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]

[Replying to post 68 by shnarkle]

I'm not talking about "eternity" because John makes no reference to it. We can put that aside (so I'll ignore the rest of your post)

The point is to figure out in what way The word was in the beginning .


JW

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 67 by JehovahsWitness]

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

Because

All things were made by him (i.e. "the Word"); and without him was not any thing made that was made. Jn.1:3

The Word isn't "a thing". It isn't a "what", but a "Who", and "the Word" is the means "by Whom" all things are created. e.g.

, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:6

The means by which all of creation comes into being cannot be what is created. A Ford manufacturing plant is the means by which Ford Mustangs and Expeditions are produced, it is not producing Ford Manufacturing plants. It is not what it produces. It is not what is produced. It is the means or mechanism by which Ford Mustangs are produced.

The logical response would be to point out that the Ford plant is itself produced by other means which leads us to an infinite regression. The biblical texts don't have this problem because they quite clearly point out the distinction between the means and the origin of all that exists. The means exists in order that the beginning may exist, but the means is not the origin, and the origin is not the means. It is the difference between being and becoming. One cannot be what they become, and one cannot become what they already are.

Existence cannot originate within being, yet the origin can't exist apart from being. Eternal existence can have no beginning yet this is the means by which creation takes place and the texts clearly indicate that there is also an origin "of whom" or from whom all things exist.

Don't forget that the means of creation can't be "a thing" or a "what" as those things aren't created until creation actually takes place in verse 3.

Existence isn't created. Existence has no beginning. The origin of existence can't exist without existence.

[marco]

You're still speaking in terms of time, and eternity is the polar opposite of time.

I am juggling with what "polar opposite of time" might mean. Aeternus to the Romans meant lasting a long time; aeternitas was intricately linked to time. Your idiosyncratic view is non-standard but by all means invent whatever definition you want but don't quibble if others ignore it.

Eternity can't be an extension of time because you're still thinking in terms of time.

Your clause of reason makes little sense. My thought processes don't place retrictions on "eternity". I suppse what you wish to say is that in your view eternity is removed from man-made measures of time. Hmmm.

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.

I'm assuming nothing; the assumptions are all your own. Eternal rest carries a metaphoric or poetic meaning.

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.

Examples have the annoying habit of restricting themselves - being but examples. Again your venture into explication is daunting to the senses: I don't see that it takes time "to conceive of a number that extends into infinity." This time I can't even guess at what you wanted to say.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 71 by shnarkle]

. He speaks about the beginning of creation ....

So are you saying that John's reference to "the beginning" is refering to "the beginningg of CREATION" (contrasted with when nothing had been created)? Is that correct?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 71 by shnarkle]

So are you saying the Word created YHWH, because The Word was the means by which everyone was created?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 68 by shnarkle]

I'm not talking about "eternity" because John makes no reference to it. We can put that aside (so I'll ignore the rest of your post)

You most certainly have been talking about eternity. You wrote the word itself in a previous post showing it in relation to the beginning. i corrected your error in assuming that eternity could be presented in terms of time, yet the fact remains that the polar opposite of time is eternity or timelessness. That is the only reference there can be to time itself. You can pretend that eternity doesn't exist or that an eternal God doesn't exist, it works quite well, and is an integral feature of John's gospel narrative; e.g. "before Abraham was, I AM" etc. So you can now go back and look at what I posted insteasd of persisting in ignorance.

Sure. He speaks about the beginning of creation ....

So are you saying that John's reference to "the beginning" is refering to "the beginningg of CREATION" (contrasted with when nothing had been created)?

John is explicitly refering to the beginning (vs. 1)in relation to existence (I.e."the "Word"), distingushed from God("with God"), and necessitating God's existence("the Word was God"). The second verse is a recapitulation of the first verse. "The same was in the beginning with God" i.e. The same word was (past tense) existed in the beginning with(ii.e. distinguished from) God.

That is all in contrast to every thing that is created in verse 3 including the beginning itself, but again there can be no beginnings, no time, no space, no thing without the beginning.

However God exists eternally. Scripture informs us of this fact. Probably the best translation for the Tetragrammaton is 'The Eternal' for to say, "I was, am, and will be is to spotlight God's eternal existence. Regardless, it's a given in the biblical texts.

Ignoring the eternal existence of God isn't the best way to proceed to build a theory based in scripture, especially when it is the very first given in the bible. e.g. "In the beginning God created...etc.' Genesis 1:1.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 71 by shnarkle]

So are you saying the Word created YHWH, because The Word was the means by which everyone was created?

YHWH is the origin of existence. The word "existence" is an intransitive verb and governs no object. The Word is the means by which the God of the Old Testament is revealed in burning bushes, eternal priests, pillars of fire by night and pillars of smoke during the day, avenging angels killing the first born, etc.

It isn't that the Word creates YHWH, but that YHWH cannot exist apart from existence (itself). Again, the origin of existence cannot be meaningfully conflated with existence(itself). The origin of being cannot be conflated with being. The origin of existence is transcendence, and existence is not transcendent. Existence signifies transendence. The Symbol for transcendence is "the Word", and symbols are a substitution. They are not what they signify; in this case, the origin of existence which is transcendent.

[shnarkle]

You're still speaking in terms of time, and eternity is the polar opposite of time.

I am juggling with what "polar opposite of time" might mean.

Timelessness.

Aeternus to the Romans meant lasting a long time; aeternitas was intricately linked to time.

While the pagan pantheons of Greek and Rome have their ideas intricately linked, the Christian cosmology is rooted in the Hebrew culture which has an underlying cyclical as well as linear progression. In either case, the fact of polar opposites isn't exclusive to either group. So while one may imagine time going on indefinitely, to say that the beginning of time doesn't negate time before the beginning of time is a contradiction. There can be no beginning to time if it continues into the past. Therefore there either is no such thing as time, or eternity can't meaningfully be expressed in terms of time.

Your idiosyncratic view is non-standard

As opposed to the standard idiosyncrasies?

but by all means invent whatever definition you want but don't quibble if others ignore it.

I'm not quibbling, and you're certainly not ignoring it. You're just not contributing anything to advance the discussion. I'm not inventing new definitions of eternity. I'm simply showing that you're contradicting yourself.

I suppse what you wish to say is that in your view eternity is removed from man-made measures of time. Hmmm.

Or that measures of eternity are a contradiction in terms. Take your pick, they're both silly.

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.

I'm assuming nothing; the assumptions are all your own. Eternal rest carries a metaphoric or poetic meaning.

It's not just an assumption, but a false assumption. To know is to consciously know, and from the very beginning of the Judeo Christian cosmology, the self knowledge of Adam and Eve elicited an acute awareness of their vulnerability. They ran and hid. This is not resting. This is naked terror, and one does not need to be consciously aware of rest in order to rest. In fact, in order to rest one needs to be able to turn their intellect off. Resting with your eyes open isn't resting. To know you are asleep is to know you aren't really sleeping. Eternal rest carries no meaning for those who are actually resting.

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.

Examples have the annoying habit of restricting themselves - being but examples.

Same problem applies to words, and language.

Again your venture into explication is daunting to the senses:

At least you're smart enough to see that the intellect is of no use here.

I don't see that it takes time "to conceive of a number that extends into infinity."

Try thinking about it. It takes no time at all not to conceive an endless number. To begin the task takes time.

This time I can't even guess at what you wanted to say.

I haven't begun to make a point. I'm still trying to clear away the cognitive dissonance to make room for my point.

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

No. Simutaneously means they happen at the same time. What you keep ignoring is the fact that there is no act of creation until verse 3. The first two verses are simply pointing out that God exists and the fact that God can be distinguished from existence. All of that exists "in the beginning". if you're going to posit the beginning of existence(which is effectively what you're doing), then your theory means that John is presenting us with the begining of God.

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.

Nope. You're still stuck thinking that eternity is time before time began. There is no "existed" about it. Existence is eternal, not temporal. Things exist temporally, but the Word, and God are not things. Existence is not a thing. Existence allows the beginning to happen. Again, if you think there must be a beginning to existence, then there necesarily must be a beginning to God. This is why you keep asking about the creation of YHWH.

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

The chronology of events as he presents them. Creation doesn't occur until verse three. The word is "with God", but when creation takes place in verse three, the only thing John points out to the reader is the fact that the word (from the first verse!) "became flesh". That's the beginning of Jesus.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 78 by shnarkle]

So would it be fair to say you believe that when John refers to "in the beginning" that he is referring to The beginning of time which distinguishes itself from eternity and that the beginning of creation brings about the beginning of time?