>>17866938
>Idk where you're pulling your sources from.
John Henry Cardinal Newman - An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine-University of Notre Dame Pess (1994). It says that if you read their material that's what it makes them. And I have read some of the fathers myself and indeed they have extremely heretical beliefs. I am talking about the ones before Nicaea. For example do you believe the Son is eternally begotten? Justin Martyr thinks God cannot be begotten
>God being immaterial would differ from Christ being "in the flesh"
Immaculate conception can be understood as just a preservation of Mary's innocence/virginity. There was sex in the sense that actual human chromosomes had to be created, I didn't imply penetration but it is sexual reproduction using a sperm cell. And yes I am talking merely about the flesh here.
>meaning that they also share divine properties
That's entirely up to interpretation, I am already playing this game with a christian in another thread and I don't want to start here. But here's a clue, unitarians do not hold onto your interpretation
>>17866943
>The thing you have to start doing is to start framing God in a light that is not only all powerful, but also all loving.
A loving God would not demand human sacrifice to forgive people, no blood has to be paid and I can cite you numerous passages from the bible that demonstrates this so don't bother citing justice. Paulian theology is alien to Jesus. You think anyone expected God to commit suicide by centurion prior to him?
>He never had to humble himself into a state where he had to be crucified, nails in hand and feet, but he did anyway, because that's how much he loves us
Of course he didn't have to do it and that's because christian theology is absolutely nonsensical. God can show love without crucifixion.
>No, clearly not. We're not immortal now, same as Jesus.
Great and that means while the Son was incarnated as Jesus he was not God because he lacked what makes a being God.