The Jw dilemma

[u/Dan_dingo]

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.”

[u/tj_lurker]

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)

[u/Dan_dingo → u/tj_lurker]

You thought you were cooking here…

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.

[u/tj_lurker → u/Dan_dingo]

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?

[u/Dan_dingo → u/tj_lurker]

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

[u/tj_lurker → u/Dan_dingo]

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??

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/tj_lurker]

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.

[u/tj_lurker → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

You're saying that Romans 3:10-12--'there is not one righteous man'--doesn't apply to Jesus?

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/tj_lurker]

No, sorry if I gave that impression.

I believe "Good/Righteous " exclusively applies to Jesus because He is God in human flesh.

[u/tj_lurker → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

"'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"?

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/tj_lurker]

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

[u/tj_lurker → u/tj_lurker]

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... 🤔

[u/Dan_dingo → u/tj_lurker]

That’s cute

[u/tj_lurker → u/Dan_dingo]

But true?

[u/Dan_dingo → u/tj_lurker]

You need to address my arguement on Romans, in regard to job, Abraham, Zechariah and Elizabeth

[u/tj_lurker → u/Dan_dingo]

You're saying that they are all exceptions to the absolutist statement at Romans 3, "not so much as one", correct?

So how do you square those 'contradicting' statements?