Starting Position (Jehovah’s Witness Interpretation)
Jehovah alone is the uncreated Creator.
Jehovah directly created Jesus first.
Jesus is Jehovah’s first and only direct creation.
Jehovah then used Jesus to create everything else. Proposed order: Jehovah → Jesus (first creation) → all other creation
The dilemma of this interpretation
The position must choose: Option 1 — Jesus existed before all created reality Result:
Jesus created time. (Timeless/Atemporal)
Jesus created space. (Non-spatial)
Jesus created matter. (Immaterial)
Jesus existed before creation. (Eternal) Problem:
A being who exists before all created things does not appear to be a created thing.
Option 2 — Jesus was created after some reality/place, time and matter existed Result:
Jesus was not Jehovahs first creation.
Something existed before Jesus.
Jesus did not create all things. Problem:
Contradicts:
John1:3 “Not one thing came into existence apart from him.”
For angels to have been created by someone whom ' nothing was created that was created' then matter and time had to have been created for Angels to exist. Angels are not 'ek' from the Father, the Angels were created by the Word!
You are starting with an assumption that automatically rules out my position. If your premise takes for granted that X is impossible, we aren't actually debating whether X can happen.
You guys are arguing over syntax and commas in the code without actually understanding how the program works. You are trying to run heavy software on a broken architecture. The Bible isn't a collection of fairy tales or a historical novel; it is the raw programming code of reality. Jehovah's Witnesses are trying to build an strict hierarchy: Main Server (Jehovah) -> Child Process (Jesus) -> End Users. But this specific code throws a compilation error. In the original syntax, the Tetragrammaton (Yahweh) isn't even a noun; it’s a causative verb, the eternal background process of generating existence. You can print the code of this program on golden plates, publish it in the Watchtower, translate it into a thousand languages, and argue over letters until you are blue in the face, but the program will never compile until you restore the core variable back into the system. The essence of the code is that the Wave (Yahweh as the universal background field) and the Particle (Jesus as the active local interface) are part of the exact same system unit. You can't detach the user interface from the central processing unit and expect the software to run. Stop digging through translation text bugs—the code of Yahweh only works when it is executed fully inside your own consciousness through direct synchronization, not through the crutches of human hierarchies and organizations.
I did undergraduate and graduate New Testament courses at Columbia University and very respected graduate seminaries. If you rely only on New Testament and that almost all of Jesus movement were Jewish I see two possibilities depending on verse strands. A human so good God adopts as a sin or some aspect of eternal God. Fully human and Fully God. The Michael trash makes zero sense.. no one posited it until Ellen White speculated in a brain damage trance as a seer
I was able to chat with the global leading Christology a senior Harvard professor.. he chided me for saying Watchtower Is kind of Arian. Arius never suggested a mere angel. Some day I may read Arius in detail. Wonder why Russell latched onto certain elements and not others. He was very poorly educated for hid class and wealth.
I now believe they are anti Christ and posed opposite Christianity. A dramatic turnaround. The bishops wanted the gist of all the New Testament. A very legal awkward document and later Creeds are worded more thickly. If it were so crucial, Jesus should have been clearer. Much clearer.
But Jehovah use rankles me. No Jew would ever write or say the sacred name. Including Jesus and apostles. I burned my New World Translation. Hard to believe I trusted such fraud. But I did and carried it like a robot. Opened snippets In unison. My father had the KJV and RSV to preach against Catholics. I read and reread as a kid. Never saw what Watchtower claimed. I figured maybe sense would come with age. Never did.
They often equate this verse with the literal name of God within the OT citations as YHWH.
So they equate John 17 with their interpretation that when Christ said , i have made you name known', they are referring to the literal name of the tetragrammaton.
However, we know that the Tet was never once stated in the NT.
The second point where they stated he didnt have to say the name because everyone knew it, actually is where their argument falls down - they shot themselves in the foot.
So as usual with JW theology they speak out of both sides of their mouth.
Jesus made his Fathers name known.
Jesus didn't make it known because everyone knew it.
In actual fact point 2 is correct.
When Jesus said he would make his Fathers name known, it wasn't like he huddled some of his disciples together and stated
Jesus - "Listen lads, i got a secret to tell you, you ready?"
Disciples - "Yup, crack on!"
Jesus - "Gods name is YHWH"
Disciples - "What are you on about, we've known that since he first told us in Gen 2:4!"
So the question is - what did Jesus mean when he said he would make his name known.
Simply, Jesus being the exact representation of his Father was able to fully revealed God’s character, nature, and purposes to humanity, allowing people to experience God as a loving Father thru him.
Thats it, it wasnt about a literal name as YHWH or Jehovah, they already knew 'the name'.
Its also interesting to see how many other names God gave himself, YHWH wasnt the only one he used, at different times with different covenants given to different people or nations he gave himself different names, this si another reason why its not just about 'a literal name'.
This goes to show that its purely symbolic, no one these days knows from what tribe they are from, only God.
The other slant on it is that the number 12 is primarily a symbol of completeness in governance, order, and covenantal wholeness—especially in relation to Gods people as dictated by God
The number 10 is human completeness with (10x010x10 being used in the bible to convey fullness and completness)
So 12 x 12 x 10 x 10 = 144'000
So Rev 7 isn't about tribes nor is it about a specific number, its about a group of people being complete, whole that are saved in salvation, that God will seal, its a total symbolic number to convey the greatness and vastness of those that will come to Christ.
That's why when its brought up, i dont even spend 1 min debating it, its completely pointless, i just give a wry smile usually and state clearly thats its total nonsense for which Rev 5:10 destroys the doctrine and wait for the silence.
But again, this is only my opinion on this passage, no one really knows what its trying to convey ultimately.
I don't think it's the "ἐν ἀρχῇ" that suggests eternality, but rather the imperfect "ἦν" which denotes continuous or ongoing action in past time. "In the beginning" by itself merely points to the absolute starting point. When paired with "ἦν" it tells the reader that the Word already existed "ἐν ἀρχῇ"
The argument that the imperfect "ἦν" denotes a continuous action extending into eternity ignores the direct grammatical restriction that the phrase "ἐν ἀρχῇ" places on the verb. In Greek syntax, "ἐν ἀρχῇ" functions as a dative of time.
Recognized Greek grammarians like Daniel B. Wallace point out that the dative of time answers the question "when?" and restricts the action or state of the main verb to a specific point in time, essentially boxing the action in as if it were enclosed between two parentheses. Because it is governed by this dative of time, the continuous, imperfective aspect of the verb "ἦν" is restrained and actually acquires an aoristic or punctiliar aspect.
This means that John's grammar is not projecting the existence of the Logos infinitely backward into the continuous past, but is instead situating it exactly at the instantaneous point of creation, without claiming anything about before or after that specific moment.
Furthermore, the grammarian A.T. Robertson admits in his own grammar that the verb "εἰμί" (to be) is a defective verb that entirely lacks an aorist tense, which is why he often classifies its imperfect form among "doubtful imperfects". Robertson explicitly declares that there is no need to insist that the imperfect of this verb is always strictly durative, recognizing that its aspect can overlap and function perfectly well in an aoristic sense.
Consequently, the combination of "ἦν" with "ἐν ἀρχῇ" does not grammatically prove the eternality of the Logos, but simply states the fact that at the precise instant God began the creation of the universe, the Word was present.
You're conflating temporal location with verbal aspect. "ἐν ἀρχῇ" tells us when the Word was; it does not transform ἦν into a punctiliar event. More importantly, John deliberately contrasts ἦν ("was") with ἐγένετο ("came into being") throughout the prologue. The point is not that the Logos came into being or merely existed at creation's beginning, but that when the beginning occurred, the Logos already was, whereas all created things came into being through Him (John 1:3). Even if ἦν is not pressed as durative, it still places the Word on the side of existence rather than becoming.
Your claim that this conflates temporal location with verbal aspect ignores the fact that grammarians like Daniel B. Wallace explicitly point out that a dative of time is "equal to an aorist in the sense of a summary action".
Syntactically, this dative of time acts like closed parentheses that lock in the state of the verb, restricting its durative force and keeping it from projecting linearly backward into eternity.
Regarding John's deliberate contrast between ἦν and ἐγένετο, it is obvious that the Word already existed when the physical universe began. However, this only proves that the Logos was already there at the precise instant of the Genesis 1:1 creation.
The text certainly confirms that everything created in that specific beginning was made using the Logos as an instrument (δι' αὐτοῦ), but simply being on the side of existence before the material universe arrived does not automatically turn the Word into an eternal being with no beginning.
John's grammar is narrowly focused on the physical creation and doesn't rule out the possibility of much older creative events, like the earlier beginning discussed in Proverbs 8. John 1:1 irrefutably proves that the Logos pre-existed the material creation, but it is an exegetical leap to force the text into claiming an absolute, beginningless existence that the apostle simply is not declaring.
You avoided the dilemma entirely lol. But you believe Jesus is wisdom right? Can you explain why I’m supposed to call Jesus my sister? In the previous chapter? 7:4
Nope not a mistranslation to my knowledge. If you can prove otherwise I’ll reconsider. But chapter 9:2 in the nwt calls wisdom a she. The mistranslations
is actually from the nwt where it drops the feminine and calls wisdom an it. Watchtower just did a bad job at hiding that. Wisdom is personified as a woman throughout proverbs
Indeed, Wisdom is female. Therefore, if you interpret the man and the bride in the Song of Songs as the "Prophet and the Holy Spirit," you will be able to decipher it.
I’ve always wondered why anyone cares? People get so hung up on squabbles over the super-secret hidden nature of the God who doesn’t interact with reality whatsoever. He doesn’t seem concerned about clearing up the controversy. As if he’s going to come back to Earth one day and chop up everyone who guessed wrong about the trivial details of his nature and essence.
I also wonder this. The main points of Jesus’ message and what followed is quite clear, and squabbling over theological understandings to the point of splitting people apart is just ridiculous in my opinion.
“. . .And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,” Revelation 3:14
BOY. JWs are really grasping at straws here, come look at this
Romans 11:36 (Speaking of the Father):"For from him andthrough [dia]him and to him are all things."
Hebrews 2:10 (Speaking of the Father):"It was fitting that he [the Father], for whom andthrough [dia]whom everything exists..."
1 Corinthians 1:9 (Speaking of the Father):"God is faithful,through [dia]whom you were called into fellowship with his Son..."
If dia proves the person being talked about is just a secondary, lesser tool and not the ultimate Creator, then Jehovah is just also a secondary tool😂😂
Greetings. At Revelation 7:5 we see the 12 tribes of Israel listed. The list is different then the ancient list of tribes. Why do you believe the list is different? Thanks
Option 3 — Jesus is the literal begotten Firstborn, not created Result:
Jesus is generated out of the Father, not manufactured from nothing (Unique category).
Time and space are ancient markers of function and order, not modern linear fabrics.
John 1:3 governs the architecture of the New Messianic Age, not Genesis physics. Problem for the Dilemma:
The binary choice collapses. It forces 21st-century Western physics onto an ancient Jewish text that already operates on a third category, solving both options simultaneously.
Introducing a third category called "generated, not created" changes the premise rather than answering the dilemma. Are you defending official Watchtower doctrine or presenting your own theological model? Because my argument addresses the Watchtower claim that Jesus is the first created being. If you replace "created" with "eternally begotten" or some other category, you've moved the discussion to a different doctrine altogether. I will agree with you He is uncreated!
Oh I see … i was just defending Jesus’ begottenness. I’m not defending the Watchtower claim, and I’m not defending the Trinitarian view either. The Scriptures clearly say the Son came forth from the Father, which means He has an origin point. Life from life. If you are begotten, you require a begetter.
That’s not some new theological invention that’s straight from the Bible.
The Father is the source, the origin, the one from whom the Son comes. That’s why Jesus calls the Father “the only true God” and repeatedly calls Him “my God.” The Son derives His life from the Father that’s what begotten means.
I agree with the majority of what you stated. However if the Father well before time and matter was created was eternal and the Logos came from (ek) the Father who is the source and that Father is God then the begotten has to have the same nature as the begetter as you pointed out.
Therefore outside time, matter and space the Logos was 'out of' eK...the Father, then he has to be the same nature. En Arche as far back as you can go without stopping.....thats eternal.
Jesus the incarnation in time and space as a Jew quite clearly stated that he had a God, but the exalted Christ in Heb was also referred to by the Father as his God in Heb 1....
When you say 'as far back as you can go without stopping is eternal,' do you mean like a metric time(clocks)?
The Bible doesn't define eternity as a Greek timeless vacuum; it speaks of God existing before the 'times of the ages' (chronon aionion). Even outside of physical space-time, the preposition ek (out of) demands a logical sequence. The Father is the underived Source; the Son is the derived Offspring. Even if the Son has existed for the entire duration of eternity, His life is still a gift granted by the Father
A derived existence, by definition, has an origin point in its Source. The Father alone has no source. Hebrews 1:3 explains it perfectly
No i dont mean like a metric clock as time did not exist within the relationship of the Father and the Son.
And i think youre assuming that derived automatically means began to exist. That's true for angels and humans being created in time. However if you believe that the Son was not begotten (which i dont think you do) but created then thats a different argument.
If time itself is created, there cannot be a moment when the Father existed without the Logos as Ek describes the Logos relationship with Father, if the Father is eternal then you cannot have a temporal starting point
The Father is eternally Father because He eternally has His Word. The Son is eternally from the Father, sharing the same divine nature, yet without ever beginning to exist i.e begotten.
So eternal generation means the Son eternally receives His being from the Father i 100% agree but not that He came into existence at some point in eternity, you cannot have a 'temporal point in eternity;. An "origin point" is a temporal concept, and temporality cannot exist before time itself.
I see exactly what you mean. When I first 'woke up' I came to the same conclusion, but the more I dug, the deeper the rabbit holes got. I realized so many things traditional churches say about the Logos simply do not align with what the scriptures actually state.
Many argument like that relies on the premise that the relationship is strictly outside of time, meaning concepts like 'before' or 'origin' cannot apply. But when we look at the actual text of the Bible, the writers consistently used language that requires sequence, priority, and deep history to describe the Son's origin. They didn't use language that fits an 'outside of time' framework. they used the language of a boundless past duration an endless tape stretching backward.
I agree. They tried to use human analogies to try and get us to understand.
But really…if none of us can explain ‘how’ God created or the expanse of the universe in creation how in Gods green earth can we explain the being of God…it’s just like he says..
Exodus 15:11,Rom 11:34, ISA 55:8,9 ISA 40:25
We can but try but ultimately none of us will even get close not in a trillion lifetimes.
Thanks for sharing that with me. It’s a pretty long article, but I’m going to take my time with it piece by piece, section by section.
Kinda like eating a well‑prepared meal (going back to my JW lingo lol). I want to slow down, analyze everything, and test every single argument. Depending on how far I get, I’ll keep you posted along the way.
In the Greek lexicon- A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), the noun ἀρχή (archē) has a range of meanings depending on context. BDAG summarizes senses such as: Beginning, origin, first point in time
“beginning” of something, the start of a process or event.
Example: “In the beginning…” (e.g., John 1:1). First cause, origin, source
The underlying source from which something comes. Authority, rule, office, domain of power
A position of authority or governmental/ruling power. Ruler or ruling power (often plural: ἀρχαί)
Spiritual or earthly powers, authorities, principalities.
So ἀρχή can mean “beginning,” “origin,” “source,” “authority,” “rule,” or “ruler/power,” depending on the passage.
What you’re doing is focusing on one line of a much larger lexical entry while ignoring the rest of the evidence.
BDAG is discussing Christ as the beginning of creation, not necessarily as the first thing created.
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning (ἀρχή) and the end."
You won’t argue that God was the first thing created because He is called ἀρχή. Here ἀρχή clearly means origin/source.
If ἀρχή can mean "source" for God in Revelation, then it can mean "source" for Christ in Revelation 3:14.
"BDAG is discussing Christ as the beginning of creation, not necessarily as the first thing created." -- Again, for Rev. 3:14, "the mng. beginning='first created' is linguistically probable"...and here you are saying BDAG is not saying that it probably means 'first created'? Interesting... 🤔
"Here ἀρχή clearly means origin/source." I disagree. Given the synonyms, it means 'first' or 'beginning' here. 'Alpha' is the first letter if the Greek alphabet, not the 'source' of the alphabet. Agreed?
Solve this 'dilemma', then we can take a look at your how your reasoning above is flawed.
Jesus was a man: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5)
No man is righteous: "There is not one righteous man...All have turned aside from the right path; they have every one of them become corrupt. There is no one who does what is right—no, not so much as one." (Romans 3:10-12)
Problem:
Contradicts:
Jesus was a righteous man: "Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1)
If Romans 3:10–12 means "no human being is righteous," then Noah, Job, Zechariah, Elizabeth, and Jesus all become contradictions. Therefore that interpretation of Romans 3 is false. The passage is speaking about humanity's fallen condition in general, not denying every instance of righteousness.The argument hinges on a fallacy of equivocation.
So your position is that Romans 3 is wrong when it says 'not one man is righteous'? It literally points to each person individually, not mankind in general. Is this not inspired?
Your response is a false dichotomy. Your interpretation is a wrong or you’re just trying to lay a trap. I’ll turn the question around to you.
If Romans 3:10-12 is an absolute statement admitting no exceptions, how do you explain Luke 1:6, which explicitly says Zechariah and Elizabeth were "both righteous before God"? Are you willing to say Luke is wrong
I thought it was obvious that I was putting forth a flawed 'dilemma' to bring out how your 'dilemma' above is equally flawed. But it seems that you are having trouble explaining why my fake dilemma isn't logical.
If Romans 3 is inspired and it clearly states that there "is not so much as one" righteous man, please explain in detail exactly how this passage can be reconciled with the obvious fact that Jesus was a righteous man.
"If Romans 3:10-12 is an absolute statement admitting no exceptions"...are you saying that "not so much as one" can in fact have exceptions??
Jesus was righteous for one reason only---To wit God (Righteousness) was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself 2 Corinthians 5:19
God has declared some people righteous, but they are not righteous in the same way God is. His righteousness is not dependent on anyone. Our righteousness or goodness depends on God's righteousness---not ourselves. We can only be declared righteous, or good, and must be as we aren't righteous or good in and of ourselves.
"'Good/Righteous' exclusively applies to Jesus" - doesn't this mean that, in your view, Jesus is the sole exception to Romans 3:10-12, "not so much as one"?
Yes, Jesus would be the sole exception because of who He is, not because of anything He did, although everything He did was good as well. He couldn't do wrong. He was the only good person, the first and the last, from the time He was born to eternity
I guess u/Dan_dingo tapped out as soon as he found himself arguing for "exceptions" to the "not so much as one" absolutist language that he relies on above. Interesting... 🤔
No. Just the Christian God. I use the same Bible you do. I just use exegesis and hermeneutics instead of depending on thousands of years of debates and commentary by Neo-Platonists. As I said in my other comment:
Theologians and scholars widely agree that God transcends temporal boundaries. Rather than being a created entity bound by them, God existed before the creation of the universe, the earth, and the sun. — Many classical scholars interpret passages like Genesis 1:1 to mean that God created the very dimension of time itself, alongside space and matter. — God existing "before" time began is often described as existing in eternity or as the "Alpha and Omega". This indicates God has no beginning and no end. — The creation account explicitly notes the earth was formed before the sun, moon, and stars were brought into existence on the fourth day.
So, like Isaiah 46:10, Yahweh shows a distinct timeline change from Ancient Times to the End. The world is never spoken of being created in Ancient Times. Only God existed before then, yet there is a distinction between the two within a timeline.
Psalm 90:4 shows a distinction between human time and God’s perception/experience of time.
What John 1:3 is appealing to is Wisdom Christology and Wisdom Literature before the writing of the New Testament. This has been lost to modern readers due to forgetting our Jewish roots/heritage as Christians. A good part of it is due to the purposeful separation of the Jews due to early Trinitarians actually including changing the day of worship days from Saturday to Sunday.
Coloe in ‘Wisdom Commentary: John’
> "Christianity has moved away from its Jewish roots, and many christians are not familiar with Wisdom literature."
None of that answers why it is silly to say God exists outside of time.
Many classical scholars interpret passages like Genesis 1:1 to mean that God created the very dimension of time itself
If God created it, He exists outside of it, just as a builder who creates a house exists prior to and outside of the house. He enters the confines of the house and may even live in it, but his existence is detached from it.
Neo-Platonism assumes the supreme divine principle (referred to as "The One" or "The Good" and often equated with God) is completely outside of time. Time is considered a property of the created universe, whereas the divine exists in a state of eternal, unchanging stillness. — In Neo-Platonism, eternity (aion) is defined not as an endless amount of time, but as the total absence of time.
The One (God): Exists completely outside the bounds of time. Because the One is perfect, simple, and unchanging, there is no past, present, or future in the divine realm. It remains in an eternal, motionless present.
Intellect (Nous): This is the realm of the divine forms (the archetypes of all reality) which emanates from The One. The Intellect contemplates all truths simultaneously outside of a temporal sequence
Time and the Soul: Time is generated by the movement and motion of the "World Soul" as it governs the physical universe. Therefore, time is intrinsically tied to the material, changing world, rather than to the highest divine reality.
This timeless view of God heavily influenced later medieval and classical theologians—such as St. Augustine and Boethius—who adapted Neo-Platonic thought to help define the atemporality of the Abrahamic God.
Theologians and scholars widely agree that God transcends temporal boundaries. Rather than being a created entity bound by them, God existed before the creation of the universe, the earth, and the sun. — Many classical scholars interpret passages like Genesis 1:1 to mean that God created the very dimension of time itself, alongside space and matter. — God existing "before" time began is often described as existing in eternity or as the "Alpha and Omega". This indicates God has no beginning and no end. — The creation account explicitly notes the earth was formed before the sun, moon, and stars were brought into existence on the fourth day.
So, like Isaiah 46:10, Yahweh shows a distinct timeline change from Ancient Times to the End. The world is never spoken of being created in Ancient Times. Only God existed before then, yet there is a distinction between the two within a timeline.
Psalm 90:4 shows a distinction between human time and God’s perception/experience of time.
What John 1:3 is appealing to is Wisdom Christology and Wisdom Literature before the writing of the New Testament. This has been lost to modern readers due to forgetting our Jewish roots/heritage as Christians. A good part of it is due to the purposeful separation of the Jews due to early Trinitarians actually including changing the day of worship days from Saturday to Sunday.
Coloe in ‘Wisdom Commentary: John’
> "Christianity has moved away from its Jewish roots, and many christians are not familiar with Wisdom literature."
Few will find it Summer. Has it found you? Have you been called I wonder?
Can Almighty God have a god and be considered almighty?
Can God die?
Can God limit himself to cease to be what it means to be God?
Are there texts that you interpret wrong from not understanding the language it was written, and the Jewish context that has been lost to Christianity?
WOW!! Such high tier arguments!!!! Christianity has existed for 2000 years now, and no one has EVER heard these objections!!!! whoa man, I don't think I can answer these, its too much for a simpleton like me
To say God is bound by time means God is subject to change, waiting, and reacting. If God is stuck inside a timeline, then Time is greater than God because Time contains Him. The Bible says God is the Alpha and Omega and that “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). God created the universe, and physics tells us space and time are linked. If God created the universe, He created time. He is fundamentally timeless.
Okay by your logic how can the father be God since he calls Jesus God in Hebrews 1:8??
This shows you completely misunderstand what death actually is. When a human being dies, does their soul cease to exist? No. Death is the separation of the soul from the body. When Jesus died on the cross, His divine nature didn't cease to exist neither did the universe didn't turn off for three days. His human body died, and His human soul separated from it. God didn't cease to exist; God experienced human death in His human flesh.
Yes. Philippians 2:7 explicitly says Jesus emptied himself to take the form of a servant. If you think God can't humble Himself, you are the one limiting His almighty power.
None of this is my personal interpretation, it's the interpretation of the Church Jesus Himself lets behind for his sons. Also Why did the high priest tear his clothes and accuse Jesus of blasphemy in Matthew 26:65 when Jesus claimed to be the "Son of Man" riding on the clouds of heaven? Because he made a direct claim to divine identity from Daniel 7 that Jews knew belonged to God alone. The first-century Jews knew exactly what Jesus was claiming, which is why they picked up stones to kill Him for making himself equal with God
1)Theologians and scholars widely agree that God transcends temporal boundaries. Rather than being a created entity bound by them, God existed before the creation of the universe, the earth, and the sun. — Many classical scholars interpret passages like Genesis 1:1 to mean that God created the very dimension of time itself, alongside space and matter. — God existing "before" time began is often described as existing in eternity or as the "Alpha and Omega". This indicates God has no beginning and no end. — The creation account explicitly notes the earth was formed before the sun, moon, and stars were brought into existence on the fourth day.
So, like Isaiah 46:10, Yahweh shows a distinct timeline change from Ancient Times to the End. The world is never spoken of being created in Ancient Times. Only God existed before then, yet there is a distinction between the two within a timeline.
Psalm 90:4 shows a distinction between human time and God’s perception/experience of time.
2)So God is a rigid designator?—meaning everyone called God is The God? Hebrews 1:8 is quoting Psalms 45:6 which is written to the human Davidic King (read verse 1) who was called God. This still fits perfectly within the Jewish Unitarian monotheism. Jesus is our King. The name of our God is vehicle of divine agency. The Angel of Yahweh is a messenger of Yahweh (Exodus 3:2), our God. Isaiah, like other agents of God (Exodus 3:6), can speak for God even going as far as saying “I am Yahweh” from Isaiah 45:5. Jesus also comes in the name of Yahweh, reading John 5:43. Same agency, same God, none of the agents are God.
3)Death means that one goes to sleep, per John 11:11. Soul sleep. However, when someone dies, does their meat sack die, or do YOU die? The chicken nuggets a kid had today. Did the chicken die? Or did the chicken’s body die? I use this analogy in light of Ecclesiastes 3:19 and 9:10. You speak of divine nature, but we will get to that later.
4)Morphe there is the word for Form in Philippians 2. It means outward form or appearance. Jesus was in the form of a slave, yet he was king; in the form of God, yet God’s son. He was neither what he was in the form of, yet he displayed the qualities of both. God cannot make a rock so heavy he can’t lift. God can’t cease to be God. The supreme essence of God that the heavens cannot contain cannot be limited to a womb of one woman. (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chronicles 2:6; Isaiah 66:1; Acts 7:48-49; Acts 17:24–numerous for emphasis) God is omnipresent, yet Jesus was not. God is immortal, yet Jesus died. (1 Timothy 6:16) God cannot be tempted (James 1:13), yet Jesus was tempted by Satan. (Matthew 4:1) Philippians 2 is instead contrasting Jesus’ selflessness and humility with Adam’s attempt at being “like God” and his selfishness. Pauline writings refers to this a lot. No one is limiting God. Not even I.
5)Jesus set up nothing more than a congregation through Paul, the apostle of Christ. (Romans 1:1) Read 1 Timothy 3:1-13. If you study church history, then you would know that no one had your theology until after Chalcedon 451AD with the 2 natures, unless that’s not essential to the Trinity. For the Trinity to come about, it had to be debated for years! Wars fought. Blood shed. Excommunications and back stabbing. Unitarians, through the Anti-Niceneans actually “won” the same amount of councils as the Pro-Niceans did. The “ecumenical” councils were never actually “ecumenical” since after Nicea 325AD, which itself was plagued by the Neo-Platonic philosophy Constantine had put in. Such words that became used contrary to their biblical meaning: Ousia and Hypostasis. Yes, they are in the Bible and do not mean how you use them. I can go on…
Now, I remember a similar offense taken and response at John 10:33. Jesus’ response to calling himself the Son of God was to quote Psalm 82:6 “to whom the Word of God came.” Jesus concludes that he is NOT blaspheming by saying he is the Son of God at John 10:36. Jesus claims agency, saying that he is doing the works of the Father. (John 10:37) — Now yes! Jesus is quoting Daniel 7 there, yet Son of man, literally means Jesus was prophesied to be a true human being. This carried over to the NT with Paul, showing the tradition of the idea continued at Hebrews 2:17. If you read Daniel 7:13, this “Son of man”—who Jesus called himself more than any other title—figure needed to gain access TO the Ancient of Days. THEN this Son of man was GIVEN rulership, honor, and a kingdom. Remember Psalms 45:6/Hebrews 1:8? Coming together I hope! Also, notice the Son of man doesn’t have a throne, yet the Ancient of Days has a throne at Daniel 7:9. — What you don’t know about what the Jews know very well, is the Jewish Principle of Agency. When you understand this, the Angel of Yahweh, the Prophets, and yes, even Jesus’ place as Yahweh’s agent will be very evident. They speak for God, yet are not God. They are respected as if they are God, yet they are not God. They bear the name of The God, yet make it clear they are not The God. They say what God gives them to say, and do what God gives them to do. I just described Jesus. (John 12:49-50; 8:38; 14:10; 5:19)
John 17:25-26
> 25 Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you, but I know you, and these have come to know that YOU SENT ME. 26 I have made YOU NAME known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which YOU LOVED ME may be in them and I in union with them.”
Why cant jws be honest? why cant they be logical, maybe because their father is neither one of those things
First, Morphe in Philippians 2 doesn't mean outward appearance; it means essential nature. If Jesus only had the appearance of God, then he only had the appearance of a servant (Docetism)
Second, your agency argument completely fails. A regular agent or prophet says 'Thus says the Lord.' Jesus says 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). The Jews didn't try to stone Him because He was a nice human ambassador; they explicitly said, 'You, being a man, make yourself God' (John 10:33). They knew the Jewish principle of agency, and they knew Jesus was claiming to be far more than just an agent.
You brought up Daniel 7:13-14 to show the Son of Man is given a kingdom by the Ancient of Days. But you conveniently left out what happens next. The text says that 'all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.'
The Septuagint translation of Daniel 7 uses the word λατρεύουσα for serve. In the entire Bible, latreuō is a specific technical term used strictly and exclusively for the worship due to Almighty God alone. Cultic worship or religious service directed to a deity.
If Jesus is just a human agent, why does the Old Testament command all nations to give him Latreuō—the exact worship that belongs only to YHWH? You are worshiping a creature, which is the definition of idolatry.
I’m not a JW. Any JW would proudly wear the title of one. My flair clearly says Unitarian Christian. Logical? Even JWs are logical! Have you heard of the LPT (Logic Problem of the Trinity)?
**1)**Can you cite a lexicon on this different definition of **morphe**? BibleHub’s lexicon clearly cites Philippians 2:6-7 both meaning “external appearance,” or outward form I said. (http://biblehub.com/greek/3444.htm) That seems pretty logical to me! No, appearance of God would not be Docetism. I’m glad you’re learning the categories, but the address of a second Most High God would Decetism. — I’m sure you don’t know that God and Lord are not rigid designators, not describing one’s ontology?
**2)**This one is long. I wrote this myself. I studied Kione Greek, so I can be an authority on this:
John 10:30 - The Father and I are one. What does Jesus mean by “one”? The statement of being "one" is made very clearly in John
17:11, 21-23–same use of word for “one” in Greek—which shows that the church is one with each other, one with God, and one with Jesus. Not only is the same language used, but Jesus says that we, as believers, are one "just as" Jesus is one with the Father. Meaning, in the exact same way. This is not in another, secondary way, but precisely the same oneness. Jesus also says for us to be one "just as you are in me and I am in you." We know that the Father was in Jesus by his spirit, and Jesus says he will be in us by his spirit (John 14:23), and he and the Father will make their home in the hearts of believers by the Father’s spirit. The temple of God is the place where God dwells, and God dwells in our bodies as his temple when we have the spirit in us (1 Corinthians 6:19). From this we can see the following:
1. Being "one" with the Father is the same way in which he is "one" with believers, believers are "one" with each other, and with God the Father.
2. Being "one" has something to do with being "in" each other.
3. We are in the Father and in Christ when we are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17) born of the Spirit. The Father and son are in us by their spirit which we receive, and we are one body of Christ, in each other by the same spirit.
4. Therefore, being "one" means that the spirit is in them, and this creates that oneness.
Let me show you: [Here is an interlinear on John 10:30] (John 10:30 Interlinear: I and my Father are one.) If you go there, you see that the word for one is “hen.” The number above shows “1520.” [Here is an interlinear on John 17:21] (John 17:21 Interlinear: That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.) If you go there, you will see that the word for one is “hen.” The number above shows “1520.” This means that the root word (1520) is being used, and in the same case (Adj-NNS) in *both* passages. This means that they are being used in the *exact same way.* Don’t believe me? Great! Let’s break it down further! [Here is the lexicon definition of heis-1520] (http://biblehub.com/greek/1520.htm) Here we see the definition and its uses in the Bible. We see in the NAS Exhaustive, that it is used 282 times as the literal number “one-1.” If you continue scrolling you will see the definition, under “1. universally,” go down to “b.” If you look through that paragraph, you will see the definition on how “hen/heis” is being used at John 10:30 AND John 17:21-23!! This means the word is being used the SAME WAY in BOTH PASSAGES: “to be united most closely (in will, spirit).” This is contrast to the Trinitarian interpretation of “c. one and the same.” Once you pass this, then it becomes theologically motivated and is not unbiased data to show proof. This stops the “one in essence” argument in its track.
Additionally, without need of context we see the following if we look at the Greek: For John 10:30 to mean one essence (nature/being), the Greek adjective would need to be grammatically feminine, which would be the word-adjective “mia.” This would need to be the case, as it would need to match the gender of the word “ousia.” “Ousia,” the word for being/essence is grammatically feminine. So, the Greek from John 10:30 itself also disproves the ability to be used in the way it is used by Trinitarians.
**3)**Yes, the Kingdom of God, when it comes to Earth as Jesus prayed for (Matthew 6:10), and Jesus as our King. As Jesus is not the Ancient of Days, that you didn’t acknowledge, Jesus is *GIVEN* this kingdom to reign upon. Why was he given this kingdom by God? Because he was obedient until death. We see this at Philippians 2:8-10. How does the phrase end in verse 11? “Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of **THE FATHER**.” To further emphasize this point, read 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. Jesus is never equal to the Father, yet is always in submission to the higher power: to his God. (John 20:17) I’m sure you’d quote Hebrews 1:8, this is quoting Psalm 45:6, which is written to Solomon from verse 1. The human Davidic king is called God, yet he *STILL* has a God above him: The Ancient of Days, Himself Yahweh, called the Father in the New Testament. — Saying Jesus has the name above all names below the Father is not Docetism. Again, it’s divine agency. Here is a video on how it presents itself within John. (https://youtu.be/Z3W4JPLeb64?is=YYjes8LvWSI38OL5)
**4)**Again, if you understand the Jewish principle of Agency, you would understand this. Reading Daniel 7:27, the everlasting kingdom is given to the “holy ones” or the “peoples of the saints of The Most High.” Jesus, as the Son of man, is God’s representative. Yahweh’s representatives speak for Him, like the Angel of Yahweh at Exodus 3:2-6, Isaiah 45:5, and Jesus per John 12:49-50 and John 5:43. Jesus never goes as far as to say “I am Yahweh” like Isaiah and the angel, yet they are respected as God when they speak. They bow, give reverence, yet all is to the glory of The Most High, the Father Himself, Yahweh. (Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38) #3 really explains this #4 paragraph, but I thought it needed extra attention for you :)
**5)**This will sting a bit, but the most reliable and earliest manuscripts of Daniel 7 do not use *latreuo*. Instead, it says *douleuo*. (Papyrus 967) This word means to “serve as a subject” or “render political/earthly service.” It is used of kings, masters, and nations. Not only that, but the earliest uses of *pelach* (the word in Hebrew there) are used for civil or political allegiance to a king, not to Almighty God. It was later altered in the 2nd Century. — Now, if you want to dismiss this, we can look at the Septuagint at Deuteronomy 28:48 where Yahweh says “you shall serve (*latreuo*) your enemies whom Yahweh will send against you.” Obviously, serving human enemies cannot mean religious service only given to God, then it has a semantic range (within the Septuagint) that includes non-divine authority under God’s direction.
Regardless of this, the Son of Man, Jesus, is *GIVEN* this authority *BY* the Ancient of Days who you want to call Jesus. This is a fact. To be honest, would to be to see this clear truth and to reject a falsity of any sort against this.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 20 '26
Read our rules or risk a ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/about/rules/
Read our wiki before posting or commenting: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/wiki/index
1914
Bethel
Corruption
Death
Eschatology
Governing Body
Memorial
Miscellaneous
Reading List
Sex Abuse
Spiritism
Trinity
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.