Hi Jason,
Since I think it would be more appropriate to continue the discussion about whether or not Jesus is God on a thread besides this one, should I just post any further responses that deal most directly with this subject on the already-existing thread “Is Jesus God or What”(Is Jesus God or What?)? Or should I just create a new thread?
Interesting stuff, Allan; thanks for trying to help me to better understand this. So is an infinite circle a closed plane curve, or no?
In my current class with Edinburgh’s Larry Hurtado he is brilliantly defending the dominant view, and today is the final day given to posing our questions on his case. I personally find his sparring partner, James D. G. Dunn, better captures my sense of the N.T. in his book, “Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence.” I’m wondering if Aaron and others of you are familiar with his approach, which I perceive as a middle ground which challenges both Unitarianism and many conceptions of Trinitarian ontology. He sees Jesus reverenced as a unique ‘divine’ agent of God’s presence and reality, but “God” (the Father, YHWH) as the only Source who alone will ultimately be “all in everyone,” as even our Lord Jesus will be subjected to the one Paul calls “the GOD of our Lord.”
I’m interested in hearing more about that too, Bob. I sort of feel in limbo here, because I am neither a trinitarian or a unitarian.
I’m probably currently a “binitarian”, or something else in between, perhaps more along the lines of what Dunn is aiming at. 
That does sound interesting. I’m somewhat familiar with Dunn’s work on the “New Perspective on Paul,” but that’s about it. I’ll have to check out the book.
Hi Lefein,
I decided to go ahead and respond to your last post on another thread that I felt was more appropriate given the direction in which our discussion has gone!
I’ve no idea. 
As the circle gets ever larger, the curve gets ever straighter. The curve of an infinitely large circle is in fact a straight line. Can a plane be enclosed by a straight line?
The thing is, if I cannot understand something as simple as an infinitely large circle, I have no hope in hell (or in heaven) of understanding an infinite person/s. “God dwells in unapproachable Light.”
I think the idea of an infinite sphere with a positional point is more than understandable. If one is willing to forgo the necessity of being “difficult” in technicality for the sake of actually understanding the point being made.
I’d illustrate the idea in this sort of fashion;
Give attention to a hypothetical, infinite sized realm of pure white light, or a canvas of white, or an infinite empty white room.
Now, within this room; is a seamless white dot, which is the same exact colour and essence and substance as the rest of the infinite white room around it.
Point to the dot.
The reason I asked is because in my Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th edition) a circle is defined as “a closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from a fixed point within the curve.” So according to this definition at least, if what you refer to as an “infinite circle” is not a closed plane curve, then it’s an infinite something but it’s not in fact a real “circle.” If the definition provided in this modern collegiate dictionary is correct, then to say you have no idea whether or not an “infinite circle” is a closed plane curve is really to say you have no idea whether it is really a genuine circle. And while this may seem somewhat nitpicky, I think it makes an important point that is very relevant to theological discussions like this: we must be careful to define our terms and be as consistent and precise as we can, and not slip into sloppy and evasive language in which terms are misused and equivocated.
What’s interesting is that in the verse you quote above from 1 Tim 6:16, “God” refers to one Person, not a multi-personal being. He is even distinguished from “Christ Jesus” (see vv. 13-15). 
Why should God be limited to one “person”?
He’s God.
Its quite a bit like limiting Music to one dull, perpetual, singular pitch of note.
If God is Light, reality shows quite plainly that light is not existentially monochromatic.
[edited for clarity]
How many persons do you think God has revealed himself to be?
Do you think God is literally “light?” Jesus called his disciples “the light of the world.” Are they all multipersonal beings as well?
As many as he is, or so pleases to be. I’m not God’s auditor, he reveals himself however he wants; as whatever he wants, or whoever he wants.
From burning bush, to pillar of cloud, to Son of Man Himself.
If he is, or not, does not negate the fact that the illustration is comparable. Light is not monochromatic, neither is God.
Yes. His disciples are The Church, One Body; with Peter, John, Paul, Matthew, Luke…Origen, Gregory, George MacDonald…Lefein…etc.
As for Lefein, I am certain he is multi-personal. I am all at once Lefein, Matthew (my real name), and quite a few characters in various worlds I’ve created with the words of my mouth and the pen in my hand.
And if the one God has been pleased to reveal himself as only one Person (the Father - 1 Cor 8:6), would you be okay with that? Or would you complain against God that he is too “limited” for your preference?
But why do you think light’s not being monochromatic has anything at all to do with how many persons God is? Do you think John was trying to illustrate how God is multi-personal when he declared “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all?” If so, how do you know this? In addition to not being monochromatic, light also exhibits properties of both waves and particles. Do you think this means God exhibits properties of both waves and particles as well? Light in a vacuum also has a measurable speed (exactly 299,792,458 m/s). Does this mean God has a measurable speed at which he travels, or that God has to travel at all?
Jesus was clearly addressing individuals when he said “You are the light of the world,” not one Being. He didn’t mean, “You are all multi-personal beings”; that’s absurd. Peter, James and John are not multi-personal beings. Jesus also said to his disciples, “I am the light of the world.” Is Jesus a multi-personal being? I really think your “light” illustration is a bit strained.
(the following was added to your post after I completed my response)
Ok, this is getting kind of bizarre. To be a “person” is to possess, at minimum, a first person perspective. This would, I believe, include self-awareness, intelligence and will - or at least an inherent capacity for this. Are you honestly saying you are a multi-personal being because you have more than one name and have thought up imaginary versions of yourself (not that there’s anything wrong with that!)?
I’d find him exceedingly boring. and quite unimaginative for a god if he did. But, given that I’ve considered the lilies of the field - I am quite convinced he hasn’t been so very boring about himself as that.
Ad absurdum arguments don’t negate the fact that God isn’t monochromatic.
Hardly constrained at all. The only constraint in the whole matter of light is the constraints you are pressing on it in an effort to devalue the the point I made that Light is by nature, not monochromatic, and therefore God, who is comparable (and compared in the Bible) to Light, is by nature also not monochromatic.
In short, you’re constraining the Bible’s light illustration, by your own self, in what I feel is an attempt to devoid the basic point I was making. An effective argument, but one I find just a little bit absurd; and one that does not effectively convince me in the least.
The truth is exceedingly simple. Creation is not monochromatic…Light is not monochromatic…God is not monochromatic.
As far as I’m concerned, all of the above may as well be true. But you missed my point.
Hi Lefein,
Because I’m really trying not to hijack this thread with a discussion that isn’t directly relevant to the OP, I’ve created a new thread to continue our discussion: Is God More Than One Person?. Hope that’s cool.
I spent a few hours last night browsing various maths and physics forums which discussed infinite circles. Some got overly technical. Most ended in shouting matches. All agreed that the circumference of an infinite circle would indeed be a straight line. Some thought it was therefore absurd, others thought not. Some argued that since the circumference is found at the end of the radius, if the radius is infinitely long, you will never find the circumference. Others wrestled with the meaning of limits. Another argued his particular field routinely uses a property of infinite circles. They all agreed that infinities are very funny things.
Being self-aware, I am a multi-personal being. I talk to myself. I contemplate myself. Because my personalities are reasonably well ordered and integrated, I am a unity of distinctions. At times, when stressed or tired, I am"not quite myself" and behave “out of character”. People say, “It wasn’t like him at all to do such a thing!” If it wasn’t like me, then who was it like? If I am of two (or more) minds, whose minds are they? (I know a woman whose personalities are profoundly disordered. One of her personalities called Rage cut off her finger with a kitchen knife.)
If I cannot begin grasp the finite nature of AllanS, the only person I know intimately from the inside, how can I grasp the nature of Infinite God? I bear God’s image, and I find in myself a unity of distinct persons. I have no trouble believing (but not understanding) that God is the same, only more so.
I see the same image elsewhere. A family is a unity of distinct persons. A nation is the unity of distinct families. And Mankind in the unity of distinct nations.
About six billion different humans, and one humanity. And of those six billion perfectly unique individuals, they’re all equal and exactly the same species, and exactly the same in terms of existential substance.
The Father is self-aware too, right? Is he multi-personal as well? What about the Son and the Holy Spirit? Are they each multi-personal? This is getting really confusing…
And then when you add to this all of the multiple persons that each human person apparently is…well, that’s a lot of human persons. 
Seriously though: what do you think the word “Lord” (singular) refers to? Does it refer to a person (i.e., a being possessing a unique first person perspective/mind/will), or to an “existential substance” that multiple persons share, and by which they are united and in some sense “the same?”
That sounds as if God is a compound being with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as components. I’ve heard JWs crudely refer to the Trinity as “a 3-headed monster”.
Okay, but the “one single final ground of all reality” need not be a “trinity”. I believe it to be “deity”, just as in the case of human beings, the common ground which permits us to relate to one another in the way we do is our “humanity.” But that doesn’t imply that there is one big corporate compound entity comprising all human beings.
As I explained above, that need not be the case.
In my view the Father doesn’t depend on anyone or anything for His existence. He is the self-existing One! But the generated Son does depend upon His Father (also called His “God” in several scriptures).
Since the Son is the exact image of the essence of the Father it is not a “lesser” relationship. I have no idea what you mean by “fair-togetherness”.
I deny that the Son is “the past-action creation of a super-angel” nor have I even hinted at such. Have you been talking to a JW lately who was telling you that Jesus is the archangel Michael?
I stated that the Father generated (or “begat”) His Son and this act MARKED the beginning of time (“natural” is redundant since there is no such thing as “unnatural time”). Surely the difference between creation and begetting is obvious. You beget a son, and he is human and sentient like you. He also resembles you physically in that he has two eyes two, ears, a nose, two arms, two legs, etc. You create a painting and it is non-human and non-sentient, and doesn’t have your physical characteristics.
The Son is NOT less. He is identical; you might say he is a clone of the Father. Both have the common ground of being deity.
I’m sure you mean the Son here, since the Father was neither created nor begotten. But the Son was “the only begotten God” (John 1:18 in the earliest manuscripts). The Son is not different from the Father who begat Him; He is another just like Him.
The Father is the independent ground of all reality.
I continue to affirm that the Son is just a divine as the Father, and I strongly declare that He is no less in the sense of deity. But He is less is some way. He Himself said, “The Father is greater than I.”
I do not hold that the Father and the Son are two different Gods.
In brief, the historic Christian position of the early church to which I subscribe is that God begat a Son “before all ages” (I say “at the beginning of time”). It was a single act. Dogs beget dogs and ther offspring are canine. People beget people and their offspring are human. God begets God and His Offspring is divine. But only God has begotten an Offspring which is exactly the same as He. As Jesus said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Hebrews 1:3 states that the Son is the exact imprint of the essence of the Father. We read in Colossians 2:9
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily…
Excuse me Jason, I didn’t read your request to “get back to the topic” until I had posted the above.
With this post, I will desist and move to the thread which Aaron began.