The Trinity, tradition or scripture?

[jenna]

True, but it WOULD exclude him if he weren't part of the family.

[BavarianWheels]

True, but it WOULD exclude him if he weren't part of the family.

How is the Comforter not part of the family?
.
.

[Pierac]

Is Christ The Comforter?
If the Holy Ghost, the hagios pneuma, which is the Comforter, the parakleetos , is really Christ in us, then there should be a scripture that calls Christ the parakleetos. It so happens that there is just such a scripture. But you would never know it by simply reading your King James Bible or for that matter, using your Strong's concordance which is keyed to our King James English. If one uses Strong's, one will see the four places where parakleetos appears in John 14, 15 and 16. These scriptures certainly reveal Christ as the parakleetos, as we have shown. You would need to use an Englishman's Greek Concordance (Wigram's) or America's Online Bible to find the only other appearance of this Greek word in all of the scriptures. It's not translated Comforter there. Remember as you read this that, according to John 14:26, The Comforter (parakleetos )…is the Holy Ghost… The scripture before us is the First Epistle of John, chapter two verse one. My little children, these things I write unto you that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate (parakleetos - not even capitalized here in the KJV) with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous: There it is once again stated straight out. Jesus Christ is the parakleetos, the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost.


Glad I could help,
Paul

[jenna]

True, but it WOULD exclude him if he weren't part of the family.

How is the Comforter not part of the family?
.
.

The comforter is not part of the family because the "comforter" you are speaking of, the Holy Spirit, is not an actual being. Being a comforter is simply what it DOES, not what it IS. Just like you may say a human can be a "comforter", but that is simply what that person DOES.

[BavarianWheels]

True, but it WOULD exclude him if he weren't part of the family.

How is the Comforter not part of the family?
.
.

The comforter is not part of the family because the "comforter" you are speaking of, the Holy Spirit, is not an actual being. Being a comforter is simply what it DOES, not what it IS. Just like you may say a human can be a "comforter", but that is simply what that person DOES.

So you're saying God the Father is an actual being?
.
.

[jenna]

Yes, God the Father and Jesus are both beings.

[BavarianWheels]

Yes, God the Father and Jesus are both beings.

Would you offer some support so I can understand where you're coming from on this?
.
.

[jenna]

Yes, I can. Notice in John 1:1-5. "the Word was God, and the Word was with God. He was in the beginning with God". This plainly states the Word (Jesus) was with God. How can one being be with each other? Jesus IS God, and He is also separate from God (the Father). Notice also "Let US make man in OUR image". Only two separate beings would say "our" and "us".

[Canuckster1127]

Yes, I can. Notice in John 1:1-5. "the Word was God, and the Word was with God. He was in the beginning with God". This plainly states the Word (Jesus) was with God. How can one being be with each other? Jesus IS God, and He is also separate from God (the Father). Notice also "Let US make man in OUR image". Only two separate beings would say "our" and "us".

You're projecting onto God, Human Characteristics and in so doing making and limiting God to be nothing more than yourself.

Your teaching claiming God is a family and therefore not one, creates problems in the opposite direction as to how God can be two beings and yet one God.

This is what happens, to my observation when you attempt to capture the nature of composition of God using logic primarily and assuming that God is limited in the same manner as humans.

We are made to reflect the image of God, not the other way around.

[jenna]

Yes, we are made to reflect the image of God, no argument there. It is logical to conclude, therefore, that God would make us like Him, having a form, and all of us being separate beings. Jesus said "Let them (Christians) be ONE, as we are". Here He was talking about the Father and Himself being "one". If God the Father and God the Son were truly one being, then all Christians would be one being, "as They are". He wasn't talking about them being one being here. He meant "as We are", in the sense of being "one" in UNITY AND PURPOSE.

[Canuckster1127]

Yes, we are made to reflect the image of God, no argument there. It is logical to conclude, therefore, that God would make us like Him, having a form, and all of us being separate beings. Jesus said "Let them (Christians) be ONE, as we are". Here He was talking about the Father and Himself being "one". If God the Father and God the Son were truly one being, then all Christians would be one being, "as They are". He wasn't talking about them being one being here. He meant "as We are", in the sense of being "one" in UNITY AND PURPOSE.

There are elements of Gods nature that are immutable and some that He shares with us that reflect His image. Omnipresence is one of those that is immutable and places God's nature and character as a Spirit beyond the Human limitations you are relying upon here. Jesus, in His human form set aside some of these characteristics (see Phillipians 2:5-11) in order to become Human like us, but that doesn't mean that God the Father did and therefore you are assuming too much.

Respectfully you, or the material you are repeating from your Church, is taking the passage you are referring to, greatly out of context and relying too much upon logic which is built upon an untenable premise, in my opinion.

[BavarianWheels]

Yes, I can. Notice in John 1:1-5. "the Word was God, and the Word was with God. He was in the beginning with God". This plainly states the Word (Jesus) was with God. How can one being be with each other? Jesus IS God, and He is also separate from God (the Father). Notice also "Let US make man in OUR image". Only two separate beings would say "our" and "us".

When I speak of my family's house, I say "our" house. There's four of us. When we asked another family to come on our winter vacation, we asked, "Would you like to come with us?" Our family going on vacation consisted of 14 people.
.
.

[jenna]

Right. So when you say "our" or "us", you mean your family. Same with God and Jesus. Us and our means one family, with more than one being.

[BavarianWheels]

Right. So when you say "our" or "us", you mean your family. Same with God and Jesus. Us and our means one family, with more than one being.

True...but the family consists of more than one family...my sisters married some guys from outside "our" family...

All I'm trying to say is that "our" and "us" does not exclusively mean just 2 in number.
.
.

[jenna]

Right. So when you say "our" or "us", you mean your family. Same with God and Jesus. Us and our means one family, with more than one being.

True...but the family consists of more than one family...my sisters married some guys from outside "our" family...

All I'm trying to say is that "our" and "us" does not exclusively mean just 2 in number.
.
.

Notice that Jesus said "when you see Me you have seen the Father". He did not say "the Father and the holy Spirit". Why leave it out if it is part of a trinity?