On the first point, I will say that you are going to have to drop your intellectual infantilism . I suggest you try a bit harder.
Don't know what you are considering the first point, but given your failure to answer it, I guess it doesn't matter.
On the second, point I made an error and quoted what I thought the bible verse said. It actually said that he was tempted like us in all things. My mistake and I happily admit that, though I doubt that you would ever demonstrate such magnanimity.
That being said, I offer you this:
Is it not an EO teaching that "that which is not assumed is not saved"?
That is what Spirit has taught through the Fathers.
If it is the case that this is true, then you can't be an existentialist.
I smell False Dilemma lurking about.
For, we know that Christ did not assume individual humans (as neither I nor you were assumed) when he was incarnate and we are not nestorians who believe that Jesus was a distinct person from the Logos, who was assumed by the Logos.
The Word did not assume Flesh as you assUme He did.
Christ has a human nature and a divine nature, but if He were as you say, then what He has in common with the Father and the Spirit would be what would assume Flesh. Divinity did not assume Flesh:the Person of the Son did. Further, if He assumed what we have in common, then there would be no need for the Holy Mysteries:just by His Incarnation we would all put on Christ and would have no need to personally put Him on in being born again in baptism. Humanity would be reborn as a whole with His birth.
Because we Existentialists do not accept the deterministic caricature of human nature of the scholastics does not prevent us from believing in the Incarnation. If it were, then the divine architect of the deists would suffice as a god, as we would only need to pursue those ends which would be our natures.
The only other possibility is that he assumed that which is common to us, and by def intion, that which is common to us is our humanity, i.e. our human nature.
Not taking Aristotle as a prophet, we are not bound by his understanding. It seems your master Aquinas didn't think so either, as in here he abandoned Aristotle for Plato (or rather, he received Aristotle mixed with Plato).
Facticity and authenticity define the parameters of human nature, not the reduction of man to his faculty of reason, much less the proffering of man as an automaton as the image and likeness of God.
Therefore, to be an existentialist, in the classical understanding of the term, is to be a heretic who denies the incarnation
Take the classical question of Existentialism, posed by Kierkegard himself:giving the reason for the identity of the beloved. Existentialists know that one cannot give a rational explanation why one is in love with one person over another. That doesn't obviate it as a fact. For the "imprint theory of nature," it is irrelevant, as one human being of the opposite sex is as good as any other. Perfectly rational argument, and totally false. Human beings are not interchangeable, a fact sine qua non of human nature. To entertain otherwise would be to flirt with the heresy of Origenism, which held individuality as a transient phase.
I don't question your credentials to speak for heresy.