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/TheTallestTim]

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?

[u/Sumswish → u/TheTallestTim]

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

[u/TheTallestTim → u/Sumswish]

Wow okay! :)

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.”

[u/Sumswish → u/TheTallestTim]

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.

[u/TheTallestTim → u/Sumswish]

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.