But what if he revealed himself as only one Person because he really IS one Person? Or are you saying this cannot possibly be true because God could not possibly be as “limited” or as “exceedingly boring” as you think a unipersonal God would necessarily be?
What about a two-person God? Would a biune God be only slightly less boring and limited than a unipersonal God? Or how about a triune God? Would a triune God be only slightly less boring and limited than a biune God? How many persons does God have to be or consist of by virtue of God’s existence before it meets your standard for what the Supreme Being is supposed to be like, and is most fitting for the Supreme Being? Would you say a triune God is too limited and boring as well? If not, why not?
What do the lilies of the field have to do with how many persons God is? Are you saying that a unipersonal God could not possibly be whimsical, imaginative or omnipotent enough to think up and create such beauty?
What I find interesting is that when Jesus speaks of “God” in his Sermon on the Mount (the discourse in which he tells his disciples, “Consider the lilies of the field” - Mt. 6:28), he’s referring to a single Person: “our Father in heaven.” From what Jesus says in this discourse, he gave his disciples no reason to believe that “God” (YHWH) was more than one Person. He elsewhere refers to this one Person as the “only true God” (John 17:3) and as being the one whom the Jews identified as the one God of Israel (John 8:54). Evidently, Jesus didn’t think a unipersonal God was too “limited” or “boring.” In fact, I believe once we begin to understand and get to know him, we will quickly realize that our Father in heaven is more than enough to satisfy our yearning for Beauty, Majesty, the Infinite, etc. I do not think our Father in heaven - who is one person and the only true God - is either limited or “exceedingly boring.”
Once again, I must ask you: 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? How did you find this out?
My point was that your singling out the polychromatic nature of light and making this an appropriate illustration of how many persons God is, seems arbitrary. It would be like someone asserting, “Light is impersonal, which illustrates that God is also impersonal.” If God isn’t impersonal, calling God “light” would not illustrate the fact that he’s impersonal. Similarly, if God isn’t multi-personal, calling God “light” wouldn’t illustrate the fact that he’s multi-personal. Calling God “light” would be illustrating something else about God.
So what do I think John was saying when he declared that “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all?” “Light” often symbolizes truth, knowledge, purity, goodness, etc. “Darkness” (which is here used by John as the opposite of “light”) often means falsehood, error and sin. Methodist commentator Adam Clarke (who believed God to be multi-personal) noted that God’s being “light” means he is “the source of wisdom, knowledge, holiness, and happiness; and in him is no darkness at all - no ignorance, no imperfection, no sinfulness, no misery.” This seems reasonable and consistent with the other figurative references to “light” in Scripture.
I think you’re trying to press this metaphor further than it was intended by John to be understood. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that the statement “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” was meant by John to convey the idea that there is some sense in which God is, like “light,” polychromatic (although, again, why single out this aspect of the nature of light?). What makes you think the figurative sense in which God is not monochromatic has to do with how many persons God is or consists of? I can think of several ways in which God can be considered “polychromatic” or “multifaceted” in a figurative sense while still being the unipersonal Being whom Christ calls “our heavenly Father.”
Moreover, the word “God” in 1 John 1:5 clearly refers to one Person: the Father. See v. 7, where the Being who is said to be “light” is distinguished from “Jesus his Son.” This is exactly what we would expect if John was a unitarian and believed God to be a unipersonal Being. Compare this with the context in which God is declared to be “love.” As in chapter 1, it would appear that John is using the title “God” in this passage not to refer to a plurality of persons but rather to the Father alone (which, again, is exactly what one would expect if John was unitarian). Similarly, in John 4:21-24 God is said to be “spirit,” and it would seem that the title “God” again refers exclusively to the Father rather than to a plurality of persons.
“Light is entirely impersonal; since God is compared to light, it illustrates that God is entirely impersonal, too.” Does this seem like a compelling argument to you?
“Light is not personal…God is not personal.” How exceedingly simple the truth is!
If he has only revealed himself as one person. Then he is, in being unipersonal, exceedingly and necessarily boring. To me, a very depthless God, homogenous, and monochromatic in comparison to the multiplicity of expression he would obviously have available.
He may as well be impersonal too if he’s going to be unipersonal. If he’s only content to be a nirvanous numinous unipersonal deity who refuses to manifest himself in any genuine face to face way - as per example; as Jesus Christ - then he’s about two steps away from being the deity of the Deist.
If God is unipersonal, only existing in an invisible numinous form, he has been entirely too distant and in being an absent father is little fit for what I have seen revealed in Jesus.
But if Jesus is God, then it is God who is personal; who has at least by eternal essence of himself walked, talked, and touched hand to hand, face to face, his creatures.
At the end of the day, a Unipersonal God is not only boring, but to me quite thoroughly impersonal. Or else “personal” only out of purest technicality, and begrudgingly so.
Less boring, less impersonal. As for my standard, I expect the infinite God to have some diversity in his own existential being; for as many persons and forms and names and attributes as he has, I am certain he is not limiting himself in his expressions.
If it came down to it, he might very well have an infinite number of persons, for his infinite nature. Three at least, at the minimum, I feel convinced have been revealed.
“Lilies of the field” = considering nature and creation around as revelations about the nature and being of God.
And personally, I don’t think a unipersonal God could be infinite enough to create as he is said to have created.
Especially if existentially, he is so thoroughly finite in being unipersonal at his very core.
I find it interesting that Jesus also says; “I AM”.
I don’t believe Jesus thinks God is unipersonal at all.
And if you’re trying to convince me that a unipersonal God is enough to satisfy me, sugar coating it in essence to entice me to take a nibble of your interpretation, I maintain that I have very little fondness at all for such a unipersonal interpretation. Especially because if he is unipersonal, he cannot be personal towards me.
He is indeed limited, if he is revealed in only one invisible numinous, touchless presence.
The Unitarian interpretation of God doesn’t satisfy any of my yearnings. It takes away the meal and replaces it with hypotheticals.
Because a quick glance at the universe around, including light, reveals just how diverse it is.
I don’t need to expound on common sense.
Your point is purely in trying to stretch a metaphor beyond its limit to try and devalue a valid point.
Hence it is Ad Absurdum.
My metaphor denies none of that.
I’m sure you could. But it won’t make me love Unitarianism.
Word was God, Word became Flesh kind of tells me that John wasn’t a unitarian.
I’m sure you could make it compelling to someone.
But not to me.
I think the conversation has long since been devolving into contradiction and word replacement.
By missing it. I can’t explain it in any terms other than that.
Correct. Jesus didn’t suggest such a thing. I agree with you again that Yahweh is not some sort of entity who consists of more than one Person. However, we have to be cautious here. What if the Father and the Son, as two Persons, share the name “Yahweh”? Do you think that possible? Abraham addressed the angel who stayed behind as “Yahweh”! Was this angel Yahweh, Creator of Heaven and earth? I don’t think so. I think He was Yahweh the Son of God. When we come to Genesis 19:24, we see that two Individuals in that one verse, each of whom is called “Yahweh”. One is in Heaven, the other on earth. The Yahweh on earth is given the power by the Yahweh in Heaven to rain fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah!
Then Yahweh rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from Yahweh out of the heavens. Genesis 19:24
The Son is another exactly like the Father — “the exact image of His essence” (Hebrews 1:3). If you’ve seen the Son, you’ve seen the Father. (John 14:9)
Suppose I pull a photo of myself out of my pocket and show it to you. Then I say, “I’m going to show you another photo of me.” Then from another pocket I pull out another copy of the first photo. Chances are you will say, “That’s the same photo!” I could say, “No. Look, there are two photos, one in my left hand and another in my right.” There may be two, but if you’ve seen the first, you’ve also seen the second.
Similarly, though the Father and the Son are two divine Individuals, They are exactly alike, so that if you’ve seen the Son, you’ve seen the Father. When we beget a son, he may resemble us both physically and mentally. But when God begat His only Son, he begat One who was exactly like Himself. You might say He was a “clone” of the Father.
Likewise, the Father and the Son share the same spirit. “God is Spirit” (John 4:24), and also “The Lord [Jesus] is the Spirit.” (2 Corinthians 3:17,18). The Father and the Son can extend their personalities anywhere in the Universe. That is the Holy Spirit. It is my view that although the Holy Spirit is personal, it is not a third divine Person, but rather is the Persons of the Father and the Son. Jesus said:
…If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (John 14:23)
Is this not the Holy Spirit? — The Father and the Son dwelling in those who love Christ and keep His commandments?
That is correct. The Father is the only true God. Yet Jesus is “the only begotten God” (John 1:18 in the earliest manuscripts). The word “God” can be used in different senses. I understand John 1:18 as affirming that Jesus is fully divine in the same sense that His Father was divine. Why? Because He was begotten as the Son of God, Another divine Individual who was the exact imprint of His Father’s essence. For in him the whole fullness of Deity dwells bodily…(Colossians 2:9)
Human fathers and their children share the same family name. Human fathers and sons often share the exact same name. I think it should not be a surprise to us if the perfect Son would bear the name of His Father as well as His image.
I think a unipersonal being is as meaningless as a square circle. A person can only exist in relation to other persons. I am a person only so long as I relate to my own self, and to other selves.
It’s interesting. Jesus prays that we will be one, just as he and the Father are one. We’re told that the Church is the Bride of Christ. Now Christ will not marry a bride of a different species to himself. If Christ, being one with the Father, is divine, the church, being one with Christ, must also be divine.
I think God is content to be himself. If he’s one person (as I think Scripture reveals), I think he’s content to be one person. If God were two or three persons (or more), I think he (they?) would be content to be however many persons they are. You’re talking as if a unipersonal God would be wrong for not revealing himself as more than one person. But I don’t think God wants to be anything other than who and what he is, and if he is unipersonal, who are we to demand that he be something else, or to claim that he is wrong or “limited” because he refuses to be something other than what he is and always has been?
As far as a unipersonal God (i.e., “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”) being “two steps away from being the deity of the Deist,” I’m not sure I understand your point. How many steps away from the deity of the Deist is the deity of the Trinitarian?
I believe the Supreme Being sent a perfectly sinless human being to be the mediator between himself and humanity and reveal himself to us: the man Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5). Notice that in this verse Paul states that there is “one God” and “one mediator.” Who is this “one God?” Answer: it is evident that Paul understood the “one God” to be the Father (1 Cor 8:6; cf. 1 Tim 1:1-2). So when Paul says that there is “one mediator between God and men,” he is referring to that Being whom Christ identifies as “our heavenly Father” and “my God and your God.” The man, Jesus, is the one mediator between the one God (the Father) and men. The “one God” to whom Paul refers (i.e., the Father) is the same Being to whom he refers at the end of this epistle as “…he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see…” This supports my position even further: the man, Jesus Christ, is the one mediator between the one God because the one God dwells in unapproachable light and cannot be seen. So he (not they) sent a being who can be seen by us (a man) to reveal himself to us. Jesus is thus the “image of the invisible God” - the sinless, human mediator between the invisible God and man. The “invisible God” - our Father in heaven, and Jesus’ God - is the Supreme Being. And I do not believe the one Supreme Being sent the one Supreme Being to be the one mediator between the one Supreme Being and man. The Supreme Being sent a being who is not himself (not-God) to be the mediator between himself and man, and gave him the power and authority to speak and act on his behalf in a way that no other agent has done or will do.
What about the other divine persons to whom you believe Jesus is fully and in every way equal? Are they all “impersonal” since they didn’t directly interact with human beings as Jesus did during his earthly ministry? Do you find the Being to whom Paul refers in 1 Tim 6:16 impersonal? After all, we’re told no one has ever seen the “blessed and only Sovereign,” and that he dwells in “unapproachable light.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “personal only out of purest technicality, and begrudgingly so.” But whatever you mean, I can’t help but think you’re betraying your true feelings concerning the One whom Paul refers to as “the invisible God,” and whom Christ identifies as “our heavenly Father.” If a divine person can only be thought of as “personal” insofar as he walks among men in the flesh, then according to your view the Father is not personal! In fact, it would mean that there is only one “person” in the whole “Godhead” who is actually “personal!”
So for you, a triune God is less boring and less impersonal than a biune God, and a biune God is less boring and less impersonal than a unipersonal God. I can only assume that a four-person God would for you be only less boring and less impersonal than a triune God, and so forth. I suppose he would have to be an infinite number of persons in order for him to not bore you at all, and to be a being that is truly Supreme. A God with any finite number of persons would only be less boring and less impersonal than the God with one less person.
But again, if God is one Person by virtue of his existence and nature (and is perfectly content and happy just as he is), how would he be “limiting himself in his expressions?” It would be like me saying that Lefein is limiting himself by not being someone and something other than he ontologically is.
It seems “he” (they) would have to be an infinite number of persons in order for “him” to be a truly superior Being whom you would not find at least relatively “boring” and “impersonal,” and who would not be “self-limiting.”
So you would consider a 1st century Jew listening to Jesus during his Sermon on the Mount mistaken who viewed the beauty and diversity of creation as manifesting the creative work of one Person and Mind (i.e., the Father in heaven) rather than a multitude of Persons and Minds?
Why do you keep saying “he” if you think God is more than one person? Why don’t you say “they?”
How many persons does God have to be in order for him to not be finite in your opinion? Earlier you said God “might very well have an infinite number of persons,” but it seems to me that, according to your view, having any finite number of persons would necessarily make God “thoroughly finite.”
There’s a good discussion on this verse I had with Michael on another thread (Another question); much of the following is simply copy and pasted from that thread.
I don’t think Jesus was identifying himself as YHWH, the Most High God when he said “I am.” The very same Greek expression (ego eimi) is used in the next chapter by the man Jesus healed of blindness. There, we read that this man kept telling the people, “I am the man” (ego eimi), in response to their questioning him (John 9:9). Although this man’s words could just as legitimately be translated “I am” as Jesus’ words in chapter 8, no one thinks this man was claiming to be YHWH. The Greek phrase translated in John 8:58 as “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he” - Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I” - Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” - John 8:24 and 28.). The expression “ego eimi” was simply a common way of designating oneself; it did not mean one was claiming to be God.
So who was Jesus claiming to be in this verse, if not YHWH, the one God of Israel? Answer: the context must determine what is meant. Jesus was claiming to be the promised Messiah-Savior who was foretold by God even before Abraham existed (Gen 3:15), which would thus make him greater than Abraham (a fact which was inconceivable to the unbelieving Jews, since they did not believe he was who he claimed to be - v. 53).
In order for Jesus to have been identifying himself as YHWH, he would actually have needed to say “I am I AM”, or “I am the I AM.” But he didn’t. He simply said “Before Abraham was, I am.” The expression “I AM” occurring in both Exodus 3:14 and John 8:48 is an error of English translation. The Greek speaking Jews and early Christians used different words in these verses. The Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14 (Lexham LXX Interlinear) reads as follows:
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν,
— said — God to Moses, I am the (One) (who) exists.",
καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ
And (then) he said, "Thus you will say to the sons of Israel,
Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
`The (One) (who) exists has sent me to you.’".
So Greek speakers used ho ōn (ὁ ὤν) for God’s title rather than egō eimi:
And God said to Moses, “I am (ego eimi) THE BEING (ho on).” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘THE BEING (ho on) has sent me to you’” (Ex 3:14, LXX). But in John 8:58 (ESV), Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you: before Abraham was, I am (ego eimi).” There’s a BIG difference between saying egō eimi and egō eimi ho ōn. The Greek expression egō eimi is, by itself, not the divine name of God in Greek (which is egō eimi ho ōn), nor is it the shortened version of the name (which is ho ōn). In the LXX, God never used this expression alone as a means of self-designation. “Ho ōn,” either by itself or immediately following egō eimi, was how God identified himself.
Moreover, we can clearly see that the Jews didn’t consider “I am” to be the divine name of God because they weren’t bothered by Jesus using it earlier in the chapter (John 8:24, 28). It definitely wasn’t a reaction to Jesus saying “ego eimi” or else they would have stoned him at verse 24. It was the fact that, in claiming to be (in some sense) “before Abraham was,” Jesus was affirming his preeminence over Abraham in God’s redemptive plan - i.e., that he is the one about whom the Scriptures had prophesied before Abraham was born. This verse no more teaches that Christ literally pre-existed than v. 26 is teaching that Abraham literally saw the “day” of the Messiah. Abraham saw it in anticipation, by faith. And Jesus existed only in the foreknowledge of God (1Pet 1:20), as the promised Messiah.
The exact meaning of what is being said when someone declares “ego eimi” is not necessarily inherent in the expression, but may need to be supplied by the listener or reader. That is, when someone used the Greek expression “ego eimi,” the listener (or reader) might have to “fill in the blank” to understand the claim that’s being made. This is evident from verses 24-25, where Jesus used the same expression (ego eimi), to which the Jews asked in response, “Who are you?” (and again, notice that they didn’t pick up stones and attempt to kill him in response to what Jesus said!). Yes, Jesus was making a claim concerning his self-identity, but “eigo eimi” did not in itself convey that which the unbeliever Jews should have already known (i.e., that he was the Messiah of which their own Scriptures had long prophesied and borne witness to). So what Jesus meant in v. 58 was, “I am the Messiah about whom the Scriptures prophesied before Abraham came into existence.” Jesus was speaking of himself in the present in reference to something that pertained to him in the past. And while the unbelieving Jews rightfully understood Jesus to be making a Messianic claim (that’s why they sought to kill him at this time, and is also the basis of the charges that would later be brought against him during his trial), they mistook his words to be a claim to be literally older than Abraham (though not a claim to be “timeless,” as is sometimes asserted by Trinitarians). But again, Jesus was no more claiming to be older than Abraham than he was claiming that Abraham literally saw his “day” thousands of years before he was born. He was purposefully using figurative, semi-ambiguous language, just as he does several times in the Gospels.
How many persons does God have to be in order for this God to be personal towards you?
Again, it’s because God is “invisible” and “dwells in unapproachable light” that he sent Jesus to reveal himself to man, as the one mediator between God (who is the Father) and man.
I find your “yearnings” puzzling, and am really unsure what you mean when you say “it takes away the meal and replaces it with hypotheticals.” I’m perfectly content having Jesus’ God (the Father) - and no other God - as my God. Jesus’ God is enough (or rather, more than enough!) to satisfy my deepest yearnings. But had it not been for Jesus, I would not be able to say that, since it was Jesus who made him known to me.
So the diversity of light is the reason why you think light’s being polychromatic has anything at all to do with how many persons God is? I’m not sure I understand your argument.
But how do you even know your handling of the metaphor is appropriate? How do you know that this is what John was trying to convey to us when he said, “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all”?
I realize that; but I really think you’re the one stretching the metaphor beyond its limit and trying to make it mean something that it was never intended to convey when originally used by John. And rather than arguing why you think John was trying to convey through this metaphor what you think we should understand by it, you’ve simply said, “a quick glance at the universe around, including light, reveals just how diverse it is. I don’t need to expound on common sense.”
Both those who hold to the deity of Christ and those who don’t have written volumes on this verse alone. But if you’re curious as to how Unitarians understand John 1:1, I recommend the following as a short summary/defense of the Unitarian position:
In a nutshell, I deny that the logos, prior to becoming flesh (v. 14), refers to Jesus, the Son of God. The logos is just that - the spoken divine word of God by which God brought everything into existence (Ps. 33:6, 9; 107:20; 147:15, 18-19; Isa. 55:10-11; Peter 3:5). “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…and God SAID,” etc. As such, God’s word or logos (which is divine in nature and thus said by John to be theos) is the expression of his wisdom, plan and character. The word logos is used throughout John’s Gospel to denote a spoken word, and I submit it means the same thing in John’s poetic prologue. It’s no more a personal being with a mind and will separate from the Father (whom I believe the word was “with” in the “beginning”) than “wisdom” is in Proverbs 8 (which was also “with” God). But it was this (God’s word) which, figuratively speaking, “became flesh” and was embodied or “incarnated” in a human person when Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb by the “power of the Most High.” Christ, as the “word made flesh,” is the ultimate and definitive communication of God’s heart and mind to mankind.
But since you seem to think the logos in John 1:1-3 is to be equated with Jesus in a pre-incarnate state, what do you think the expression ho theos in the expression “the word was with God” refers to in these verses? Does the word denote a person (as it seems to do throughout John’s Gospel - e.g., Jn. 3:16; 3:34; 4:24; 6:46; 11:22; 14:1; 17:3) or do you think it denotes multiple persons?
Hopefully, then, you can better understand why I don’t find your argument (that since God is compared to light, God should be understood as multi-personal) compelling, either. In both cases, I believe the metaphor is being stretched beyond its limit to convey something that it was never intended by the author to convey.
I’ve gotten weary of dealing with, for a second turn, discussing your views vs. mine and getting nowhere very fast, though certainly it is not your fault I’m sure; and so I’m going to cut to the root of it all. From all of this argument I can boil it down to about three simple points.
This is because you don’t understand me. You won’t understand my view of God, until you understand me. I doubt you will; for much the same reason you made zero progress in the Soulsleep thread.
I genuinely find the Unitarian position on God to be boring. Not just superficially boring - but existentially, artistically dull, through and through. The reasons why this is so; is simply not something I could probably explain to you, for much the same reason you simply couldn’t understand why I had such utter abhorrence for what I feel is the most abominable post-mortem idea to arise since Hopeless Damnation; and yet I simply couldn’t explain it to you in a way you could understand.
I simply do not see room for God to be infinitely beautiful under the Unitarian position. In fact, when I consider him from that view he loses almost all of his beauty altogether. In being nothing but invisible, distant, and nothing but separated from me (except by a non-divine, not-god version of Jesus, whom under the Unitarian idea is a diminished thing compared to the beliefs I currently hold) and incapable of having any direct relationship with me.
And so we get into the other reasons why the Unitarian idea of God, cannot be my god, because any god I have must be omnipotent enough, and loving enough to be my god directly, as “his/her/it-self”, with no middle man between me, and him, except Himself. Nothing you’ve presented thus far has given me even the slightest hint of convincement that the Unitarian God is even capable of such a divine relationship. In fact it has only convinced me that he is thoroughly incapable of it; either by choice (which I find hateful of him) or by inability, which is terrible in its own right.
If Jesus is not God, then I have no direct relationship with God beyond some divine equivalent of “text messaging”, if even that, with Jesus as being little more than a divine cellphone to which I barely even have the right number. And never in any section of eternity or beyond it will I ever have any semblance of a relationship with him beyond such an empty thing as that.
The Unitarian God is incapable of loving me in the way I require love. Therefore I cannot define him as infinite love, and therefore I cannot define him as God - who is love.
If Jesus is God however, every bit of that changes, and quite for the positive.
At the end of the day, the Unitarian God expresses the very same attributes that make me hate Soul Sleep.
“Separation”
That and, an invisible, homogenous, infinite mass of sentient aether - which insists on being nothing but that - cannot by default be anything but an invisible, homogenous, infinite mass of sentient aether. I simply see no possible way in which this allows any room for God to be infinitely beautiful, even in the reasonable sense…one that excludes the incessant need to be absurd in the whole “dog-god” argument.
Your yearnings might be met, and you don’t understand my yearnings. You’re welcome to your contentment. But that you are content does not mean I have to be - it does not make me a lesser believer to be honestly unsatisfied with the ideas you’ve presented. If I wanted your interpretation of God, I’d be a Unitarian Universalist, I’d quit Christianity. But to be quite honest, I wouldn’t even be a Unitarian Universalist. I’d most likely be a some sort of Wiccan.
At the end of the day, the Unitarian God simply doesn’t meet my needs. In fact he can’t, certainly not directly Himself.
You’re content, your view leaves me very uncontent. That is why.
Hermits talk to themselves and to God. Don’t people in solitary confinement go mad?
My body needs to relate to the atmosphere by breathing. My person needs to relate to other persons by breathing of a different sort. It’s no accident that Spirit means “breath”. My own spirit joins me to myself. A different spirit joins me to my family, nation, species. And the Holy Spirit joins me to God.
Ok, let’s say “humanity” is the one existential substance, quality or nature which makes a person Human, and without which they couldn’t be considered Human.
Corresponding to this let’s say that “deity,” “divinity” or “god” (all lower case) is the one existential substance, quality or nature which makes a person Deity/God, and without which they couldn’t be considered Deity/God.
Now, if there are 6 billion perfectly unique persons who each fully possess the one existential substance, quality or nature which makes a person Human, and without which a person couldn’t be considered Human (i.e., “humanity”), then how many Humans is that? Answer: 6 billion. There would be 6 billion persons who are all “Human” (i.e., having the nature of a human) because they all share in one humanity, but there would not be just one Human. There would be 6 billion different Humans.
And if there are 6 billion perfectly unique persons who each fully posses the one existential substance, quality or nature which makes a person Deity/God, and without which a person couldn’t be considered Deity/God (i.e., “divinity,” “deity” or “god”), then how many Deities/Gods is that? Answer: 6 billion. There would be 6 billion persons who are all fully “divine” in the sense of having “deity,” “divinity” or “god” (i.e., the one existential substance or nature that makes a person God), but there would not be just one God. There would be 6 billion different Gods (just as there would be 6 billion different Humans).
Lefein’s position (as I understand it) seems to be that there are at least three - possibly an infinite number - of persons who each fully share in the one “existential substance” or nature which makes a person Deity/God (just as there are 6 billion persons who each fully share in the one existential substance, quality or nature - i.e., humanity - which makes a person Human), but that there is only one Deity/God, not 3 or more. But if it’s true that 6 billion people all sharing in one “humanity” means 6 billion different Humans, I’m not sure how 6 billion persons all sharing in one “deity,” divinity" or “god” (i.e., the existential substance that makes a person God) doesn’t make 6 billion different Gods.
Billion of humans, one Humanity. Many members, one body, one Church, one Bride. Like marries like. The Bridegroom is like the Bride, and the Bride is the spiritual union of many.
Humans connect using language. Babel marred the connection. Pentecost begins to restore it. Gadgets like mobile phones are nothing but crutches used by cripples. We hunger for connection in a world of broken relationships. If the connection between me and my neighbor is loving and perfect, we will be two persons, one being, understanding and being understood. Every good marriage hints at the truth, beauty and divine power of this. Mum-and-Dad. Grandma-and-Grampa. Two people, one being.
They don’t just share one existential substance, but also one existential identity; that of The Supreme Being. In exactly the same way that both Love and Justice share the same existential identity; God, The Supreme Being (God is Love, God is Justice). Just to clarify.
If 6 billion persons possessing that which makes a person “human” (i.e., “humanity”) means that there are 6 billion humans, then it would seem that 6 billion persons possessing that which makes a person “God” means that there are 6 billion Gods.
How does this not follow?
But how do you understand and define “being” in the expression “Supreme Being?” Does it denote a substance, a nature, a person, an existence, all of the above, or something else entirely? Or do you believe it is simply undefinable?
I’ll be responding to your other posts as soon as I can; been pretty busy lately. Loving the discussion, though!
Given that The Supreme Being is God, the being of God is probably quite undefinable, at least in any sort of measurable way.
The best way I can probably express the “identity” of God, is probably by making a language comparison.
The identity is to God, as definition is to a word.
The persons are to God, as synonyms are to a word.
Take for example; The English definition for “building in which a family lives and dwells”; you have house, abode, habitat, edifice, dwelling, residence, home. They are unique synonyms, but they are all synonyms of the same definition, or linguistic identity. The identity of God, is his sentient definition. The persons of God are his synonymous terms which express that sentient definition (identity); The Supreme Being.
Likewise, mostly, lol. Even if I am probably coming across far harsher than I intend to. Its just my writing style really, I can’t help it. Its the old “fantasy writer” habit I guess. I promise, it is in no effort to throw molten ingots of iron at you.
I really haven’t a clue, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest to discover there are an infinite number of gods in GOD. If, one day, “we shall know as we are known”, then we also will join the heavenly throng. How can we know God as well as he knows us unless we somehow share his divine nature?
Christ does not wed a worm, a frog or a monkey. He does not join himself to some lesser species. He weds the Church. She is radiant with the Holy Spirit. She breathes the same breath as Christ himself. She shares his table and his bed. She also is divine. She is a goddess in her glory. She looks just like her Father.
“God became a man to make men gods.” Athanasius
“become gods for (God’s) sake, since (God) became man for our sake.” Gregory of Nazianzus
“I (God) am the food of grown men, grow, and thou shalt feed upon Me, nor shalt thou convert Me, like the food of thy flesh, into thee, but thou shalt be converted into Me.” Augustine
“he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature,” Peter
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’…"
I wasn’t talking about a “measurable way,” though. I simply wanted to know what you understood by the word “being” in the expression “Supreme Being.” If, as you’re using the word in this expression, the word really is indefinable, then it really doesn’t convey anything intelligible or meaningful to me. It could mean anything or nothing. So insofar as a discussion like this goes, the word may as well have no meaning at all if you’re unable to define the term and explain what you mean by it. So if the word is, to you, really indefinable, it doesn’t actually “clarify” anything (although that’s what you say you were trying to do, right?). It’s simply a roadblock to any further discussion.
So do you really not think that any of the words I provided (a substance, a nature, a person, an existence) or any other words would be in any way useful or appropriate for understanding what you mean by “being” in the expression “Supreme Being?”
But who or what is the “word” that God is in your analogy? If the “synonyms” (plural) are persons then wouldn’t the “word” (singular) refer to one person? Are you saying God is both one person and many persons (perhaps even an infinite number)? Or are you saying that the “word” is not a person but the “synonyms” of the word are?
You misunderstood what I meant by “measurable way”. I’m finite, therefore I cannot fully explain the infinite. I cannot fully define God; The Supreme Being, and so I stated quite honestly that he is undefinable “in any measurable way” - I can only offer what I currently know.
I’ve stated before that the identity of God is that of being The Supreme Being. To which, I tried to express what “being” and “identity” would be with my “word” analogy.
The “word” that God is in my analogy is “God” in all of who he is. The I AM, that God is, is his identity; The Supreme Being. I cannot fully expound on what it means for the I AM to be the I AM.
I am saying what reality in linguistics states. One Definition, many synonyms that are that one definition.
One God, One Supreme Being; many synonymous divine persons, and divine attributes that are that one supreme being.
If there is a person which is the definition, or “word”, then it is one more synonym amongst the already existing synonyms; the synonyms are “word” and the word" is every synonym that expresses it.
Another way of putting it, following your train of thought through mine, would be that; The Person, or definition, of God permeates in total synonymy all persons of God. All persons of God permeate in total synonymy The Person, or definition of God.
Yeah, I did have a really hard time trying to understand why you so abhorred the idea that our conscious existence might be temporarily suspended at death before being permanently restored to us at the resurrection of the dead. I thought you just found the idea of temporary non-existence intolerable because you thought it entailed a temporary separation from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (which I don’t think is the case).
I have an even more difficult time trying to understand why you find my view (i.e., that the “one God” is Jesus’ God, our Father in heaven) in any way “existentially boring” or “artistically dull, through and through.”
Your calling the Unitarian position on God “dull” reminded me of something you said elsewhere:
So how many “notes” does God have to “be” before the song that you want to hear is being played? I mean, according to your music analogy above, a biune God would only be playing a two-note song, and a triune God would only be playing a three-note song (like “Hot Cross Buns” ).
Explain what you mean by “direct relationship.” Would you say you have a “direct relationship” with the Father? I mean, don’t you pray to him? If you don’t think you have a direct relationship with the Father, do you think you ever will have one?
Again, do you have a “personal relationship” with the Father (who is the “invisible God” of Col 1:15 and 1 Tim 6:16), or not?
Wait, I don’t think I’ve said that we will never be able to see or directly (in person) interact with the Father. That’s not my view. I simply don’t believe he can be seen or talked to in person (i.e., face to face, standing in his presence) while we are in this mortal, sinful state. No mortal man can see his face and live. Moses was only allowed to see his back (Ex 33:18-23). But when we’re made immortal and sinless I think we’ll be able to see him just as Christ and the holy angels can see him now. And until then, we can know what he’s like and relate to him more fully by looking to Christ, who made him known. If you’ve seen Christ, you’ve seen the Father, since Christ made known the Father’s character and purpose.
Again, the Unitarian God is Jesus’ God (our Father in heaven). Are you separated from the Father now?
It’s almost as if Paul wrote Eph 4:6 just to answer your objection: “…one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
Paul’s pretty much refuting (or at least seriously undermining) two mistaken ideas in this one brief verse:
That the “one God” is multi-personal (“one God and Father of all”)
That this “one God” is a distant, absentee Father (“who is over all and through all and in all”)
That you seem to view Jesus’ God - the Father - as nothing more than an invisible, homogenous, infinite mass of sentient aether concerns me.
I’m not actually surprised that you’d be some sort of Wiccan if you “quit Christianity,” since (if I’m not mistaken) many Wiccans are either pantheistic or polytheistic. And your view of God is, I believe, disturbingly close to polytheism. Actually, like Trinitarianism, I would say it either is polytheism simply masquerading as something else to try and fit with Biblical revelation (e.g., “the Lord our God, the Lord is one”) or it’s really some form of Modalism.
If each person of the Supreme Being is a synonym for the “word” that is the “Supreme Being,” then it seems to me that each person must actually be the same Person who is the “Supreme Being.” They’re all synonymous with the one “word,” so they must all be the same Person. So for you, it seems as if the Supreme Being is really one divine Person expressing himself in a multitude of different ways. Sounds a lot like Modalism.
Yeah, it’s becoming clearer to me now that you may actually be a Modalist (“The Person” kinda gives it away, to me). It’s funny how with a little discussion and probing the multi-personal God in which most Christians claim to believe turns out to really be either a single divine Person (“The Person”) expressing himself in different “modes” (or as you call them, “synonyms”), or else multiple Gods who all share a single divine nature (just as there are multiple humans who all share a single human nature).
I apologize for not responding to your post sooner. You wrote:
I’m not sure I understand your position. Do you believe the Father and the Son are the same Person or two different Persons?
Concerning this verse and its context I wrote (in response to Jason):
In what sense is the Son “exactly like” the Father? I believe they are both perfectly sinless in character, and also that they share the same “all authority in heaven and on earth.” I understand the word hupostasis in Heb 1:3 to denote the “subsistence” of God’s moral nature, or his foundational moral attribute (which, according to John, is “love”). And that which is the “express image,” “representation” or “impress” (charaktēr) of something else cannot, I don’t think, be at the same time the original. As Paul says, Christ is “the image (eikōn) of the invisible God.” The “invisible God” is, I believe, Jesus’ God (our Father in heaven).
These would be photos of the same person, though. Is it your view that the Father and the Son are the same Person, or two different Persons?
To borrow the language of Unitarian Anthony Buzzard, my view is that “the Holy Spirit is the personal, operational presence and power of God extended through the risen Christ to believers.” As such, it can be referred to as the Spirit of both God and of his Son, since it is through this Spirit that the united will of God and Jesus is carried out in and among people.
).