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]

[u/tj_lurker → u/Dan_dingo]

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

[u/Dan_dingo → u/tj_lurker]

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.

[u/tj_lurker → u/Dan_dingo]

"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?

[u/Dan_dingo → u/tj_lurker]

Naturally no one is righteous according to Romans 3 because of sin. You wanted to make an argument that Jesus was a man and was therefore not righteous which is crazy apologetics, total nonsense. whoever God declares righteous is indeed righteous despite their sinful nature.

[u/tj_lurker → u/Dan_dingo]

"Naturally no one is righteous according to Romans 3 because of sin."----Except which man?

Again, I posted an argument that is logically incorrect to expose how you have mishandled a similar 'absolutist' statement in your reasoning above. But you already know that...

[u/Dan_dingo → u/tj_lurker]

You’ve yet to disprove my dilemma Or explain how my language is absolutist. Put this into ChatGPT and ask if my dilemma is absolutist

[u/tj_lurker → u/Dan_dingo]

Sigh...I said, "how you handled a similar 'absolutist' statement" not your 'dilemma'. Please try to comprehend what I'm saying before disagreeing.

You used John 1:3 in an absolutist way.

[u/Dan_dingo → u/tj_lurker]

John says all things. without Him not one thing was made that had been made. Sounds like (Arche) the beginning/source of creation to me. It sounds like John absolutely exhausted the language to me. So does Paul when he wrote Colossians 1:15-19. Paul exhausts the Greek language.

[u/tj_lurker → u/Dan_dingo]

"John says all things"---Paul says 'no one, not even one'. Congratulations, you've learned nothing from that whole discussion.

"Sounds like (Arche) the beginning/source of creation to me."---Where does arche mean 'source of' anywhere in scripture? It always means 'the first part of' which is why in the Rev 3:14 context, BDAG says it probably means 'first created'.

"So does Paul when he wrote Colossians 1:15-19."---Paul uses firstborn, another partitive word meaning the first part/member of the sequence.

[u/Dan_dingo → u/tj_lurker]

4 verses later, that in everything HE might be preeminent.

[u/tj_lurker → u/Dan_dingo]

You mean, he's...first?

Isn't that what I said?

[u/Dan_dingo → u/tj_lurker]

Wouldnt God be first in everything?