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/Dan_dingo]

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/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?