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 18 by JehovahsWitness]

I'm having difficulty following you here, do you still hold that "Iesous" is not a transliteration of the Hebrew Yehoshua (Yeshua)...

Not necessarily, just not into English.

So are you now accepting that Iesous is indeed an transliteration of the Hebrew into GREEK?

Are you suggesting that Jesus is not an English transliteration of Iesous?

[shnarkle]

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?

Yeah, JW's and their "Jesus is "a" God, but not the "almighty" God" nonsense...that does strike me as a form of polytheism.

However, I disagree with your sentiments that Trinitiarians are practicing polytheism. We don't, considering The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all "one God manifested into 3 persons".

At the end of the day, you are only left with One God...and one God is strictly monotheism.

It may be considered monotheism, but it isn't strict monotheism, especially given the personal relationship one has in the Trinitarian monotheism.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

I'm having difficulty following you here, do you still hold that "Iesous" is not a transliteration of the Hebrew Yehoshua (Yeshua)...

Not necessarily, just not into English.

So are you now accepting that Iesous is indeed an transliteration of the Hebrew into GREEK?

Not a very good one, but it's understandable due to the constraints of the Greek language.

Are you suggesting that Jesus is not an English transliteration of Iesous?

No, I'm suggesting that Jesus is a horrid and feeble attempt to transliterate Yeshua into English. Yahoshua, or the contraction Yeshua is a perfect transliteration. It's the transliteration which effectively makes GEE ZUS a joke.

[JehovahsWitness]

So are you now accepting that Iesous is indeed a transliteration of the Hebrew into GREEK?

Not a very good one ...

Are you suggesting that Jesus is not an English transliteration of Iesous?

No [...] It's the transliteration {snip} ... .

Okay, so you point (correct me if I'm wrong) is:

Yes, you agree the following are indeed transliterations: Yehashua > Iesous (Greek/Latin) > Jesus (English)

Your personal view however is that the above transliterations are "not very good", "horrid" "feeble" and "a joke".

Is that a fair summary of your view?

[shnarkle]

So are you now accepting that Iesous is indeed a transliteration of the Hebrew into GREEK?

Not a very good one ...

Are you suggesting that Jesus is not an English transliteration of Iesous?

No [...] It's the transliteration {snip} ... .

Okay, so you point (correct me if I'm wrong) is:

Yes, you agree the following are indeed transliterations: Yehashua > Iesous (Greek/Latin) > Jesus (English)

Your personal view however is that the above transliterations are "not very good", "horrid" "feeble" and "a joke".

Is that a fair summary of your view?

No. I don't think that's a fair summary of my view

My view is that there was an attempt to transliterate the Hebrew "Yehoshua" to Greek. They went with the contraction instead which looks very much like "son of Zeus as well as Hail Zeus. Ultimately, this is all beside the point which is that we speak English and given that transliteration endeavors to use the closest corresponding letters from one language to another, the closest corresponding letters would give us Yehoshua, or the contraction, Yeshua.

[JehovahsWitness]

So are you now accepting that Iesous is indeed a transliteration of the Hebrew into GREEK?

Not a very good one ...

So what did you mean when you said "not a very good one"? Not a very good WHAT?

You can perhaps understand that since I asked if you accept that something is a transliteration and your reply is "not a very god one" it implies that it is indeed a transliteration just "not a good transliteration".

To illustrate: Someone asks you "Is that a car?" and you reply "Not a very good one" that implies it *IS* indeed a car (just not a good car).

So again, can you clarify are you saying Iesous is NOT a transliteration of Yehoshua?

Yes or no?

JW

[For_The_Kingdom]

It may be considered monotheism, but it isn't strict monotheism, especially given the personal relationship one has in the Trinitarian monotheism.

It is either monotheism, or otherwise. There is no gray area. And Christianity is monotheism. One God.

[shnarkle]

So are you now accepting that Iesous is indeed a transliteration of the Hebrew into GREEK?

Not a very good one ...

So what did you mean when you said "not a very good one"? Not a very good WHAT?

You can perhaps understand that since I asked if you accept that something is a transliteration and your reply is "not a very god one" it implies that it is indeed a transliteration just "not a good transliteration".

To illustrate: Someone asks you "Is that a car?" and you reply "Not a very good one" that implies it *IS* indeed a car (just not a good car).

So again, can you clarify are you saying Iesous is NOT a transliteration of Yehoshua?

Yes or no?

JW

A piece of wood will float; it doesn't make it a boat. When a word looks just like "son of Zeus" or "Hail Zeus" it's debatable whether it's more of a joke than a transliteration at all. I've been really clear on my position here. Thanks for a lively discussion on much ado about nothing.

[shnarkle]

It may be considered monotheism, but it isn't strict monotheism, especially given the personal relationship one has in the Trinitarian monotheism.

It is either monotheism, or otherwise. There is no gray area. And Christianity is monotheism. One God.

Setting your false equivalence aside, simply asserting that what one believes is monotheism doesn't make it monotheism. Strictly speaking, it isn't monotheism at all.

Here let me show you how easy it is for anyone do the exact same thing. I'm a pantheist, and pantheism is monotheism. Many Gods are One God. See?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Setting your false equivalence aside, simply asserting that what one believes is monotheism doesn't make it monotheism.

You are right, because what you believe is independent of, you know, the actual definition of the term.

Strictly speaking, it isn't monotheism at all.

Christians believe that there is only one God...monotheism is the belief in only one God.

Therefore, Christianity is monotheism.

Here let me show you how easy it is for anyone do the exact same thing. I'm a pantheist, and pantheism is monotheism. Many Gods are One God. See?

If everything that is considered a "god" according to pantheism (or your view of pantheism), if everything is considered the same "god" (same powers, attributes), then that would be monotheism.

I have no problems with that, and I don't see how granting your point negates mines.