Oh good grief. Yeah, that's why they included it in scripture for all generations everywhere.
>>No, actually it only says He was a subject of the law as a man. Note, I said GOD.<<
Ok!!!! Here we have it folks. A Catholic claiming the separation of Jesus into man and God as two separate entities. One was subject to the law the other wasn't.<<
>>If it was prohibited as food, then it was considered a food.<<
Show where it was ever called food.
>>I did no such thing. Jesus is GOD. He is not bound by the Mosaic Laws on kosher<<
Whoa, wait...You just said Jesus the man was subject to the laws. Are you now saying that only Jesus the God ate the blood at the last supper but not Jesus the man?
“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.