Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please

[Lance Muir]

A 'philosophical impossibility' is NOT ( I repeat not) the deciding criterion on such matters. ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 21, 2005 14:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Definition of Mormon Please In a message dated 1/21/2005 9:53:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH:  This is where I fail to understand the Protestant (forgive me if I'm lumping too many people together on this one, DavidM) perspective.  IF Jesus and the Father are one, does it not seem a little contratidictive that Jesus has a physical body, and his Father does not?  As two separate Gods, each having different characteristics might make sense, but most Christians want to tie them together in a oneness theory, that seems conflicting to me.  Can Jesus and God be separate and distinctly different persons/Gods from a Protestant perspective? Just because they are ONE does not mean they have to have a body. The bible says that a married couple are ONE Flesh. Does this ONENESS ThEORY CONFUSE YOU also? Do you have all the equipment she has? Does it seem as U say "a little contratidictive" that she has a _________ and you do not? Details in the Holy Bible. My vote is against a flesh and blood body for the Living Resurrected Christ.  Just FTR. Philosophically impossible when we consider omipresense. JD