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 9 by shnarkle]

I like the response. Jesus was not his name though, as it is a transliteration of Ieonous which was the best equivalent for the hebrew name(in Greek). Which was , most probably , Jesuah/yeshua/Yehoshua(Joshua). But, we don't even know that yet for sure.

I would add to The Father being a father only to Jesus, there were sons of God early on and Christ was the son of man. To me this means, He(god), created many sons of different types, Jesus was His only son of man.

Jesus is the conventional term used. I'm just going with the terminology they're using. Jesus isn't a transliteration of the Hebrew or Aramaic. It's not even an accurate transliteration from the Greek "iesous". The Greek "iesous" isn't equivalent to any of the Hebrew names. There are two popular derivations neither of which has anything to do with the Hebrew yeshua, Yehoshua, etc. One is Ie + zeus = son of zeus. I can't remember the other one. If it were transliterated from the Greek it would be something like Iyaysoos, or Eeyaysoos, or Eyeasus, etc. There is no hard J sound in the Hebrew and this Greek word doesn't have it either so it can't be a transliteration. It doesn't sound anything like it.

The only problem I see with your idea of Christ being a son is that John and Paul both point out that Christ is the fullness of the godhead in bodily form, and that everything that exists was created through him, therefore all of the gods are created by the Word/Christ. The Greek "monogenes" doesn't mean "one of a kind". It means "sole; only". Jesus wasn't the only son of man, nor was he the only son of God; Adam was the first. This is why Jesus is referred to as "the last Adam"

[JehovahsWitness]

Ie + zeus = son of zeus.

"ie" isn't the word son in greek.

• Son in Greek is : huios/ hyiós (pronounced: hwee-os')
  http://biblehub.com/greek/5207.htm
  
  and Zeus (pronounced: dzyooce)
  
  So "son of Zeus" would come to "hwee-os dzyooce" (hyiós zyüs)

at the longest stretch we'd end up in English with .... Heoszeus (pronounced Hee-os-zoos)

[JehovahsWitness]

The Greek "iesous" isn't equivalent to any of the Hebrew names.

On the contrary, the Greek "Iesous" is the equivalent to the Hebrew name Yehoshua (Joshua). We know this because this is how the Greek Septuagint renders the original Hebrew.

• 

The steps are as follows:

• 

JW



RELATED POSTS

Theophric Names: Yehoshua
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 166#872166

Is there a difference between "transliteration" and "pronunciation"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 258#907258

Is JEHOVAH a legitimate transliteration of the tetragrammaton?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 483#907483

[shnarkle]

Ie + zeus = son of zeus.

"ie" isn't the word son in greek.

Right, it's a contraction. Iesous is a variant of the same name, Iasus, Iasion, Iasius which all mean" sons of Zeus" The suffixes "sus, seus, and sous " are all quite common references to the Greek names of not just people, but geographical locations. Here are some more: " Ἰησοῦ Ιησουν Ἰησοῦν ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ἰησοὺς Ἰησοῦς IeSOU Iesoû IĒSOU Iēsoû Iesoun Iesoûn Iēsoun Iēsoûn IeSOUS Iesoùs Iesoûs IĒSOUS Iēsoùs Iēsoûs" None of these have any resemblance to Yahoshua. or Yeshua.

It's interesting that people can read the meaning of his name, (e.g. "Yehovah's salvation; Yehovah is salvation Matt. 1:21), and for some unknown reason believe that the word Iesous has anything to do with it at all. For someone who is so preoccuppied with making sure that the Name is used correctly, I find it amazing that you can so easily overlook this glaring exception.

Actally now that I think of it, there are a couple of other etymologies for his name. I think one of the other theories is "Hail Zeus". The third one still escapes me. I know the third theory breaks it up into three parts; just can't remember the derivations of each one.

[shnarkle]

The Greek "iesous" isn't equivalent to any of the Hebrew names.

On the contrary, the Greek "Iesous" is the equivalent to the Hebrew name Yehoshua (Joshua). We know this because this is how the Greek Septuagint renders the original Hebrew.

• 

The steps are as follows:

• 

JW



RELATED POSTS

Theophric Names: Yehoshua
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 166#872166

Is there a difference between "transliteration" and "pronunciation"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 258#907258

Is JEHOVAH a legitimate transliteration of the tetragrammaton?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 483#907483

Evidently you would have us all beleive something presented even though it is empirically false Iesous can't be a transliteration as it sounds NOTHING like Yeshua, or Yahoshua. EEy yay soos doesn't sound like Yah shoo wah To the Greek speaking ear, it sounds exactly like Son of Zeus in the Greek, and that's probably what they wanted it to sound like. It's a great way to get everyone on boad with the new State religion.

[JehovahsWitness]

Iesous can't be a transliteration as it sounds NOTHING like Yeshua, or Yahoshua.

- According to the Greek Septuagint iesous is a transliteration of the Hebew Yeshoshua.

[ 1,,G2424, iesous ]
is a transliteration of the Heb. Joshua," meaning "Jehovah is salvation" - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

The word Jesus is the form assumed in Latin by the Greek Iesous, which is the transliterated form of the Hebrew Jehoshua, Jeshua, or Joshua, meaning “Jehovah is salvation.� - Encyclopædia Britannica
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Encyclop ... sus_Christ

The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation." - Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374x.htm

THE BOOK OF JOSHUA [...] bears in Hebrew the superscription ; in the Septuagint, using the post-exilic form of the name (; Neh. viii. 17), Ἰησοῦς
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... ua-book-of

FURTHER READING

[shnarkle]

The Greek "iesous" isn't equivalent to any of the Hebrew names.

On the contrary, the Greek "Iesous" is the equivalent to the Hebrew name Yehoshua (Joshua). We know this because this is how the Greek Septuagint renders the original Hebrew.

• 

The steps are as follows:

• 

JW



RELATED POSTS

Theophric Names: Yehoshua
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 166#872166

Is there a difference between "transliteration" and "pronunciation"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 258#907258

Is JEHOVAH a legitimate transliteration of the tetragrammaton?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 483#907483

The yellow highlighted cut and paste is the third theory that i was having trouble thinking of. It's a very compelling theory, and yet, there's a problem in that there is no rule of languge or transliteration that requires English speaking people to confine our transliteration via the Greek language. In other words, the laws of Greek grammar don't apply to English. The definition of transliteration is pertinent here.

]write or print (a letter or word) using the closest corresponding letters of a different alphabet or language.

It makes no sense to ignore the plain meaning as well as the fact that the "closest" corresponding letters" can't be Jesus, but necessarily are Yehoshua or the contraction Yeshua. If one prefers to go with Jesus that's fine, but there's no rhyme or reason to fault anyone for doing the same by ignoring Yehovah and instead going with Lord. Yeshua is an almost perfect transliteration of the Hebrew form of Yeshua. Jesus is flat out ridiculous in comparison.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 17 by shnarkle]

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

Iesous can't be a transliteration [of] Yeshua, or Yahoshua.

... despite my producing direct quotations and screen shots from the works of some of the foremost authorities in the Hebrew and Greek language stating to the contrary?

• - The translators of The Greek Septuagint
  - The Jewish Encyclopedia
  - Strongs Concordance
  - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
  - The Catholic Encyclopedia

Are you suggesting all these scholars are mistaken?



JW

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

[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. As I pointed out earlier there were at least three theories, one of which I couldn't remember(e.g. Ya=Ie; sh=s; ua=ous). The other two theories while perhaps in the final analysis not as compelling due to historical considerations, are nonetheless striking in their similarities. in other words, while correlation isn't necessarily causation, the correlation still exists and the correlations present us with transliterations that are superior in the Greek language.

Ultimately, there is no reason to retain an inferior transliteration when an almost perfect one exists. Given that English speaking peoples don't speak Greek, it makes no sense to retain this inferior transliteration.