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?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 37 by JehovahsWitness]

shnarkle wrote:
it's debatable whether it's more of a joke than a transliteration at all.


To you maybe.

I suppose we will just have to chose between your opinion and the peer reviewed published works of some of the utmost scholars in the field of Greek and Hebrew study, who without ambiguity state that Iesous is indeed a transliteration of Yehoshua/Yeshua

The bottom line is the fact that if we were to look at the word "Yeshua" in Hebrew which sounds like "Yeshua" in English as well, and then look at "Hail Zeus" in English, very few would have to look or think twice on which is a better transliteration.

In Greek Iesous sounds almost identical to Hail Zeus" which while an unpleasant and perhaps unplanned side effect of the limits of the Greek language is nonetheless a relevant observation.

What I find intensely remarkable is the fact that so many English speaking people prefer the term that sounds more like Hail Zeus than the transliteration which sounds exactly like it does in Hebrew. I don't have a problem with those who don't know any better, but those who do know that there is nothing constraining us from using his actual name, is beyond bewildering.

When one then adds in those who have an obsession with making sure that the conventional "Lord" be replaced with "Yahovah","Yahweh" or some similar transliteration of a word that no one really knows how it was actually pronounced anymore is once again beyond bewildering to me.

You don't really have a point other than insisting that we must use an etymology that comes to us from the Greek. I'm not constrained by that rule, and feel no need to articulate a word that sounds almost exactly like "Hail Zeus".

[Elijah John]

What I find intensely remarkable is the fact that so many English speaking people prefer the term that sounds more like Hail Zeus than the transliteration which sounds exactly like it does in Hebrew. I don't have a problem with those who don't know any better, but those who do know that there is nothing constraining us from using his actual name, is beyond bewildering.

Perhaps that is because liturgies and hymnals are pretty much all written with the name "Jesus" and not the name Yeshua. Many people know that Jesus name is really "Yeshua" or variations thereof, but they swim upstream against millenea of cultural conditioning.

Also, could it be due to some vesitigal anti-Semitism? That "Yeshua" sounds "too Jewish"?

When one then adds in those who have an obsession with making sure that the conventional "Lord" be replaced with "Yahovah","Yahweh" or some similar transliteration of a word that no one really knows how it was actually pronounced anymore is once again beyond bewildering to me.

It's a reasonable "obsession" to honor the name of God by using the name of God with reverence. "LORD" is not a name, but a title. It is a stand-in for the sacred Tetragrammaton. Using LORD instead of "Yahweh" "Yah" or "Jehovah" perpetuates the Rabbinic prohibition and over-caution.

It is one thing for a Chrsitian to honor the Hebrew heritage of their faith, quite another to bow to Rabbinic authority.

Also even Baal worshipers no doubt called their god "Lord". By contrast, names derived from the Tetragrammaton distinguish the God of Israel, the Living God from all other "gods".

[For_The_Kingdom]

Strict biblical Monotheism suggests a self-sufficient solitary and transcendent Supreme Being.

Oh, I see. Solitary <--this is the distinction. Gotcha. Well, if that is a way to further categorize monotheism, I guess we will have to roll with the punches. But it is monotheism, either way.

Christianity presents an immanent personal figure that Trinitarians suggest is God along with an indwelling Spirit that is also known. That may very well fit their definition of monotheism, but it doesn't fit the strict definition of monotheism which is why Jesus, Paul, John, etc. were considered to be propagating heretical blasphemy. It is quite simply blasphemy to the strict definition of monotheism.

Gotcha.

Sure, but they then proceed to redefine monotheism to fit their belief system.

It wasn't necessarily "redefined"..the concept of the Trinity doctrine, was "added to" the definition. The definition did not change.

monotheism doesn't allow for anyone beside God.

Well, Christian monotheism does...just as long as it is the same "God". When you start having different gods with different powers/abilities, that is when you leave monotheism and jump into polytheism, which was my original point as it relates to Jehovah's Witnesses and their view on God.

"There is none beside me".

Says who? (for arguments sake).

Christianity then states that Christ sits beside God.

And?

They have their own definition of monotheism.

We adjust our definitions and terminologies according to the revelations that are revealed to us at the time.

We see this all the time in our post modern culture. People claiming that they're men when they're really women. They claim they're black when they're really white. They claim they're Irish, when they're really Philpino. etc. They can drive around in a Kia and claim it's a Cadillac. It doesn't make it a Cadillac.

Those things need to be looked at on a case by case basis, instead of generalizing.

Let me be clear here. I don't have a problem with people believing whatever their heart desires. I'm just pointing out that the king has no clothes. I feel no need to point this out to them unless they choose to enter into a debate on the subject.

As long as we can agree that Christianity is monotheism, although not "strict" monotheism in the sense of the traditional definition. Cool?

[marco]

I am one of JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES and I assure you, we are most certainly are Christians in the biblical sense.

Your statements of verification apply a fortiori to Roman Catholics. One can assert one is a Christian but an examination of what is believed and done might run counter to that claim. In any event, "I am Spartacus" is a famously deceptive, if courageous, cry.
Perhaps the same applies to "I am Christian."

[shnarkle]

What I find intensely remarkable is the fact that so many English speaking people prefer the term that sounds more like Hail Zeus than the transliteration which sounds exactly like it does in Hebrew. I don't have a problem with those who don't know any better, but those who do know that there is nothing constraining us from using his actual name, is beyond bewildering.

Perhaps that is because liturgies and hymnals are pretty much all written with the name "Jesus" and not the name Yeshua. Many people know that Jesus name is really "Yeshua" or variations thereof, but they swim upstream against millenea of cultural conditioning.

Sure, and I usually don't see any point in making waves either. For the most part, I see no point in defying convention except when a double standard arises.

Also, could it be due to some vesitigal anti-Semitism? That "Yeshua" sounds "too Jewish"?

I agree, but I don't see it as vestigial at all. It's woven into the gospel narratives. It's so ingrained that people are completely oblivious.

When one then adds in those who have an obsession with making sure that the conventional "Lord" be replaced with "Yahovah","Yahweh" or some similar transliteration of a word that no one really knows how it was actually pronounced anymore is once again beyond bewildering to me.

It's a reasonable "obsession" to honor the name of God by using the name of God with reverence.

Sure, and by the same token it's perfectly reasonable to honor "God's salvation" as well.

"LORD" is not a name, but a title. It is a stand-in for the sacred Tetragrammaton. Using LORD instead of "Yahweh" "Yah" or "Jehovah" perpetuates the Rabbinic prohibition and over-caution.

Sure, and using Jesus instead of Yeshua perpetuates the Christian tradition insisting on a Greek etymology, and prohibiting transliterating the Hebrew Yeshua into the English Yeshua.

It is one thing for a Chrsitian to honor the Hebrew heritage of their faith, quite another to bow to Rabbinic authority.

I don't see anyone Christendom bowing to Rabbinic authority.

Also even Baal worshipers no doubt called their god "Lord". By contrast, names derived from the Tetragrammaton distinguish the God of Israel, the Living God from all other "gods".

Again, I don't have a problem using the Tetragrammaton. I have a problem with people who insist upon using it, but then insist upon using a transliteration that is effectively no different than conflating Zeus with Yeshua.

[shnarkle]

Strict biblical Monotheism suggests a self-sufficient solitary and transcendent Supreme Being.

Oh, I see. Solitary <--this is the distinction. Gotcha. Well, if that is a way to further categorize monotheism,

It isn't a further categorization. It's the original definition.

It wasn't necessarily "redefined"..the concept of the Trinity doctrine, was "added to" the definition.

A distinction with no effective difference. I'm not saying the Trinity doctrine was redefined. Monotheism was redefined to include a Trinitarian God which is antithetical to strict monotheism.

monotheism doesn't allow for anyone beside God.

Well, Christian monotheism does..

My point exactly.

When you start having different gods with different powers/abilities, that is when you leave monotheism

Exactly, hence the Trinitarian Father who has the ability to originate all things, e.g. "of whom are all things", and you have the Son who is the means by which all things come into being, e.g. "by whom are all things" and you have the spirit who unlike the other two deities who have the ability to forgive sin, is incapable of this characteristic power. Therefore we have left monotheism QED. As the Staples commercial says, "That was easy".

"There is none beside me".

Says who? (for arguments sake).

God.

beside me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6,8
Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works. Psalms 86:8
I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, Isaiah 45:5
Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee 2 Samuel 7:22
O LORD, there is none like thee 1 Chronicles 17:20

Christianity then states that Christ sits beside God.

And?

Strict monotheism states "there is none beside me...beside me there is no God" whereas Christianity states "the son sits beside God...the son sits at the right hand of God" Are saying that he sits at the right side of God and ISN'T God??? Trinitarians don't say that, therefore we have a contradiction in the definition of monotheism.

We adjust our definitions and terminologies according to the revelations that are revealed to us at the time.

Yep, that's what it means to go from strict monotheism to redefining it to include various characters, qualities, powers, etc.

We see this all the time in our post modern culture. People claiming that they're men when they're really women. They claim they're black when they're really white. They claim they're Irish, when they're really Philpino. etc. They can drive around in a Kia and claim it's a Cadillac. It doesn't make it a Cadillac.

Those things need to be looked at on a case by case basis, instead of generalizing.

I just gave you individual examples. I'm not saying one car isn't another, I'm pointing out that a Kia isn't a Cadillac.

Let me be clear here. I don't have a problem with people believing whatever their heart desires. I'm just pointing out that the king has no clothes. I feel no need to point this out to them unless they choose to enter into a debate on the subject.

As long as we can agree that Christianity is monotheism, although not "strict" monotheism in the sense of the traditional definition. Cool?

That's the way it works. I haven't changed my position in the slightest. Glad to see you understand that Trinitarian doctrine doesn't look anything like strict monotheism.

[shnarkle]

He [Jesus] is the only one created directly by Jehovah and is therefore appropriately called God’s “only-begotten� Son. (John 1:14) Jesus served as God’s Spokesman, so he is also called “the Word.�​

There is nothing in the biblical texts that state Jehovah created Jesus, the Word, the Son, etc.

create:

bring (something) into existence.

beget:

literary
(typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.
"they hoped that the King might beget an heir by his new queen"
synonyms: father · sire · engender · [more]
give rise to; bring about.

The introduction to John's gospel is all one needs to refute this claim. "In the beginning was the Word". Notice that the word already existed prior to the beginning.

Paul's expansion of the Shema is also pertinent in understanding the fact that the word, aka the son was never created.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is one LORD. Deuteronomy 6:4
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:6

The Lord Jesus Christ is the means by which anything and everything came into existence, including his own incarnation "in sinful flesh" Sinful flesh didn't create anything.

[For_The_Kingdom]

It isn't a further categorization. It's the original definition.

And I am saying the Trinity Doctrine, according to Christian theology, is under the branch of monotheism, the original definition.

A distinction with no effective difference.

The "effective" difference is, if Christianity is true, for people to know the true nature (for lack of a better term) of God.

I'm not saying the Trinity doctrine was redefined. Monotheism was redefined to include a Trinitarian God which is antithetical to strict monotheism.

I acknowledged what you said...and I said that the definition of monotheism was "added to", with the concept of the Trinity. You can add it, or not add it...doesn't really matter to me..either way, the concept of the Trinity is what it is.

Exactly, hence the Trinitarian Father who has the ability to originate all things, e.g. "of whom are all things", and you have the Son who is the means by which all things come into being, e.g. "by whom are all things" and you have the spirit who unlike the other two deities who have the ability to forgive sin, is incapable of this characteristic power. Therefore we have left monotheism QED. As the Staples commercial says, "That was easy".

First off, I don't know the intrinsic difference between the Father having the "ability to originate all things, and the Son being the means by which all things come in to being.

Looks like the same stuff to me. And to further stress this point, John 1:3..

3 Through him (Jesus) all things were made; without him (Jesus) nothing was made that has been made.

Again, same stuff to me. Second, when you add your little "e.g. of whom are all things", and "e.g. by whom are all things"..it sounds like you are adding a pantheistic spin on things.

It is unBiblical, is what I am saying.


God.

beside me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6,8
Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works. Psalms 86:8
I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, Isaiah 45:5
Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee 2 Samuel 7:22
O LORD, there is none like thee 1 Chronicles 17:20

Christianity then states that Christ sits beside God.

And?

Strict monotheism states "there is none beside me...beside me there is no God" whereas Christianity states "the son sits beside God...the son sits at the right hand of God" Are saying that he sits at the right side of God and ISN'T God??? Trinitarians don't say that, therefore we have a contradiction in the definition of monotheism.

We adjust our definitions and terminologies according to the revelations that are revealed to us at the time.

Yep, that's what it means to go from strict monotheism to redefining it to include various characters, qualities, powers, etc.

We see this all the time in our post modern culture. People claiming that they're men when they're really women. They claim they're black when they're really white. They claim they're Irish, when they're really Philpino. etc. They can drive around in a Kia and claim it's a Cadillac. It doesn't make it a Cadillac.

Those things need to be looked at on a case by case basis, instead of generalizing.

I just gave you individual examples. I'm not saying one car isn't another, I'm pointing out that a Kia isn't a Cadillac.

Let me be clear here. I don't have a problem with people believing whatever their heart desires. I'm just pointing out that the king has no clothes. I feel no need to point this out to them unless they choose to enter into a debate on the subject.

As long as we can agree that Christianity is monotheism, although not "strict" monotheism in the sense of the traditional definition. Cool?

That's the way it works. I haven't changed my position in the slightest. Glad to see you understand that Trinitarian doctrine doesn't look anything like strict monotheism.

[JehovahsWitness]

I am one of JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES and I assure you, we are most certainly are Christians in the biblical sense.

One can assert one is a Christian but an examination of what is believed and done might run counter to that claim.

Are you suggesting that an examination of what I believe and do runs counter to my claim? or that of Jehovah's Witnesses as a group?





RELATED POSTS

Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christians?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 780#918780

Are Jehovah's Witnesses monotheists?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 664#867664

[JehovahsWitness]

There is nothing in the biblical texts that state Jehovah created Jesus, the Word, the Son, etc.

COLOSSIANS 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. - ESV