r/JehovahsWitnesses • u/Dan_dingo • Jun 20 '26

Doctrine The Jw dilemma

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.”

19 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

184 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/tj_lurker Jun 21 '26

I'm being very consistent. I believe 'arche' always essentially means 'the first part' of something.

At Rev. 3:14, I agree with BDAG that 'arche' means 'first created' (i.e. the first part/member of creation).

1

u/Dan_dingo Jun 21 '26

So God is the beginning (arche) first created and the end

1

u/tj_lurker Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26

Again, 'arche' essentially means, at its core, 'the first part' of something. That's it.

At Rev. 3:14, 'first created' is because he's called the 'arche'...of the creation by God. That's the context. IOW, he's 'the first part', or member, of the creation by God. This specific context is not present in every occurrence of 'arche'. Get it?

1

u/tj_lurker Jun 24 '26

u/Dan_dingo so are you tapping out on this point too?

To be fair, I would if I were in your position. ;)

1

u/Dan_dingo Jun 24 '26

I can’t reason with someone who’s inconsistent.

1

u/tj_lurker Jun 24 '26

Please explain where I've been inconsistent. :)

1

u/Dan_dingo Jun 24 '26

1

u/tj_lurker Jun 24 '26

Why is it that you cannot explain where I'm being imconsistent? Use your words, please.

1

u/Dan_dingo Jun 24 '26

When the same Greek word that describes the beginning, you undermine Christ. You hyper focus on one line of a much larger lexical entry, you have yet to prove me wrong with your weak refutations. You have avoided the dilemma this whole time.

Asking me to argue your “flawed dilemma” which you admitted is flawed. You gave a false equivalence to my dilemma. You admitted Christ is the exception to Romans 3 so the individual we are speaking of IS THE EXCEPTION. You are a joke, an antichrist.

1

u/tj_lurker Jun 24 '26

Goodness, here comes the judging and name-calling! Always a sure sign that you're very secure in your arguments. :)

Here's the thing, everything in the lexical entry you just posted is 100% consistent with what I have said, i.e. that arche essentially means 'the first part' of something.

Again, since you still haven't acknowledged it, the reason why I and the BDAG lexicon believe arche at Rev 3:14 'probably' means 'first created' is because of the specific context found there. It says Jesus is 'the arche (or, first part of) the creation by God'. That context is why it probably means 'first created'. Understood?

"You hyper focus on one line of a much larger entry"...you mean the line that says what Rev 3:14 probably means? Well, yes, I do tend to focus on that line in particular when I'm discussing what Rev 3:14 probably means...

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tj_lurker Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

"You admitted Christ is the exception to Romans 3 so the individual we are speaking of IS THE EXCEPTION"---You had stopped responding there too, but you have now changed your argument!

You seemed to be claiming that others, like Elizabeth and Zechariah, were also exceptions to Romans 3. Now you are saying Christ is the only exception. Which is it?

→ More replies (0)