 2 I've never heard of those things.

To be fair, I think most of the Islam quality problems are because most of them are ESL speakers.

@FMS the problem with using this link as an explanation of the Church's position on Christ as God and Man is that it explains what we believe, whereas the question is asking why what we don't believe is wrong. Different emphasis.

@fredsbend Some branches of Christianity, perhaps. But Catholicism is full of crazy terms that even I don't understand.

@Flimzy I don't understand all of them and I'm Catholic :-)

But I have experience with non-Christian friends asking me what (to me seem like) common terms mean

so I know it's a problem

I think we're only blinded to it because we understand the terms

@Flimzy Same as with any jargon.

I agree.

@MattGutting doesn't that section have some explanations of what we believe? There is no confusion between the two natures.

@FMS It does; but it looked to me like the question is not "Do Christians believe X, and why?" (which is what the Catechism answers), but rather "Do any Christians believe Z, and why not?"

@MattGutting You have clarified and to that, there is no Catholic response.

St Thomas has an extensive discussion of related issues, but there are about six zillion questions he has to answer to get there

Although the core of the answer is here: ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q23_A4.html

@FMS As I understand the question

I was reading this: The Human Knowledge of Christ. Just thinking the OP question is an error that has been tackled before. I may need to digest it some more.

It is an error, or at least potentially. It seems to me that the OP is asking whether it's more reasonable to believe that Jesus was adopted (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism) than that he was born the Son of God.

@MattGutting How could God be incarnate in an ignorant baby and be ignorant of everything? This question is erroneous after reading the article.

It is.

And Aquinas addresses this, in

the Summa, third part, questions 10 - 12

My thinking, in line with this site criteria, that to answer the question, first point out the errors then proceed to the Catholic perspective. You had good foresight.

Question seems loaded then, I'll pass ...

Well as @fredsbend said, this can't be answered without a denomination scope. Because there might be some denominations who hold to this belief; I can't answer for them and Catholicism; and I'm not going to be able to give the Catholic belief without a lot of discussion which is based on the idea that his question is inaccurate.

So I'm going to skip it too until he clarifies.

@MattGutting Well said. PS saw my comment on your answer to annihilation. There seemed to be a contradiction.

*or they are material, and then they continue to exist, at least in matter, which is incorruptible, since it is the subject of generation and corruption. Is there a mistake here?

I'm trying to come up with a clarification, but work is keeping me busy :-)

No, there's no mistake in the quote; that's precisely what St. Thomas says. What's the difficulty you're having?

Thanks! Gotta get kids to school. Thanks for the invite here and chat. Don't understand stating incorruptible and the proceeding to say since subject of [...] corruption.

@FMS Have a great day! I'll work on it

Same to you thanks! and I hoping you can join another chat I am hoping to have with @Calvin.

It is always super obvious to me whenever Bye posts an answer

because they're so long

so incredibly long

with gigantic chunks of KJV

@FMS Take a look at the note I added. Does that address your concern?

@MattGutting Very good. And Btw I had already weighed in with a vote.

@MattGutting Glad you clarified that that was Aquinas' thinking because current thinking after Einstein is Mass + Energy conservation. Aquinas' is matter conservation.

Well, I'm not sure that Einstein and Aquinas mean exactly the same thing by matter/mass. But can't discuss now, it's dinnertime.

Hey @LCIII Did you see this ↓↓↓: