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]

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.�​

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.

.

• Are you aware the bible was not written in English?
  
  Do you know the Greek word translated as "only begotten" as found in John 1:14?
  
  Do you know what that Greek word means?

What does "only begotten" (monogenes) mean in the bible? (Tigger2)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 451#786451

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

Since John doesn't say *what* beginning he (John) is referring to (logically it cannot be the beginning of Almighty God since God has no beginning), we must conclude that John was referring to a particular point in time when they (God and The Logos) were together. That being the case there is nothing in the statement "in the beginning" that negates Jesus (The Logos) being created prior to that point (whatever that point was).

JW

[shnarkle]

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

protos and the alternate of tikto; first-born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively) -- firstbegotten(-born).
GREEK tikto A strengthened form of a primary teko tek'-o (which is used only as alternate in certain tenses); to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literally or figuratively -- bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail.

While he is the first born of all creation, his existence is from the Father, but your assumption must be that the Father already exists which cannot be because everything that exists is created.

The other startling fact of your assumption is that God's existence is in eternity alone. There is no other way around that conclusion.

[shnarkle]

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.

Since John doesn't say *what* beginning

He doesn't have to as a "what" is something, and everything is created.

(logically it cannot be the beginning of Almighty God since God has no beginning),

True, however, there is no being without non existence. Undifferentiated being exists eternally, but that isn't God as is evidenced by John's introduction. The chronology is clear "In the beginning WAS the WORD".

we must conclude that John was referring to a particular point in time when they (God and The Logos) were together.

They were always together because you can't have one without the other.

That being the case there is nothing in the statement "in the beginning" that negates Jesus (The Logos) being created prior to that point (whatever that point was).

JW

Except for the contradiction itself. The beginning is the only point. There is no prior point to the beginning. The beginning comes into being because the Word already exists, and has to exsit eternally.

Under your theory God creates the word which for some reason isn't the beginning, but we know that is a contradiction as well because the texts tell us that he is the beginning as well as the end. Yet John informs us that he existed prior to the beginning. There is no point of time prior to the beginning. Time and space are both created in and at the beginning. There are no second starts to the beginnning.

Your theory contradicts itself. It's a non starter. Forget about trying to make it work with the biblical texts.

[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.�​

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.

.

• Are you aware the bible was not written in English?

Are you aware that it is written in English? Are you aware that we all have access to an education as well as online tools which you and I have both posted which indicate an obvious awareness of the original langueages? Are you aware we just had a discussion on the subject of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua? How quickly some forget. Perhaps this may be why you're not following along.

Do you know the Greek word translated as "only begotten" as found in John 1:14?

Yes, do you know that it isn't possible to have a beginning before the beginning?

Do you know what that Greek word means?[/list]

I sure do, do you know how to form a logical argument, or are you just learning how to ask irrelevant questions? Perhaps you might want to ask yourself how there is a beginning before the beginning, and why the necessity to play with words and concepts in such a way that make no logical sense. e.g. a point in time prior to the beginning of time is a contradiction, and necessarily requires a better theory.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 54 by shnarkle]

There's another issue here that is pertinent. The balance between reproduction and recreation is pervasive throughout the bible. Whenever that balance is upset or offset, the results are at the very least confusion and more often than not catastrophic. The idea here is that this balance must be kept. It had to be kept from the beginning, and I would assert it would necessarily be an eternal principle which is why these terms are used rather than simply going straight to just a straightforward and lopsided creation. It is already systemic before it even begins.

In other words, the Father is the origin of being, the son the means of being, and from this eternal principle arises the temporal principle. I don't think it can be overstressed enough the difference between the terms "origin" and beginning" Origin needn't have anything to do with a beginning.

As an example polarity can't exist without two poles as well as the relationship or force between them. One pole doesn't create the other one. They exist simultaneously. However, one can originate from or in or with the other. The force between the two poles, when shut down doesn't negate the two poles simultaneously. Time produces some infinitesimally small lag. Nonetheless, there simply can't be one without the other.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.�​

Do you know what that Greek word means?

I sure do.

Well then you will know that describing Jesus as "only begotten' is entirely in keeping with the Jehovah's Witness belief of Jesus as a created being.

JW





What does "only begotten" (monogenes) mean in the bible? (Tigger2)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 451#786451[/quote]

[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.�​

Do you know what that Greek word means?

I sure do.

Well then you will know that describing Jesus as "only begotten' is entirely in keeping with the Jehovah's Witness belief of Jesus as a created being.

JW

It may very well be something Jehovah's Witnesses believe. I don't doubt or disagree with that. I'm simply pointing out that The creative act announces the beginning, yet you are contending that this must have happened prior to the beginning.

If there is a beginning, then there must needs be an end as well. Your bible indicates this to be the case, and points out that the word of God is the beginning and the end, yet you still contend that the word of God had a beginning prior to the beginning. This would seem to be a contradiction. The beginning of the word isn't really a beginning, or is the beginning of the word real and "the beginning" articulated in the text somehow not the real beginning, yet some other sort of beginning? What subtle point are you trying to make here? What naunce of definition are we to take away from this doctrine you're introducting into the term?

From what you've posted so far, my assumption is that you would agree that existence is eternal. For God to exist eternally would necssarily point to his eternal existence, right? Yet you then present us with this idea that God creates the word at some point in eternity, but at the same time not a point in time. The problem here is that there can be no temporal points in eternity as this would necessitate time, and time has a beginning and an end.

It's quite simply an assertion that his neither biblical nor logical. This theory leans a bit too far in assuming an act of creation rather than the much more simple and obvious reference to the origin of the word. The origin of existence doesn't necessitate a beginning.

[JehovahsWitness]

The creative act announces the beginning, yet you are contending that this must have happened prior to the beginning.

John does not use the word "prior", he says "in" (Greek "en")* so all we can say for sure is that when this "beginning" whatever it refers to was, Jesus was also there.


[*] The imperfect ÊN signifies an action or state within (during)a specific time period. So if "the beginning" looked like this...

[X]<-------- time period ("The Beginning") --------- >[Y]

Somewhere "in" the above period (between X and Y) there were in existence both Almighty God YHWH and The Word. You have yet to tell me what you believe that "beginning" period is referring to or why Jesus being a created being is problematic to the above?








JW

Further Reading
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... n-11a.html

PSALMS 90:2
“You have always been, and you will always be.� ( The Holy Bible, New Century Version)

ISAIAH 40:28
Jehovah ... is a God for all eternity. - NWT

[shnarkle]

The creative act announces the beginning, yet you are contending that this must have happened prior to the beginning.

John does not use the word "prior", he says "in" (Greek "en")* so all we can say for sure is that when this "beginning" whatever it refers to was, Jesus was also there.

Non sequitur. Nowhere in that text does it state that Jesus was there. The word written is "word". There is no "there' either. It states "In the beginning was the word" What we can be sure of is that "in the beginning" refers to precisely that, and nothing else. In the beginning "is" the word as well, but the fact remains that the word "was" which is the past tense of the verb to be. There is no other beginning, therefore there can be no beginning prior to "the beginning".

[*] The imperfect ÊN signifies an action or state within (during)a specific time period. So if "the beginning" looked like this...

[X]<-------- time period ("The Beginning") --------- >[Y]

Somewhere "in" the above period (between X and Y) there were in existence both Almighty God YHWH and The Word. You have yet to tell me what you believe that "beginning" period is referring to or why Jesus being a created being is problematic to the above?

While time is specific and occurs between it's beginning and end, eternity is the boundary which has no boundaries itself. Eternity encompasses the temporal as well as the bounds of the temporal, yet has no boundaries itself. You admit that God is eternal, which necessarily means that God's existence is eternal. Therefore existence is eternal. When the text then states that the word already existed "in the beginning", the word is necessarily eternal. This doesn't make Jesus eternal, but it also doesn't negate his immortality either. The problem isn't in the text, but in your insistence that the word must be created prior to the beginning. This is a contradiction.

If you're going to posit that everything has a beginning including God, then you could at least begin to form an argument. Barring that, there is no point in pretending that you are creating mythology that isn't found in the text.

The text doesn't require any context whatsoever to conlude that existence is eternal and therefore exists "in the beginning". Again, we have the texts themselves to verify that the word of God is Lo and Behold, "the beginning and the end"; "The Alpha and the Omega". The word is not only the beginning, but in the beginning. There is no beginning before the beginning. "In the beginning" is where it all begins.

To then assert that there was a beginning before the beginning is to contradict yourself and the texts.

I have no issue with your assertion that Jesus is a created being. It is when you ignore the texts which indicate he "became flesh" referring to the incarnation or beginning of his physical existence, and assume that Jesus existed prior to his phsycial existence. This isn't to deny that the word "made flesh" wasn't the word before becoming flesh, but to point out that the word is not a human being named Jesus until he became a human being named Jesus. The word expressed is not formed, but forms what it expresses. Until there is a "what" there is nothing to form, and it can only be formed "in the beginning".

John makes the distinction between "the word of God" and Jesus. " for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.", but then later he clarifies this by saying, "and his name is called The Word of God." So from this we should be able to see that there is a distinction being made, and it is that Jesus Christ is the word of God, yet his testimony isn't who he is. It's his testimony.

Regardless, all of this points to the fact that the word exists eternally. The word can't have a beginning if it is the beginning.