Is God.....

[Curium]

Theopneustos

Cometh The Inquisitor

Considering that we all pretty much believe in the Holy Trinity, it's safe to assume that we all know that Jesus, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are simply aspects of the same god (A.K.A. Jesus=The Father=The Holy Spirit=God). Since Jesus himself bore the sins of the world, we can know that God can bear sin.

I wouldn't necessarily say that, Cometh The Inquisitor. The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. This would be a Trinitarian heresy known as Sabellianism or Modalism. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. They're distinct persons, yet they are God. That's why I put "Not same." They're not the same person, but they are the same substance. And "persons" or "hypostases" as well as "subsistence" would be a better term than aspects/modes.

Cometh The Inquisitor

But aren't you forgetting the other verse put forth by Theo?

Theopneustos

Psalm 139:8 "If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths*, you are there."

*KJV, if I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there.

That's what I was wondering. Anyway, I've seen a discussion on these two verses that I presented. It's been a long time, so I can't write up an answer for the explanation. I do remember the people getting into the Hebrew and Greek, however.

I think what CTI meant was that since Jesus "the Son" bore sin, then God (the one and only God which all three parts of the trinity are) bore sin as well, because Jesus is a part of God. (At least, I think that's what he meant.)

**Edit, I just saw that he already said that....  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Curium

I think what CTI meant was that since Jesus "the Son" bore sin, then God (the one and only God which all three parts of the trinity are) bore sin as well, because Jesus is a part of God. (At least, I think that's what he meant.)

**Edit, I just saw that he already said that....

Come to think of it... Maybe it's possible that the Father can't be near sin. After all, the aspects are seperate entities. I mean, the Son doesn't know when the Second Coming is, but the father does. So, I guess it's possible.  

[Sinner]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Maybe it's possible that the Father can't be near sin.

So much for omnipotence then, eh?  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Sinner

So much for omnipotence then, eh?

No.

The Bible never says that The Father was omnipotent. Only that God was omnipotent.

Of course, this is ignoring the whole, 'if God sinned then it wouldn't be sin any more' concept.  

[Theopneustos]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Come to think of it... Maybe it's possible that the Father can't be near sin. After all, the aspects are seperate entities. I mean, the Son doesn't know when the Second Coming is, but the father does. So, I guess it's possible.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct, yet not divided (distincti non divisi), different, yet not separate (discreti non separati). They are not separate entities. That is tritheism.

For a bit of advice, Cometh, study the Trinity before discussing on such matters.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Theopneustos

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct, yet not divided (distincti non divisi), different, yet not separate (discreti non separati). They are not separate entities. That is tritheism.

So one aspect can do what another may not be able to, but yeah, the way I worded it was rather poor.
I think a better way of putting it would be the one used by St. Patrick. God is like a clover and each leaf is an Aspect of God.

Quote:

For a bit of advice, Cometh, study the Trinity before discussing on such matters.

The Bible is all the studying I need to do on the topic of God.  

[Curium]

Theopneustos

Cometh The Inquisitor

Come to think of it... Maybe it's possible that the Father can't be near sin. After all, the aspects are seperate entities. I mean, the Son doesn't know when the Second Coming is, but the father does. So, I guess it's possible.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct, yet not divided (distincti non divisi), different, yet not separate (discreti non separati). They are not separate entities. That is tritheism.

For a bit of advice, Cometh, study the Trinity before discussing on such matters.

So then by the term tritheism, is it meant that there are three gods? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just curious because if you break that term down to its roots, then that's what it means. With the trinity, it is not believed that there are three gods, it is believed that there are three aspects of the same God, the single deity.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Curium

So then by the term tritheism, is it meant that there are three gods? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just curious because if you break that term down to its roots, then that's what it means. With the trinity, it is not believed that there are three gods, it is believed that there are three aspects of the same God, the single deity.

He was saying that what I said supported tritheism, which, I must admit, it kind of sounded like it did.  

[Theopneustos]

Cometh The Inquisitor

The Bible is all the studying I need to do on the topic of God.

But, I dare say, if you want to expand your knowledge on the topic of God, it would be best to learn theology. This is simple advice, because after I had gone through the Bible several times, I turned over to theology to expand my knowledge of God.  

[Theopneustos]

Curium

So then by the term tritheism, is it meant that there are three gods? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just curious because if you break that term down to its roots, then that's what it means. With the trinity, it is not believed that there are three gods, it is believed that there are three aspects of the same God, the single deity.

Tritheism would be the belief in three gods. In the Trinity, this is not how it is. We use the terms "persons" and "substance." For "persons," it is not the same as the general use that we would use to say, "Look, that person, John, is standing over there, while Eric is standing over here." Obviously John and Eric are two separate entities. They are separate persons as well. So, the term "person" should not be thought of as "being." Rather, it should be thought of as the interdependent, co-eternal, co-equal personality of God.

For tritheism, we would say that there are three separate entities or beings. This isn't true for the Trinity. It was asked that if Jesus is God, then does this mean that there are two Gods? The answer is obviously an emphatic no. To preserve the three persons of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to preserve the monotheistic teachings of the Bible, the early church fathers sought to explain this. Of course, it was also done so, because of the Arian heresy, where the heretic, Arius, claimed that Jesus Christ was not God, but the highest being created by God, and that the word "Son of God" was a honorary term.  

[Curium]

Theopneustos

Cometh The Inquisitor

The Bible is all the studying I need to do on the topic of God.

But, I dare say, if you want to expand your knowledge on the topic of God, it would be best to learn theology. This is simple advice, because after I had gone through the Bible several times, I turned over to theology to expand my knowledge of God.

One does not need to have studied theology to hold a viable arguement about the presence of God in Hell. I never studied theology, but I was taught in Sunday school that God's presence is everywhere. I also learned that Hell was a place that was created by God. Hell is a place, God's presence is everywhere (or everyplace), therefore God's presence is in Hell. While I know there are plenty of counterarguements for what I just said, my point was to show that you don't need to study theology in order to back up an opinion on the topic of God.  

[Theopneustos]

Curium

One does not need to have studied theology to hold a viable arguement about the presence of God in Hell. I never studied theology, but I was taught in Sunday school that God's presence is everywhere. I also learned that Hell was a place that was created by God. Hell is a place, God's presence is everywhere (or everyplace), therefore God's presence is in Hell. While I know there are plenty of counterarguements for what I just said, my point was to show that you don't need to study theology in order to back up an opinion on the topic of God.

Theology goes beyond this. Sure, you could state that God is in hell, while others could say, "That isn't so." But that's not what theology is. Theology is the study of God. In Christian theology, there are different types of branches. I'm sure you've heard of apologetics, which is a branch of theology. What is apologetics? It is a formal defense or reason of one's faith. Obviously, you have taken apologetics into account, thus, you've gotten yourself into some branch of theology. Other types are as listed:

• Anthropology (anthropos + logos) - The study of man.
  
• Bibliology (biblia + logos) - In Christian theology, this aspect is about the divine origins of the Bible as well as what the Bible teaches about itself. We call it hermeneutics.
  
• Christology (Christos + logos) - This is about who Jesus Christ was and is.
  
• Ecclesiology (ecclesia + logos) - This is about the church, its origins, role, etc.
  
• Eschatology (eschatos + logos) - This is about the end times. Those interested in prophecy will probably delve in this part of theology.
  
• Hamartiology (hamartia + logos) - Hamartiology bring up questions such as, Where did sin originate from? Are we inherently sinful? come up. I do not believe that this part of theology is very popular, however.
  
• Paterology (pater + logos) - This is the study of the God the Father.
  
• Pneumatology (pneuma + logos) - In Christian theology, this is the study of the Holy Spirit.
  
• Soteriology (soter + logos) - This is the study of salvation as affected by Jesus Christ. Calvinists and Arminianists have great disagreements here.
  
• Theology Proper (theos + logos) - This is the study of God and His attributes.

I've studied Christology and Theology Proper, if that is all right to say, seeing I've gotten into the Trinity. I've also studied soteriology, which turned my beliefs around, and am now studying hamartiology. You may not get into this kind of stuff I do, but one part of theology deals with a whole other part. Apologetics may be your department, but if you're going to defend Christ, you're going to fall into Christology. If you're going to defend the Bible, bibliology, and if sin, hamartiology. It may not be the full study, of course, but it's a bit.  

[Gilwen]

Curium

One does not need to have studied theology to hold a viable arguement about the presence of God in Hell.

Sorry, I have to go with Theo on this one: Theology, being the study of God, is quite an important thing to be familiar with if one is to discuss God, right? I don't mean everyone needs to study theology formally, but if one person has more scriptural support for their view, then their argument is more viable, assuming of course the infallibility and incorruptibility of God and His Word (which, I think, we are?).
More simply, if one view is better supported by the Bible than another, does it matter if that view was obtained by simply studying the scriptures alone or by rigorous study of formal theology? I don't think so.
To give you due credit, Curium, Theo isn't exactly expanding on WHY he believes the way he does. I've discussed this stuff with him. Believe me, this isn't all scholarly mumbo jumbo. His views on the Trinity are actually supported by Scripture, and lots of it.
~Gilwen  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Gilwen

Sorry, I have to go with Theo on this one: Theology, being the study of God, is quite an important thing to be familiar with if one is to discuss God, right? I don't mean everyone needs to study theology formally, but if one person has more scriptural support for their view, then their argument is more viable, assuming of course the infallibility and incorruptibility of God and His Word (which, I think, we are?).

The only study of theology 'needed' to discuss God and His attributes is the study of the Bible. Sure, theology courses help. However, when we come down to it, whether you have a degree in theology or not is irrelavent if your points can be proven through scripture. I have not taken a course in theology and I doubt I ever will. I hold far to much disdain for organized religion to stoop so low. However, that does not disqualify me in a theological debate, as the one and only source in the world that is infallible by nature is the Bible. That, I can, and do, study.  

[Theopneustos]

Cometh The Inquisitor

The only study of theology 'needed' to discuss God and His attributes is the study of the Bible. Sure, theology courses help. However, when we come down to it, whether you have a degree in theology or not is irrelavent if your points can be proven through scripture. I have not taken a course in theology and I doubt I ever will. I hold far to much disdain for organized religion to stoop so low. However, that does not disqualify me in a theological debate, as the one and only source in the world that is infallible by nature is the Bible. That, I can, and do, study.

You have used apologetics, correct, Cometh? I can support this with Scripture, where Peter says, "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." The Greek word for "defense" (not found in this verse, but uses the word "reason") is apologia. Apologia brings forth apologetics. I've already given the definition of what apologetics is. I am positive that just about every Christian who has defended his or her faith has used apologetics, which again, is a branch of theology.

By using this, I would see that you do believe that theology is important. I am not asking you to get into a class on theology. I haven't. But let's say someone gets into a deep discussion, such as Eteponge pr Ananel, who are actual members here at Gaia. Or, you get into a discussion with Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. I have seen several of these groups of people distort the church history in favor for their belief system.

Did you know, for example, that Jehovah's Witnesses use the same theology as that of Arius, the one who claimed that Christ was the highest being of all creation, but not equal to God? They believe that the Father is only God, they believe that the Son is a god (see the New World Translation John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"), and the Holy Spirit is merely an impersonal force. I would go further to call them Neo-Arianists.

What if you were to go up against someone else's beliefs, and they used the Bible for support, as well as the early church fathers? What would you do? Hope for the best that you have all the right answers? Even the one you're debating with can use the Bible. Theology is overall important for the Christian. You can learn much, especially interpretations on Scripture. Of course, your studying of the Bible would be considered hermeneutics. Just make sure that you're studying it correctly, as there is truly only one interpretation, though many others could be brought up.

It's just advice I am giving you, Cometh. You don't have to agree, though I have seen that you are choosing not to. I just believe it would be of great use.