re trinity correspondence

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

[ post resurrection ]
>I don't think that it's accurate to say he doesn't have flesh.  His 
>resurrected body was significantly different than any of our is.  Obviously
>it looks human and it must appear to be the same physique as the Apostles
>were used to otherwise they wouldn't have recognized him.
>
>Scripture also says in John 3: 13
>
>   And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from 
>   heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 

The thrid part of that is generally known to be a recension. 

>It is God that is everywhere.  All knowing, all seeing, all powerful.
>In no way can Jesus make that statement to Nicodemus unless when he refers
>to the Son of Man in heaven is the spirit of God that fathered the child
>Jesus. 

He probably didn't, like I said. See other xlations besides the KJV Trinity
Bible.


>* I never said God the Son. I said the Son was PERSON who was not the same
>* PERSON as God the Father. It's obvious.
>
>That's obvious when he wasn't walking and talking here on earth.  But now
>he's assumed the position of complete authority in heaven (the right hand).
>There is literally one throne in heaven with a bodily figure in it.  The
>one whom inherited the name of Jesus from his Father is the one who sits
>there.

(1), The Father's name is not Jesus, which the Bible plainly tells us, and
(2), Jesus is clearly depicted THROUGHOUT the Bible as 2nd to God.

>* One God AND One Person. One God IN One Person. Two people! Per John 8:16-18.
>
>I think that a lot of the verbiage of Jesus words in the NT was spoken in 
>a way that is simple enough to understand without being so complex that it
>blows us out of the water.  

Right. So accept John 8:16-18 as TRUE. They are TWO MEN or PERSONS.

>Example:  when a father talks to a son that's in pre-school he often has to
>vacuum to air and most of the spectrum of the visible light bounces off into

The scary thing is the above represents the lengths one go to in order to
avoid accepting John 16:27-29 for what it says. Philosophy, science... and
so on...
My only question is, isn't the LITERAL word easier to accept than tons of
this teaching?

>How would Jesus come off to the disciples if he came right out and always 
>referred to himself as the ONE almight all powerful ever-living God.

Uhh... honest? he doesn't come off saying the opposite, which he did. John
7:16-18, etc., etc., etc.

>if he referred to himself as the Son and his Father thusly, it's much easier
>to understand since, hey, we all have fathers.  We all have the seed from
>a father and mother that gave us live.  Like and understandable terms.

Easier? If I said, "My posts are not my own. They are posted for the one who
sent me. If you knew me, you would know whether I posted this myself or if
he posted it. Yet I am not alone, but the guy who sent me to do this post is
wih me." 

You would think, "Gee! how SIMPLE to understand! Mike *IS* the guy posting!"

Certainly not! I would be lying!


>That's why it is difficult at best to *reason* the oneness of God.

Yet, to accept the testimony Jesus gave of the father is essential. it CAN
be understood if we accept it like CHILDREN, .. SIMPLE, LITERAL!

>I think a *willingness* to understand will go a long way to understanding.

Of course. Why aren't most UPC people WILLING to accept John 16:27-29 as the
TRUTH?????

/\/\0sC0/\/\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-ISO 9001-=-
Michael Joseph Murphy III		Moscom Corporation
tes@moscom.com			        716-383-6000x6599
PBX/KTS Peripherals     		Technical Support

My opinions do not necessarily reflect that of the staff or
management of the Moscom Corporation. And they are grateful.