Every pantheon has its "high God" it's Creator God

[Elijah John]

Every pantheon has it's "high Creator God" and it's offspring. Including son and daughter gods.

Jehovah's Witnesses rightly (from my pov) claim there is only one God, the Father, Jehovah.

Unlike Trinitarians, JWs readily admit that Jesus, the Son, is inferior to the Father Jehovah. Arians taught something very similar.

But can't Arian cosmology be considered a form of polytheism as well? After all, even pagan pantheons pretty much all have only one (sometimes two. male and female) Creator gods.

Arians like JW's ascribe to Jesus a superhuman status, embracing the Pauline concept that Jesus is the "firstborn of all Creation, though whom all things are created".

For debate, how does even such "monotheistic" Christian cosmology differ from the pagan pantheons?

Can't the JW cosmic view be considered a form of "bi-theism" with one Creator God, and one main created, lesser God, ie Michael, the pre-incarnate Jesus?

[JehovahsWitness]

While time is specific and occurs between it's beginning and end, eternity is the boundary which has no boundaries itself.

Non sequitur.

John didn't refer to "eternity" he refered to "the beginning" (eternity has no beginning)

[JehovahsWitness]

The word can't have a beginning if it is the beginning.

And where do you get the notion that "The Word" *is* the beginning?



Further Reading (The) Beginning
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... n-11a.html
https://onlytruegod.org/defense/john1.1_eimi.htm

[shnarkle]

While time is specific and occurs between it's beginning and end, eternity is the boundary which has no boundaries itself.

Non sequitur.

How so? I wasn't really presenting an argument; just some simple observations. The bible presents us with a beginning and an end. There are a number of references to these events, e.g. Isaiah 46:10;Ecc. 3:11;Rev.2:8;Rev.21:6

John didn't refer to "eternity" he refered to "the beginning"

Exactly! The beginning of time which distinguishes itself from eternity. It is that point presecely that creates the distinction. Without that distinction eternity is meaningless. The fundamental reference to the beginning of time really can't be anything other than eternity. Timelessness would be another word for it. Same difference.

(eternity has no beginning)

You're making my point for me. My point precisely, and there can be no acts of creation in eternity because you're automatically positing the beginning of the Word, and as you just admitted eternity has no beginning. For the author of John's gospel to write that the Word already existed in the beginning, and to then backtrack by somehow pointing out that the word also had a beginning prior to "in the beginning" isn't a well thought out narrative. Thankfully, the author wrote a straightforward narrative that doesn't feature contradictory statements or illogical ideas.

Then there's the fact that Christ is linked to eternity in Hebrews with this:

, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. Heb. 7:3

There you go. The son of God has no beginning, just like the Word in John's introduction.

[shnarkle]

The word can't have a beginning if it is the beginning.

And where do you get the notion that "The Word" *is* the beginning?

I just pointed out that the Introduction to John's gospel states "in the beginning WAS the word". The word exists "in the beginning"
The book of Revelation provides a number of examples of Christ being referred to as the "the word of God"(Rev.19:13) as well as referring to him as "the beginning and the end"; "The Alpha and the Omega"

Revelation 1:17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,
Revelation 2:8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this
Revelation 21:6 Then He said to me, "It is done I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost
Revelation 22:12-16 2“Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
14“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
16“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give youa this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.�

[JehovahsWitness]

The beginning of time which distinguishes itself from eternity.

So would it be fair to say you believe that "the beginning" John speaks about is the beginning "of time"?

[marco]

John didn't refer to "eternity" he refered to "the beginning" (eternity has no beginning)

Interesting speculation. Those lucky people who have been granted "eternal rest" would have known a beginning of that rest. It is seen theologically as endless life after death.

The natural number sequence, 1,2,3,4,5 .... stretches on endlessly but does have a start.

[shnarkle]

The beginning of time which distinguishes itself from eternity.

So would it be fair to say you believe that "the beginning" John speaks about is the beginning "of time"?

Sure. He speaks about the beginning of creation which brings about the beginning of time, space, etc. all simultaneously. It is the beginning of everything except eternal existence which has no beginning or end, and because existence exists 'in' the beginning, and is synonymous with "the Word" which is the means of bringing about the beginning not to mention everything else that is created.

I believe its the only logical conclusion one can come to. To say that Jesus existed before the beginning makes no sense in that the name wasn't given to him until he was eight days old. However, he is associated or referred to as "the word of God" as well as "the son of God". He is the eternal word. He is the eternal Son of the eternal Father.

The fullness of deity dwells in his body, but the person of Jesus had his own beginning which he counted as nothing and discarded as trash. It had a beginning and an end as well. That person was born, but the Son was never born. The Son was given

to us a child is born, to us a son is given, Isaiah 9:6

The Son isn't born. The Son exists eternally just as the Father exists eternally. There can be no Father without the Son, and without the Son, the Father could only exist eternally alone. To be more precise, the Father wouldn't exist at all because the Son is existence. God would also necessarily have to change to become a father, but God is unchanging.

Hebrews 6:17 17Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath.
Psalm 119:89 89Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.Malachi 3:6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; Hebrews 1:12 "like a garment they will be changed, but you are the same"

There is no one beside him because he is the origin of existence, and while many would point out that there really no difference between the terms "origin" and "beginning", there most certainly is when it comes to the origin of eternal existence. When there can be no beginning to eternity and eternal existence, there can still be the origin of existence which is essentially in nothingness, or non existence. Non existence, by definition cannot exist, yet the origin of existence is in its polar opposite. Without a polar opposite, it simply doesn't exist which is a contradiction in terms. You can't have one without the other, especially when the other is non existence.

When looking at the definitions of origin and beginning, they are both already in relation to what exists, or things that exist, but John's introduction is dealing with the beginning prior to the existence of ALL things which will be created in verse 3.

So the author is pointing out that the Word exists "in" the beginning. It is what allows the beginning to exist in the first place. Were it not for the existence of existence (itself), the beginning would never be.

If we're going to posit a beginning to existence instead, then it is a created thing, and all created things have a beginning and an end. More importantly if we then conclude that God exists, he would then have a beginning and an end as well because you can't meaningfully say that existence has a beginning except when it comes to God's existence. It's a contradiction.

[JehovahsWitness]

The beginning of time which distinguishes itself from eternity.

So would it be fair to say you believe that "the beginning" John speaks about is the beginning "of time"?

Sure. He speaks about the beginning of creation which brings about the beginning of time, space, etc. all simultaneously.

So we have ...

<----- eternity [A=an act of creation]]<------- "The Beginning" -------->[[ B.]

And all we can deduce from what John said is that at some point in this period called "the beginning" both YHWH (who has no beginning) and The Word (whether he has a beginning is up for debate) existed, together.


What, based on John's narrative stops YHWH's first act of creation being The Word?




RELATED POSTS

What is "time"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 026#918026

[shnarkle]

John didn't refer to "eternity" he refered to "the beginning" (eternity has no beginning)

Interesting speculation. Those lucky people who have been granted "eternal rest" would have known a beginning of that rest. It is seen theologically as endless life after death.

You're still speaking in terms of time, and eternity is the polar opposite of time. Eternity can't be an extension of time because you're still thinking in terms of time. You're also assuming knowledge is a factor or element of eternal rest. One needn't know anything in order to rest temporally or eternally.

The natural number sequence, 1,2,3,4,5 .... stretches on endlessly but does have a start.

Same problem here. You're example is confined to numeration, and it takes time to conceive of a number that extends on into infinity. A number that extends on into infinity can never be articulated. It would take a long time to even begin to think of it.

[shnarkle]

The beginning of time which distinguishes itself from eternity.

So would it be fair to say you believe that "the beginning" John speaks about is the beginning "of time"?

Sure. He speaks about the beginning of creation which brings about the beginning of time, space, etc. all simultaneously.

So we have ...

<----- eternity [A]]<------- "The Beginning" -------->[[A]

Nope, not even close. What we have is this (For some reason, this set up isn't allowing me to center these hash marks in the middle. I'm trying to illustrate it as a fulcrum between the two extremes. This is the best I could come up with)


eternal existence-----------------------/\-----------------Time/Creation


When you talk of eternity in terms of time, you're not talking about eternity anymore; you're talking about time as if it had anything to do with eternity, or as if it could be described in terms of what can be described. You can't describe, inscribe, define, confine,or place limitations upon eternity. It is the polar opposite of time. Time isn't a little piece of eternity. Eternal damnation can't be a very long time in hell. Endless time is an oxymoron like "same difference".

To think of time/creation in relation to existence is to admit that existence is fundamental to the existence of time or creation while existence isn't dependant upon time or creation.