Polls

Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.

Articles & Posts

Who is Michael the Archangel?

Click here for the new and updated article:  Who is Michael the Archangel 2014_08_27

Below is the older version of the article which is less complete.

Is Michael the Archangel Jesus or is Michael just a mighty angel?  Does the Bible answer this question?

We believe that a careful examination of scriptures will provide compelling evidence that Michael the Archangel is Jesus.  Yet since Hebrews 1:4-14 shows that Jesus is greater than the angels, how can Jesus possibly be an angel?

The honest and sincere student of scripture will want to carefully examine the evidence. 

 

WHAT DOES THE NAME “MICHAEL” MEAN?

The word “Michael” in Daniel 12:1 comes from Strong’s 4317 meaning, “who is like God.”  Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon also agrees with this definition.

Who else is like God but Jesus Himself?

 

CAN JESUS BE CALLED AN ANGEL?

The word “angel” itself, Strong’s #32 is defined as, “a messenger; especially an “angel”; by implication, a pastor.”

On occasion, the Greek and Hebrew words for angel simply have the meaning of messenger and do not refer to angels. Here are examples where the Greek and Hebrew do not refer to angels:

Matt 11:10 (NKJV ) “For this is he of whom it is written: “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.’”  [Here Jesus is speaking of John]

Luke 7:24 (NKJV) “When the messengers of John had departed, He (Jesus) began to speak to the multitudes concerning John:”

James 2:25 (NKJV ) “Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?” 

Gen 32:3 (KJV) “And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother” 

Many say Jesus cannot be Michael because Jesus is not an angel.  The scriptures quoted above prove that the Greek and Hebrew words for angel broadly mean “messenger” and can apply to others besides angels.  Jesus is God’s ultimate and supreme messenger.  That is why he is called the “Logos” or the Word of God, i.e. God’s spokesperson or messenger.

Jesus is called an “angel” or “messenger in Malachi 3:1 (NKJV)  where we read, “Behold, I send My messenger (John the Baptist Matt 11:10-11), And he will prepare the way before Me  (Yawheh). And the Lord (Jesus), whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple (“Which Temple ye are.” 1 Cor 3:17), Even the Messenger (Jesus) of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the LORD of hosts.

In Revelation 20:1, 2 we have a great angel coming down from heaven with a chain in his hand to bind Satan. This great angel is generally accepted to be Jesus who is the one responsible for binding Satan.

Jesus  is the “seed of the woman” who crushes the serpent’s head.  Hebrews 2:14 (RVIC) says, “… that through death he might bring to nought the one having the power of death, that is, the devil;”  Is there an angel powerful enough to bind Satan?  Of course not.

Yes, it is Jesus who binds Satan. Gen 3:15 shows that the seed (Jesus) crushes Satan’s head. More broadly, it is The Christ, Head and Body who binds Satan (Rom 16:20). Jesus death’ on the Cross guaranteed Him the authority to destroy Satan (Hebrews 2:14).

 

IS JESUS THE ARCHANGEL?

We find the word archangel in 1 Thes 4:16 and Jude 9.  It is from Strong’s 743 meaning “a chief angel,”  Let’s break the word up into its two parts.  “Arch” is Strong’s 757 meaning, “to be first (in political rank or power):– reign (rule) over”  The other part, “angel” is from Strong’s 32, meaning, “a messenger, especially an angel.” 

So how does comparing 1 Thess 4:16 and Jude 9 help us to identify who Michael is?  Well we know that Jesus descends from heaven with the “voice of Archangel” and that Michael is the “Archangel.”  So therefore, Michael must be Jesus.  After all, I cannot have your voice, even if I can use your trumpet.  So Jesus must be using his own voice, yes the voice of the archangel (meaning chief messenger – the Word of God – the Logos). 

 

HOW DOES THE WORD “PRINCE” HELP US IDENTIFY WHO MICHAEL IS?

In Daniel 12:1 (NKJV), Michael is described as, “the great prince (Strong’s 8269)who stands watch over the sons of your people (Israel).”

Compare Isaiah 9:6 which calls Jesus the “prince of peace” (Strong’s 8269)

Jesus is also called the “prince” in the New Testament

Acts 3:15: “prince of life”

Acts 5:11: “prince and Savior”

Remember how in Daniel 12:1, Michael is described as, “the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people (Israel).”

Compare with Matthew 2:6:

Matt 2:6: “out of thee [Bethlehem] shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel.”  (Micah 5:2 Governor/Ruler = Strongs 4910-6.)

In both cases Michael/Jesus is ruler over Israel.  Does Israel have two spiritual rulers – Michael and Jesus?  Of course not.  Jesus is Michael.

In contrast, in Eph 2:2 Satan is the “prince of the power of the air”

 

IS MICHAEL THE CHIEF PRINCE OR ONE OF MANY EQUAL PRINCES?

The argument that Michael is “one [of many] of the Chief Princes” in Daniel 10:13 is not correct.

Notice the more accurate rendering in Young’s Literal Translation –

Daniel 10:13 `And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia;”

Albert Barnes’ Commentary:   “the first.” That is, the first in rank of the “princes,” or the angels. In other words, Michael, the archangel.””

John Gill’s Commentary:  “…is no other than Christ the Son of God… who is “one,” or “the first of the chief Princes””

The word “first of,” sometimes translated “one of” is Strongs 259 meaning, “a numeral from 258; properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first:” This word is translated “first” four (4) times in the book of Daniel, i.e. Dan 11:1 which says, “…in the first year of Darius the Mede…” KJV.  So we see that Daniel 10:13 is not indicating that there are several chief heads or princes.

The word translated “heads” or more often “princes” is Strongs 8269, the same Hebrew word as in Daniel 12:1 associated with Michael the Archangel who is the great prince.

The word “chief” as in “chief princes” is from Strongs 7223 and it means “first, in place, time or rank.”

So Michael is the first or number one prince.  In other words, Michael is Jesus.

Dan 12:1 calls him the “GREAT prince” and Dan 10:21 calls him “Michael your prince.”  Over Israel, God would have appointed His highest ranking prince.  Right?  Is there a prince that ranks higher than Jesus?   Another spirit being would not have been given more responsibility and authority than Jesus.

JESUS APPEARED TO MOSES?

Paul tells us about Jesus in Hebrews 3:3 that He, “…was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.” So Jesus is the one that built Moses’ house (the nation of Israel under the Law Covenant).  As the builder of the house, Jesus was the main messenger appearing to Moses at the burning bush (Ex 3:2) and on Mount Sinia (Gal 3:19; Acts 7:53) as the Word or representative of Jehovah.

The point is that during the Jewish age, Jesus was the chief prince/messenger/angel speaking to Moses on behalf of Jehovah/ Yahweh, at the burning bush and on Mount Sinai.  If Michael is the chief prince of Israel, Michael must be Jesus, the chief prince.  Otherwise, would you conclude that Michael is higher ranking than Jesus?  If Michael was the chief prince and Jesus was not, than how is Jesus superior to Michael?  Therefore they must both be the same person.

 

SIGNS OF DANIEL 12 ALREADY FULFILLED!

Daniel 11 brings us up to the time of the end and Daniel 12 brings us 5 signs of the time of the end:

1) Increase in knowledge (i.e. technology, mobile phones, Internet, etc.)

2) Increase in travel (cars, planes, space travel)

3) “children of your people delivered” (Israel a nation)

4) Great time of trouble (world wars, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc. murder over 100 million non-combatants last century)

5) Book of Daniel unsealed and explained (If not Volume 3, “Thy Kingdom Come,” then how is that fulfilled?)

So if this does not prove that we have been in the time of the end and that Jesus (pictured here as Michael) has returned, then what does this all mean?

Once prophecy is fulfilled, it’s meaning becomes more evident.  For example, in Jesus day, people looking at Daniel 9 (70 weeks) thought that Messiah would defeat the Romans and set up the earthly kingdom at that time.  Once history played out, the purpose of the Messiah became clear to Jesus disciples.  In spite of the miraculous evidences, people rationalized what they knew, and then rejected Jesus. 

Based on Daniel 12:4, Sir Isaac Newton concluded that some day man would travel at 50 miles per hour.  Who would have imagined then, how much greater a fulfillment of prophecy would take place.  The miraculous evidences today are inescapable.  Perhaps the biggest underlying issue is the dramatic changes on planet earth in the past two centuries, particularly Israel restored, then the increase in knowledge & travel and for the first time in history, great trouble that impacts the whole world – not isolated geographically.  Clearly God somehow has a hand in all this.  Right?  How else are these changes coming about?  How then is it such a leap of faith to imagine that the invisible returned Jesus, God’s Chief Messenger in accomplishing this?

As is historically evident, this increase in knowledge spans every area, i.e. science, technology, medicine, agriculture, the Bible, etc.  Regarding the Bible, Daniel says that at the time of the end the Wise would Understand (Dan 12:9-12).  Daniel says this in regard to the 1290 and 1335 days and indicates the book of Daniel will be unsealed.  This was fulfilled in Volume 3 of Studies in the Scriptures, “They Kingdom Come.”  If we are wrong, would you then say that we cannot understand Daniel today and its meaning is yet to be revealed in the future?  On the other hand, if the book of Daniel is now unsealed, than Michael has already stood up. Right?  If now fulfilled how, how do you think it was?  Who explained the meaning of Daniels prophecies if not Brother Russell in volume 3 “Thy Kingdom Come”?

Most people make a mistake with end time prophecies, thinking that everything happens quickly, however most parables and historical prophecies play out over centuries, as in the prophecy of the destruction of Tyre, which was fulfilled in stages taking several centuries till all the prophetic declarations were fulfilled. Even the Apostles were thinking that Jesus might  be setting up his kingdom in their time until Jesus told them it was not for them to know when (Acts 1:6).  In Daniel 12 – When Michael Stands up in the time of the end: Knowledge increases.  One source claims the world’s knowledge is doubling every two years now – http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/netimperative/news/2011/06/worlds_data_more_than_doubling.php 

 

NOW THAT YOU KNOW, WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

Understanding the role of the Lord’s people at the time of Jesus second presence can best be learned by a careful study of the scriptures relating to this topic.  We recommend the link below as a good place to start.

http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/2012/09/01/our-lords-great-prophecy-jesus-second-presence/

325 comments to Who is Michael the Archangel?

  • Interested one

    Anon JC

    Your comment
    I see a lot of speculation in your answers. Please re-evaluate and get back to me. You tend to take something and then grab another quote that doesn’t have anything to do with it because it uses the same word and then draw a conclusion. Like for example
    When we said Jesus said “I cake down from heaven.” Then you will proceed to state that “well all good gifts from from heaven.” These two contexts have nothing to do with each other. You grab two different contexts and cannot divide the word of truth. Logos does. It mean plan. And no I was never a trinitarian. …end.

    I NEVER mentioned the scripture your referring to but it is a good one to prove my point! Thanks.

  • Anon JC

    But you are being dishonest. You’ve quoted me as having said things I haven’t I never quoted a scripture about @being sent forth” because I knew your argument
    You’re stretching and half quoting it or ignoring it. I’ve experienced this with Unitarians. Reading into a text a preconceived idea. If you choose to believe that then so be it. But I also choose to focus on that he’s risen. Not be dogmatic about his preexistence. What I’ve noticed in many Christian denominations that they tend to find a point to hold as a measuring stick against other Christians. Like When Christadelphians try to say Satan doesn’t exist even though in the book of Job it has God talking to Satan and they just mumble around it and try to read something into it when it’s very direct and clear. I’m used to this by now. I’ve seen all the trickery you’ve done I’ve seen how you’ve quoted me a same things I did and I’m used to it.

  • Interested one

    Just been reading a few of these reasons, and I felt to comment.

    I believe Jesus to be a messenger of God but not an angelic heavenly angel messenger. Angel is a function. Because we have those who are heavenly and those who are earthly. The terms angel is reflective of those of heaven and the term messenger used for those of humans.

    He can not be Michael the archangel for that simple reason. The fact Jesus is called a prince is because he comes through an earthly line of princes (David for example)and not heavenly princes. I don’t think those in heaven have what you would call genealogies or descendants.

    He is simply God’s only begotten son out of his mother Mary. Born and named in the first century. Matt 1:1-20

    • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

      Hi interested one and welcome. Before we begin the dialogue, let me clear up one point please. Are you saying Jesus did not exist before being born of Mary by God in the 1st century? That will let eveyone know which way to go with the conversation. Thank you

      • Interested one

        Hi Jacqueline,
        Yes that is my conclusion! I see Matthew 1:1-20 as the actual origin of Jesus.

        I believe Jesus is foreknown, or prophesied to come as the seed of the woman Gen 3:15.

        And therefore this seed was in the mind / heart of God as to his plan and purpose to undo the wrong committed by Adam.

        • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

          Thanks interested one, a unique understanding and the crowd will now start analying what you say about this and respond. Thanks for the clarity.

          • Interested one

            Your welcome! Brothely love!

            • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

              Interested one, concerning Jesus having lived before coming to the earth his own words. John 8:23 New International Version
              But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

              New Living Translation
              Jesus continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You belong to this world; I do not.

              English Standard Version
              He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
              He said his father sent him and he said he was from above:

              New Living Translation
              I don’t speak on my own authority. The Father who sent me has commanded me what to say and how to say it.

              English Standard Version
              For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak.

              I do agree that Jehovah had fore knowledge and the seed was Jesus of Gen.3:15. But I think He was born of God as the very firstborn of creation and could adopt to do away with the original sin of Adam by providing a ransom. That is why he came in the fashion of a man thru a woman a human.

              Let me ask you, where did Jesus go after dying? And why would he go to this place or do you think he just died and no longer exist? What scriptural support do you have that says definitely that this was his first time coming into existance. There are lots where even the wicked demons identified him because they knew him from heaven. Take your time on answering me if you want to answer others.

              • Interested one

                Hi Jacqueline,
                Thanks again for replying to my post, and I take it from your reply, you do not believe Jesus to be a Man.

                John the baptist identified Jesus as a man.(Jn 1:30) And Jesus himself said he was a man.(Jn 8:40) And the Bible identifies Jesus as being a man of 30-33 years of age.(Lk 3) And we know men do not pre-exist their Mothers or Fathers.

                So it is obvious Jesus is not speaking literal but “spiritually” or “figuratively” to other grown men.

                Jesus could speak of himself as the man from heaven as he is unique as having God as his literal father, Just as the first man had God as his father. But that does not support him having been a pre- existing person.

                John the baptist, was a man from God and sent from heaven, am I to also assume he had a pre-existing life? In fact all the prophets were sent from God / heaven.

                The majority of Jn 8 is about Jesus speaking spiritually, v12- 20 he is spiritually speaking, about being the light, v21-30 he is speaking spiritually,

                When He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above, did Jesus mean that they had come up from below the earth from a realm below? When he said, You will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am the one, you will die in your sins. He was speaking spiritually about being the lamb of God who takes the sins of the world away.

                When Jesus later told his disciples they are no part of the world just as he was no part, did that than mean the disciples had come down from heaven too? Or was Jesus meaning something spiritual or figurative?

                When Jesus said in v 44 that they were of their father the devil? Did Jesus mean they literally had the devil as their father or was he talking figuratively?

                And to the rest of the chapter we see Jesus is speaking spiritually of his role in fulfilling his Father’s role or purpose.

                Your 2nd point
                “ I think He was born of God as the very firstborn of creation”

                Here you have taken a word firstborn, and applied a secondary figurative meaning to claim Jesus is the first created creature rather than the true meaning of first born.

                Jesus was foretold to have a literal begetting to a maiden of the line of David. Jesus is of creation his mother was of creation. God caused Mary seed cell to function by the life from out of his holy spirit. And the method of creating was by pregnancy, also a creation of God, that he had made for the reproduction of offspring.

                Jesus is the only son of God born of creation. Adam was directly created by God out of the ground. Jesus on the other hand was procreated, begotten. The only son of God to be born. Other sons and brothers of Jesus would follow in time to be adopted sons of God. Jesus is the first born of many brothers. Rom 8: 29 Adam and the angels were not begotten but created.

                In this way we were to have a greater and better relationship with God as being sons and daughters of a loving father.

                Now to your last point! You ask me where he went when he die? His spirit went out of him and he expired, meaning he died. He was than laid in the earth or grave to wait a resurrection.

                Have joy and peace.

                • Anon JC

                  Interested,
                  Again incorrect. You and your “Biblical” Unitarian Pseudo-Belifs are inconsistent with the Bible. Jesus pre-existed before birth based on what the Bible said. Your beliefs follow the false belief that Jesus has his beginnings in the earth. However Jesus was said to have existed when he said “Before Abraham was I AM”. Not “I was thought of” or “I was in God’s Plan”.

                  Check out the following scripture. Biblical Hermeneutics states we must take the scripture are it’s plain meaning. Not view it through a prism that Jesus didn’t preexist.

                  “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began” (John 17:5)

                  He said “That I had”. Not that some plan was promised.

                  Phillipans 2:7
                  “7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.”

                  If the Logos was just some plan then a plan doesn’t empty itself and become man. That wouldn’t make any sense.

                  1 Cor 8:6
                  6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

                  It states through WHOM attributing this to a person. Not an immaterial plan.

                  John 16:23
                  “28 I came out from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go unto the Father.”

                  Jesus said he came out from the father. Not that God forwknew of him.

                  Romans 8:3
                  3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

                  It says that God sent forth his son in likeness of human flesh. Not as Biblical Unitarians and Christadelphians would try to mean “by sent” for as in sending him forth unto the people.

                  Hebrews 1:2
                  “2 hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;”

                  It says he made the words through his son. Not some impersonal plan.

                  Also as for your response on Col 1:15 meaning “first created”. This is exactly what the context says. The word “of” is in the genitive case meaning that he was part of the group being described. Let me break this down for you. Can a 35 years old man say “I’m the tallest OF all of the girls.” No for he is not a girl. Can a 13 year old girl says “I am the oldest OF all of the senior citizens”? No for she is only 13. So can Col 1:15 say “he is the most high OF all creation” when he is not a part of creation? No. We cannot say God is the highest of all creation because God is not a creation. But Jesus is said here to be the preeminent OF all creation.

                  Also JESUS first started as a man. The Logos or Michael is before Jesus was born. Even Jesus in Revelarion is called the Word of God showing that he doesn’t have to be a plan or thought to be the word but can be a spirit being. As well.

                  Unitarianism starts with the belief that Jesus didn’t preexist and then tried to read all scriptures that says he did through that prism.

                  • Interested one

                    Hi Anon
                    Still progressing through your post. I’m up to the following point.

                    On 1 Cor 8:6
                    This verse is speaking of the Congregation or Church, God provided “all things” for the Congregation /Church via Jesus Christ.

                    The reference to an original creation or any thing similar is not in the surrounding context. The thought that is in reference to the original creation is only perceived by you.

                    On Jn 16:23 :
                    Jesus certainly came out of the father! God is his progenitor, That is the principle of how life is passed from Father to the Mother. God fathered Jesus to Mary by miraculous conception.

                    ** Matt 1:16 = out of Mary. **Matt 1:18, 20 = out of God’s spirit. The the two sources of origin.

                    Ek is the Greek preposition for (out of / or, out from ) = the genitive of origin or source of origin.

                    According to my understanding Jesus was foreknown. Peter seems to have touched on it. (Not he WAS KNOWN before the founding of the world. In fact the scriptures say he was slaughtered before the founding of the world. That did not happen till the first century, but it was foreknown.)

                    ** 1Pet 1:20 He was FOREKNOWN before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and GAVE HIM GLORY, so that your faith and hope are in God

                    A dictionary definition: foreknown

                    1. anticipated or predicted

                    Jesus also said he was spoken about in the scriptures .Jn 5:36 and that he had to fulfil all the things written in them about him. Luke 24:24-27.

                    Till the next point have peace.

                • Lee Anthony (Brandon)

                  First born of all creation. (Rev. 3:14)
                  Glorify me woth the glory I had with you before the world began (John 17:5)

                  Hello, Im afraid you never replied to scriptures I used. I dont usually say anything about anything without scripture. I know the thought of Jesus not having existed b4 his birth of mary. An interesting thought. Of course Jesus was a man, the bible also SPECIFICALLY teaches in more than a few scriptures that Jesus was something more b4 he was a man.
                  John 1:15,30) (john 3:31-32) A prophet is from god yet does not actually come from heaven. No man has ascended to heaven but the son of man who is from heaven. john 3:13) JESUS WORDS…. Please use the bible to make your points otherwise they are unacceptable just as is everyone else who comments here. The bible is the only authority for truth

                  • Interested one

                    Hi Lee Anthony!

                    On Rev 3:14: It is very easy to find scriptures that support a belief. But a lot of the scriptures have been translated to be bias toward a certain doctrine supposedly did in good faith think they were right because only there way was right.

                    Rev 3:14 is ambiguous and can be interpreted mean he is the first born of the new creation since revelation is about the things ahead and not of what was previous. However, it can be translated as ruler of creation since Jesus resurrection he is the ruler over it. Rev 1:5

                    On John 17:5:
                    Lee Anthony, I believe Jesus came into existence to his Mother and Father in the first century and was named Jesus 8 days after his birth. And became officially the Christ at his baptism. And as the Bible tells me at Luke 3:23 he was about 30 years of age.

                    John the baptist identifies him as a man Jn 1:30. Jesus identifies himself as a man Jn 8:40. Disciples and others all so identified him as a man. So it is without a doubt I believe Jesus is a man, a sinless man. And I believe the Bible when it says he is 30 -33 years of age,and NOT millions to have had a glory or a pre-existence as an actual MAN before the world was.

                    I have 3 assumptions to chose from.

                    1) Do I assume he was God in his glory before he came a MAN

                    2) Do I assume he was an Archangel, a spirit being who had a glory before he came a man?

                    3) Or do I believe he is a MAN who is talking figuratively or spiritual on how he is in someway fulfilling scriptures written about him. And that he would receive Glory on fulilling that promise.

                    I Chose the latter as the scriptures do attest to the fact, Jesus on many occasions spoke spiritually to those who could not understand. in fact, the scripture say, he would not speak to them without an illustration. Luke 24:24-27, 1Pet1:11,

                    On John 1:15,30 : Again we have an issue with translation, most translators know it means superior but then to give it order of time rather than order of placement or dignity. And it can be translated as this
                    Jn 1:15 REV Bible
                    John testified about him, and cried out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was my superior

                    The Emphatic Diaglott put out by the wts also renders it similarly.

                    On John 3:31-32: This seem to be John the gospel writer, writing what John the Baptist said about Jesus.

                    I don’t see it teaching a pre-existence because God is Jesus paternal Father he is the man from heaven, who was filled with the fullness of God’s spirit at his baptism to give him the power and authority of God.

                    PS I thought I was using the Bible. In some cases it may be that one has to use sound reasoning. For I do not assume that God wants me to believe stupid or foolish notions. His word is what we rely on!

                    Christian love.

                    • Lee Anthony (Brandon)

                      It is quite easy to find scriptures to support a belief i agree… I study from greek as well and find the bible more enlightening alone than by using others interpretations. Unfortunately since most of us dont speak or read greek or hebrew fluently even those who have given us these translations differ on many things. It seems that at this point in history if God didnt want any of us to believe stupid or foolish notions there wouldnt be 40,000 or so different sects and denominations out there. One day we will all know right from wrong until then we get to pick and choose. The spirit leads us into understanding yet the claim is made by most everybody that they have been led. Truth…. Religion, spirituality, such a shame what has been done. I see your thought and I can understand others as well. As for me I will stick with The word became flesh and dwelt among us when it comes to this matter. I cannot see past over 20 scriptures at my count thus far that speak the same yet i find none that follow the rest. Its just like the john 1:1 thing the trinitarians use. Numerous scriptures teach against the popular translation that Jesus was God yet only 1 is used to argue against the rest. Same with any doctrine, we could all go back and forth all day long about one subject and never get anywhere… Jesus was a man… Jesus Michael, God, an Angel. He could be anything to anyone if a person believes it enough to be real then so be it.. More power to em if they feel that way. I think once a subject gets to the point where no progress is made one way or another its a good time to get on to something different. Always nice to read thoughts on things though would like to see other subjects if there are differences.

              • Interested one

                Christian Greetings Jacqueline!
                Nice to hear from you again.

                Before I forget, the reply button to your comments and those of AnonJC do not show up on your posts or replies. Is there a reason for that? Even though I have made mention that I am finished with our discussion He keeps bringing things to my attention that requires an answer. And I have to go along way around to answer it.

                Yes, I would be interested in giving a testimony though I do not have the equipment. I have not been into much high tech stuff. So I may need to get some earphones and a few other things.

                I’ve begun reading some of the other articles, have not had a chance to comment, I find it hard to comment on thing I agree with! Funny that.

                You asked, how long I’ve been a witness, since 1973, I just faded away from the organisation but not Jehovah. Been going to an occassional meeting, still the same but just streaned lined and shorter.

                Also go occassionaly to a gospel meeting I was invited to go along to, still trying to work out what they believe, very non committal, they don’t believe a trinity, don’t have collections, go two by two in their ministry. Very nice people and don’t have a name tag to their religion just Christian.

                I think they may be Suspicious of me.

                Well till next post take care!

                • Anon CJ

                  Can you see my posts

                  • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                    Christopher, may I mske a suggestion? Interested one is in a different part of the world. Maybe let him wake up,consider what you have said then respond. He is responding the best he can to so many. He is asleep now.

                    • Anon CJ

                      Hey. Yes I know. I posted in several posts because when I was trying to respond it wouldn’t let me do it all at one time so I had to make multiple posts.

                    • Interested one

                      Hi Jacqueline, Can you pass my post on to Greg as his reply button is not working and I don’t know how to reply to his post. Thanks.

                      FOR ” Greg ”

                      Christian Greeting to Greg!

                      Let me say from the outset, I appreciate your sincere interest in me! And your well expressed sentiments, of love and appreciation for Jesus and Jehovah.

                      I do not wish to repeat things so I assume by your comments you have understood my reasons for belief. And that your are still of your opinion and as you says, you may not comment any further and I have no problem with that.

                      It is amazing how you can see absurdities in your own analogy that does not even parallel Jesus being born to Jehovah and Mary.

                      Yet you cannot see the absurdities, that come from Jesus being an archangel!

                      There is no evidence just assumptions and conjecture that Jesus was an archangel. Jesus is a MAN with his own mind and heart and he served God with his whole soul and mind. If he was of a higher source than that of Adam he would not be a corresponding ransom.

                      But I am not here to change your understanding but to show there are alternatives and I take a different view to you.

                      To me it is an absurdity That a MAN can pre-exist himself, that a MAN can pre-exist his mother, That a MAN can pre-exist his forefathers, David and Abraham.

                      I find it an absurdity, when the Bible tells me he is a Man of 30-33 years of age and when he is talking to other grown men, that he is (assumed an angel) really thousands of years of age to have had a glory before the world was or to have been before Abraham. These are self contradictory statements.

                      I find in incredible that your human reasoning (assumes) when Jesus speaks in the way he does, you (assume )he is an angel, when there is no evidence in the text to say he is.

                      You have Jesus words that suggest that! But you RULE OUT THE FACT that Jesus could have been speaking spiritually or figuratively, explaining things he was to fulfil about himself . From what the scriptures had foretold.

                      If Jesus was an angel, God would have told us at Matt 1:20 Where his origin is said to be coming out of two source out of his mother Mary, and out of his fathers spirit. You don’t exist until that takes place. So the pre-existence of Jesus as an actual person before you are born is just utterly ridiculous to say the least. It distorts Jehovah’s word of truth! Ps 36:9

                      So thanks for comments, and input, I’m sorry, that I disagree with some of what you said. However, I will keep them in mind.

                      Brotherly love!

                    • Interested one

                      Hi Jacqueline,

                      Thanks for your input!

                      If you make the claim, it is born of God’s body or out of his spirit we can say the whole universe came out of God. And there is evidence for this.

                      But this is not being begotten, as the scriptures say from Matt 1:20, where it is specific to that born of a man and a woman. About 40 times from 1-20 Why would God change his mind from v16 onwards?

                      This was God’s principle for the reproduction of future off spring. Created in the beginning in the male and female. And that is the true meaning of begotten.

                      The secondary meaning of begotten means TO BRING FORTH, is the creation of the universe and not by pregnancy. Jesus was born of creation out of Mary, and by pregnancy also a creation. No other son of God has that unique experience.

                      The relationship with a man and a woman was to be productive and bring forth children (procreate)and populate the earth. So when a man and woman came together, the man passes LIFE on to the woman’s seed cell. That life (not a conscious life but the principle or spirit of life) activates the cell. From then on, it forms itself within the womb. Without any conscious effort on the part of the woman, except to care for herself.

                      Adam, marred that life, so a new life was necessary. Because no man had a pure spirit (life) to pass on to be the seed of David, God had said that he would be the father 2Sam 14:7 and raise him up.

                      ** 2 Sam 14:7 I will become his father, and he will become my son. (Could not have been pre-existing)

                      So God was the progenitor it was (out of) his spirit (his life) that he passed (life)to the seed cell of Mary causing her cell to function to bring forth his future earthly Son.

                      Christian love!

                    • Interested one

                      Jacqueline, thanks for passing my post on.

                      And thanks for putting forth some issues that need to be clarified!

                      You ask what parts did you get wrong.

                      1) First where is the scripture that say he was “transferred” to Mary’s womb?

                      The Bible says he was begotten conceived in the womb? Matt 1:16, 18, 20, Jehovah tell us exactly how God begot his son. Out of Mary and Out of his holy spirit.

                      2) Jn 8:58 and Jn 17:5 are put before me as proof of a pre-existences! What is your evidence to say this? Is he NOT a literal man? Yet, these are the words of a MAN whom the Bible says is 30-33 years of age.

                      Now you and I know for a fact a man has not lived that long to have been before Abraham or to have had a glory before the world was! True????

                      So I have a couple of options? How do I resolve the paradox??
                      How can a man of 30-33 years of age have had a position before God and Abraham many centuries earlier?

                      Option a) Should I assume than he must be an archangel?

                      Option b) Should I assume he is God ?

                      These would resolve the issue to a point, but than Jesus is not actual a man but a recycled angel in flesh or God made flesh. Not a true ransom. And that contradict the Bible that says he is a man and 30-33 years of age.

                      Option c) Do I assume than that he is speaking figuratively or spiritually of some prophetic significance he is fulfilling from the scriptures.

                      I prefer option (c) As Jesus always spoken in parables and illustrations and in ways his listeners could not always discern.

                      ** Matt 13:34-35 All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds by illustrations. Indeed, WITHOUT an illustration he would not speak to them, 35 in order to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet who said: “I will open my mouth with illustrations; I will PROCLAIM THINGS HIDDEN since the founding.

                      ** Luke 24:24-27 O senseless ones and slow of heart to believe all the things the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?” 27 And STARTING WITH MOSES and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.

                      ** Jn 1:45 said to him: “We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote: Jesus, the son of Joseph
                      ** Jn 5:46 -47 In fact, if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe what I say.

                      So the weight of evidence as I see it, is that Jesus was a sinless man sent on a mission to fulfil the things written about him, and he was fulfilling them in real life.

                      So we need to look deeper into why Jesus said what he said in a figurative or spiritual way. (Rather than assuming he is God or an Angel) There are no absurdities or contradiction when view in this light.

                      But I am not out to change your view but to give you something to ponder!
                      I love God and Jesus, I love truth and I am persuaded by truth!
                      Jacqueline I think the trinity is absurd, That doesn’t mean I hate Trinitarian, or God!

                      I think people who believe Jesus was an archangel is to believe an absurdity. I think those who think a man can pre-exist himself or pre-exist his mother and father are also believing absurdities. You may as well believe the trinity! God can do anything by turning himself into a man God. That does not mean I don’t have love for you or others or God. I too believed those very things, not any more thanks to God and Jesus. Why should I be angry?

                      I have lots to share!

                      Peace to you!

                    • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                      Thanks for uou sincere reply interested. I won’t talj about the subject anymore as I only have to convince myself.
                      May i ask if you have family still in the organization? If so jow is association coming along? Were you in a long time? I was for 62 years before I escaped. Over here in the U.S. they are disfellowshipping older ones, 82,84 etc even going into the nursing home. Is that being done in your country? Did they read the letter asking for 25- 300 million dollars? I need to know for 2 talk shows tonight. Thank you, love and peace.

                    • Interested one

                      Hi Jacqueline,

                      Nice to hear from you again!

                      I was baptised in 1973, so that makes me about 45 years, never been d/f. I attend an occasional meeting these days, My wife and eldest son are d/f for speaking the truth, lols, My son should never have been baptised he suffers from autism he was too young to know, (even though he things he knows), he has no sense of responsibility, though he has tremendous knowledge. Sounds funny doesn’t it? Most of my wife’s family are still doing their part. They do not live in our area so we don’t have a problem with association.

                      I have not kept up with the trend of who is being d/f but it is sad the way they are going.

                      That letter asking for that sort of cash is amazing!!! Is that really so? Do you have a link to that?

                      Must be to fight the courts!

                      Talk shows, You do talk shows? Interesting, let us know how it went!

                      Love for now

                    • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                      Interested one: Kim and Mikey have tons of videos on all the subjects. My relatives actually sat there and listened to the letter in more than five congregations. Other states report different amounts asked for. Jimmy Swaggert would blush at their audacity to ask for that amount! The Catholic church is looking like a choir boy. lol
                      https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kim+and+mikey+youtube you have to scroll thru.
                      Go here to hear news about the watchtower. Remember this show is different but effective! People coming out of the watchtower can be very angry so we have to have a show like Rick’s to diffuse the situation until the person gets over the anger, otherwise in Psychology classes we know if a person can’t speak out they will act out, and we don’t want that. He does a great service. Go in by video suite from the internet. If you talk or type tell Rick hello for me. http://sixscreensofthewatchtower.com/
                      Ours with Greg as host and Tazzyman are here. Figure out your time. http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/2018/03/11/testimony-meeting/
                      On ours tonight sister Una might tell of her 82 years old mother being hunted down and DF. The older ones realize this is a foreign governing body siphoning money and instituting shunning so the young ones reared under the governing body can’t listen to their parents and thinking ones. After a while all they will have are trained non thinking persons but they are not the big spenders, so they like any business are getting it while they can.lol Got clients today so I might not answer back quickly.

                    • Interested one

                      Hi Jacqueline,

                      Thanks for your advice! That’s not a problem! It was nice having the freedom to express my-self!

                      My last post had some important points that I had not fully expressed to Anon, or your viewers and I don’t know if they will be posted now. After spending a considerable amount of time composing them!

                      I hope they will be!

                      But thanks for giving me the opportunity, to present my understanding, why I do not believe in an actual pre-existence of Jesus. I know it goes against some peoples grain, but so did a lot of what Jesus said to his listeners.

                      I do apologise to anyone who may have been offended. It has never been by intentions to do that but just to present that which I understand to be the truth!

                      So, now do I give my opinion of Armageddon here, or is there a thread on the subject?

                      May you be blessed, warm Christian love!

                    • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                      Interested one all subjects are to the left. That was just a suggestion. Be confident in what you believe. We have all been there but have mellowed out. All bible student don’t agree on all subjects and that is what draws people who have not been allowed to think freely. Most stop reading on a site when both of you repeat and it become a battle rather than a meaningful discussion. Sometimes we have to agree to disagree.
                      You choose a subject or ask a question. We already know your thoughts on subjects discussed above.

                • Anon CJ

                  Interested One; I have to make multiple posts because I typed this in a word processor and it doesn’t show up.

                  1. You’re like arguing with a Flat Earther. Not even a photo of the earth is not proof for them. Simply the text states that he existed before him. You don’t see it because you start with the presumption that he doesn’t exist. You’re much like the Oneness. You can show them every scripture that the father and the son are different and they will have some refutation and I will show you an example.

                  • Interested one

                    Greetings Anon;

                    Yes, I see your relies, and their now coming through with the reply button.

                    1)To the contrary, I came to those conclusions myself, I didn’t know at the time who were Unitarians.

                    I believed, as you do! I started as a Trinitarian, than became a witness, and changed my religion.

                    I began to question the organisations teachings. Because we would condemn Trinitarian for their use of assumptions and conjecture to prove the Jesus was God. And I began to see, that the WTS did the same to claim Jesus is Michael the archangel. That was hypocritical.

                    So I began a earnest study of this. And it lead me to conclude Jesus was not an heavenly angel.

                    Starting with the origin of Jesus at Matt.1:1-20 which, is rather explicit.

                    Jesus could not be an angel, because these scriptures give the two sources of his begetting. His father and his mother.

                    Matt 1,Uses the Greek word (genesis = the beginning). It uses the Greek genitive (ek) for origin or source v3,v5,v6, (out of) check out your Kingdom Interlinear.

                    Than it uses the same word (out of ) Mary. If it was to be an angel or a person who was already formed than it would have used the Greek word (dia = through) Mary. So Jesus has for his first source of origin his Mother Mary, who had the seed of David, Jesus forefather within her womb.(If Jesus is from the loins of David than he cannot be existing)

                    That seed cell was activated by life from (out of ) God’s spirit. By Jehovah himself, He being the progenitor of his life. If Michael or a separate Spirit Being, was the source of his life than here was the PLACE to say it! But it didn’t. Nor is the word transferred or any inference of a transfer, implied.

                    Just as Adam was given life from (out of) his heavenly father spirit, so too was Jesus. Only Jesus was begotten procreated formed in the womb of his mother.

                    ** Ps 36:9 (Jehovah) You are the source of all life.

                    That is why Jesus is called (the only begotten son). All other sons of God, including Adam were directly created whereas Jesus was begotten by pregnancy.

                    I did not need oneness or Christadelphians or Unitarians to tell me that.

                    That is God’s word telling me! He didn’t need to lie. He just simply told me the truth of Jesus origin.

                    Praise be his name!

                    • Anon JC

                      I see a lot of speculation in your answers. Please re-evaluate and get back to me. You tend to take something and then grab another quote that doesn’t have anything to do with it because it uses the same word and then draw a conclusion. Like for example
                      When we said Jesus said “I cake down from heaven.” Then you will proceed to state that “well all good gifts from from heaven.” These two contexts have nothing to do with each other. You grab two different contexts and cannot divide the word of truth. Logos does. It mean plan. And no I was never a trinitarian.

                    • Anon JC

                      God word is not what youre using but speculation. Like the Logos means a plan of God. God word said that he was in heaven and became a man. But you keep drawing other passages that have nothing to do with each other. Here’s an example of what you do.

                      Christian; “Jesus prayed to the father. This shows that Jesus and the father are selerate beings”

                      Oneness response: “Jesus since he became a man under the Law had to pray to the father. This does not mean that Jesus was a separate man from the father.”

                      Christian: in Psalms 110:1 Jesus is sitting on the right hand of God. This shows that Jesus is not the same as the father.

                      Oneness response: The right hand means power of God. Not that he was really at God’s right hand.

                      And no you don’t get it from the word of God you get it from the response of Unitarians while claiming it’s the word of God. Much like the JWs do with the Watchtower. Claiming it’s the Bible alone when their beliefs come from the Watchtower.

                    • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                      Interested oh, wow, you last statement on only begotten, now I see where you are coming from and can buy into that for a minute. But Pre human existance isn’t negated is it because he was begotten from pregnancy? I have spoken out on the begotten part myself even recently but I never saw it like this. I reasoned that Jesus was born of God’s body like some animals that have both male and female progenation. I could never understand him being created as everything else, because all thru the Bible when it says some body beget somebody it was by birth not creation. So let me think since I finally see why you are saying this.
                      I do however believe Corintians and other scriptures cited already that he then worked along side his Father in heaven and created everything else including angels. As Greg brought out, we don’t argue a point into nothingness. But your last point was the thing I needed to see your point.
                      I like the Christadelphians they have some truth and they are kind people. I was going to start association with them before I located the association of Bible students. I like the Unitarians especially because they fought, suffered and won our right to not be burned at the stake if you didn’t believe in the trinity during the Papal rule. They did it by legal means and we have to be thankful to them.Of course God protectedand helped them accomplish that.
                      I accept and believe you are from the Jehovah witnesses and have a brain to think with the help of the holy spirit. I am going to mention what you said to a well read Bible brother and see If he heard this “begotton” explanation before. Bible students are like that we will listen to what you say and see if a little gem has come forward from the mouth of a seeker of truth. Thanks again

                    • Anon JC

                      He’s not going to see it. He’s made his mind up.

                  • Interested one

                    Anon,

                    I understand the logos to be what (comes out of ones mouth) as the expression of ones thoughts, whether they be from a human source or a heavenly source. Isa 55:11, Jn 14:24.

                    To me the logos is his power/spirit by which he accomplishes things, he speaks and things come in to being. That is based on the scriptures at Ps 33:6, 9, and Gen 1:2.

                    Not on what WT, Unitarians or what anyone else says.

                    I understand that it is God’s spirit / word that filled Jesus at his baptism to become one with his flesh. Deut 18:15-18, Isa 42:1, Isa 11:2. ** JOHN 1:14

                    Commissioning him / anointing him with the power and authority of his word. Acts 10:38

                    • Anon JC

                      Then Rev 19:13 is just an expression and not jesus right? He is called the Word of Hod here as well.

                • Anon CJ

                  1. “רֹאשׁ, first;
                  either in time or place, in any succession of things or of persons;”
                  This is why John 1:15 is translated “he existed before me” because the word means in time or place. Not that he was preeminent. This is proven because John the Baptist was never preeminent. So to state that he is even better than he is, is an error. He was a Nazerite. Never preeminent.

                  • Anon CJ

                    3. “John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify you me with thine own self with the glory which I had with you before the world was.”
                    Your typical Unitarian mindset will say “Well the plan was with God.” The plan didn’t have glory. Jesus did not say “Glorify me with the glory that your promised (or foreordained, or planned).” So if Jesus didn’t exist before he was born as a man then this scripture would make no sense.

                    4. John 16:28 “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”

                    5. Hebrews 1:1-2 “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by WHOM also he made the worlds”
                    Notice how it says that he spoke to us by a SON through whom he made the worlds? If Jesus was only a plan then the scripture would make no sense. It says it was through JESUS not a PLAN.

                    7. John 3:13
                    No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

                    8. Philippians 2:5-8
                    Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

                    NOTE: How you see he was in the form of GOD. Not in the mind or foreknowledge of God. You have to completely deny this scripture.

                    9. 1 Corinthians 15:47
                    The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

                    Note: ἐκ, ἐξ from out, out from among, from, suggesting from the interior outwards.
                    This shows he is from heaven.

                    Your biggest error is you believe that LOGOS means plan. Nowhere is this ever stated. It what you start with and then read into it what you believe. Its common with Psedo-Christians. Even after Jesus was sent back to heaven he was called the Logos.
                    Rev 19:13 “ And his name was the Word of God.” If Logos means plan then Jesus became a plan again.

                  • Interested one

                    Anon
                    Your quoting the Hebrew rosh = head

                    Which can mean first, the head of me, my master or leader.

                    “Mou” = possessive pronoun of the first person,

                    prṓtos = (“first, foremost”) is THE SUPERLATIVE FORM of 4253 /pró (“before”) meaning “what comes first” (is “number one”)

                    The superlative designates extremes: the best, the first, the worst, the last, etc. A. It is the word “most” or the ending “–est” that designates the superlative.

                    To take (first) to its superlative you add (est) to the end of the word first to get (firstest) OF me. lols

                    There is no such word (firstest)in English so he is the first OF me, possessive pronoun. Which gives us the sense he is my number one. He comes first in my estimations. He is my leader, my chief.
                    My head.

                    Look we can discuss this all day, but in the end it is simply ambiguous. It does not support a pre-existence.

                    • Anon JC

                      It’s called a type sweetie. Explain how Jesus can “ascend to where I was before” if he never existed there! That’s you catch 22. See I listen to the Bible. Not Anthony Buzzard you claim your believes come from the Bible but it’s clear that you get it from a Unitarian argument firstly. For example you say that the logos means the plan of God. No other Christian believes that but Unitarians which means you didn’t get it from the Bible you got it from them. I looked up the definition under Bible hub and it does not exist as the word plan. Jesus preexisted. You refuse to acknowledge it because you been blinded. But it’s ok. You’ll see the truth in the millennium. Jesus was even called the Word of God even after he ascended into heaven. This alone shows that the word isn’t simply anplan as your false religion teaches.

                  • Interested one

                    Anon, Sweetie,

                    I did show you! But your too puff up with your own belief to understand!

                    My understanding comes from the Bible,And I have shown that. I have not quoted any of Anthony Buzzards thoughts.

                    I take my understand of what the logos is from BEFORE the Christian era, like Isa 55:11, Ps 33:6, 9, 11. to name a few, and yes the whole of Ps 119, that seems to be all about the word!

                    Deut 18:15-18 is also good, telling us about the word. (Since this is what God said he would PUT in him) Lols.

                    These are the things John’s gospel is about!

                    • Anon JC

                      Not at all puffed up. I’ve studied this belief years ago. And it made no sense. I looked at all the Unitarian Sites and listens to all the debates. Unitarians all came away refuted. They have to dance with the scriptures to make it fit. I challenge to to study the Oneness view of modalism. They can do what you do and twist scriptures to make it for their girwbrhat Jesus and the father are one in the same BEING. That the father left h even and came to earth as the sin. You can show them at Jesus baptism that the father spoke from heaven. They will have a biblical refutation for that greek and all. That’s why I don’t post what I know about Greek and Hebrew because it can be used to make an argument look sound when it’s not.

                      I think you’ve just done what most ExJws do. They latch on to a new idea that seems legit because they don’t believe in the WT.

                      Question. Do you believe that we go to heaven when we die or do we live in the earth forever? Do you believe the 144,000 will live in the earth

                  • Interested one

                    Anon,

                    At Rev 19:13 Jesus is given a number of figurative titles, He is called Faithful and True, he is called my a name he knows himself, and he is called The Word of the God. He is also given these titles King of kings and Lord of lords.

                    It is NOT A PERSONAL NAME. It’s a figurative name, Just as he is the light, The lamb of God. The rock, These are symbols that represent something that Jesus fulfils. Some titles, others, have as well, Like Jehovah is the light, the disciples were to be a light.

                    It is not a name or a definition that you can apply to every where the word is mentioned.

                    The word (word) is mentioned at least 800 times in the OT and over 300 times in the NT and (once) it is used as a figurative title. Are you going to apply your definition to all of them????

                    The commandment are also called THE WORD! Ps 119

                    It simply means because of his high exalted position AFTER his resurrection all authority has been bestowed up on him to carry out God’s will, He has been invested with the power and spirit of God’s word. Hence what he says is what God commands. Jesus in the position of God having the authority of God..

                    I have explained to you, I get my understanding of the word as it was used before the Christian era. As that is the time period John was referring to.

                    ** Ps 33:6 By THE WORD OF JEHOVAH the heavens were made, And by THE SPIRIT OF HIS MOUTH everything in them…..

                    ** Ps 33:9 For HE SPOKE, and it came to be; HE COMMANDED, and IT STOOD FIRM

                    ** Gen1:2-3 and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3
                    Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

                    As I have said in previous posts THESE SCRIPTURES PARALLEL John 1:1-3, The word is the spirit and power of God.

                    It was THE SPIRIT OF GOD’S WORD that filled Jesus at his baptism to give him the authority / power of God. So that he would represent GOD. Jn 1:14 the word /spirit becoming flesh or one with Jesus. One in purpose with God (Jn 1:23, Isa 40:3)

                    Check out Deut 18:15-18, and Isa 42:1 where it is promised that God would raise up a servant a man like Moses in whom, God said he would PUT HIS WORD, and HIS SPIRIT.

                    Check out Acts 10:38.

                    • Anon JC

                      Elohim isn’t a personal name
                      Adonai isn’t a personal name
                      Elm shaddai isn’t a personal name
                      Doesn’t make God any less than God.

                      Being called the Word of God in Rev 19:13 you can’t seem to answer it. So you’ll just call it figurative. We know it’s not a name. But is the Word in John means plan and
                      Not a person then we have to be consistent that it’s the same in Rev 19:13. Or if we can call Jesus the Word in Rev 19:13 then we can call a Spirit the Word being as well.

                      You’re doing it again. Psalms 119 saying the Word as a command doesn’t make The Word as in the Logos the same as that in Psalms 119. False equivalent. Jesus is called the Word in Rev19:13

                      Psalms 33:6
                      Psalms 33:9

                      Neither one of these is being used to call anything as it does Jesus. Jesus is called the Word even after his resurrection.

                      I agree that Genesis 1 and John 1 are Parallel. That’s why God said “Let US Create”. Because all things were created by God through Jesus. Exactly. Angels are never attributed to creation but Jesus is. The “US” was the Logos.

                      “Raise up a Servant”. This is pertaining to a phase of Jesus existence. For example Jesus is a King now but not while he was on earth yet. Jesus wasn’t in the divine nature on earth but after his humanity. It’s all in stages.

                      Php 2:7
                      How can an impersonal plan:
                      -humble himself
                      – Exist in the Form of God
                      – Take on the form of a slave
                      – Empty himself.

                      There are all actions of a person. Not a thought or plan.

                      Cheers.

                • Anon JC

                  More Unitarian Talking Points. Just Because word “transferred isn’t there doesn’t mean that the concept isn’t there.

                  1. You’re assumption is you think because it sounds reductions that Jesus could preexist you then built on that. You assume that “Logos = Plan”. More of Anyhiny Buzzard Talking Points.

                  2. If Jesus having been in heaven before coming to earth the his disciples hewing his day that he will ascend to where he was before would confuse them. Saying that he humbled himself and took on the form of a man would sound reductions if it was just a plan in God mind because a plan cannot HUMBLE HIMSELF.

                  3. Just for kicks I went to a Unitarian website. Saw all your refutions from there by the way. Which means the Bible isn’t your source but websites. Every times I talk to a Unitarian the arguments are the same. And I noticed that when they tried to refute Phillipians 2:7 it started with something like this “Many try to use a php 2:7 as a text to prove the pre-existence of Christ..” the goes on to refute the trinity. I went the Biblical Unitarian site and I looked that their refutation for Php 2:7. They had the most concoluted answers and never once did they refute it. Anthony Buzzard stumbled on it too.

                  3. Never once did anyone begotten on God’s spirit day anything like “I cake down from heaven” or “I took on the form of a man”. These make no sense. We were foreordained in the mind of God as a Bride class but never one are we said have been with God from the beginning.

                  4. Your other assumption is that we said Jesus as a MAN preexisted. We said he was a spirit. Not a man. But even so even after Jesus was back in heaven he was called the Man Christ Jesus and he is no longer a man but a spirit. He is also slacked the Word of God in Rev 19:13. Is he a plan again?

                  • Interested one

                    Anon
                    Your beginning to sound like a troll, not willing to help or reason but spruik your own little dittys. It seems you have a big issue with unitarians and Anthony Buzzard.

                    Your not even understanding what I have said, your mixed up in issues confusing me as a unitarian. Some things may sound familiar, but I am one of Jehovah’s witnesses who are unitarians, but believe in a pre-existing Jesus. I don’t and I have told you the reason.

                    And instead of looking and understand why I believe, that way, you keep poking other peoples beliefs at me as if that is suppose to convince me your right!

                    And you keep reverting back to issues that have been covered. And you have not even tried to address the issue. But present snide remarks that I am suppose to take as proof that your right!

                    You don’t understand what I have been saying about Jesus being a man and being thousands of years of age to be before Abraham. You have no idea!

                    And you don’t know how I understand Jn 1:1-3. Your more interested in what Anthony Buzard thinks!

    • Anon CJ

      Here is a quote from the Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures: Volume 15 pg 10-11

      “Having seen that the starting point of the carnation was
      not from the Divine nature, we are now ready to answer
      from what it was: It was from that of a spirit being of a
      nature below the Divine, but above that of angels. In other
      words, the Being that became carnate was one lower than
      God, but higher than angels. It was the Logos (the Word),
      Michael, the Archangel, who became carnate. That the
      prehuman Christ was Michael, we infer from the fact that it
      is Jesus who, preparatory to His Millennial reign, takes His
      Millennial power and brings the time of trouble upon the
      nations (2 Thes. 1:7, 8; 1 Thes. 4:16; Rev. 11:15-18; 19:11-
      21), which Daniel said Michael would do (Dan. 12:1,
      compared with Matt. 24:21). Michael is called the
      Archangel, i.e., the chief Messenger (Jude 9), which our
      Lord is; for there can be but one chief messenger of God,
      i.e., Jesus (Mal. 3:1; Ps. 34:7). Hence the word archangel
      never occurs Biblically in the plural, archangels. If there
      were more than one archangel, Jude, in speaking of
      Michael, would have called Him an archangel, whereas,
      since there is but one, he called Him the Archangel. That
      Jesus is meant by the Archangel of 1 Thes. 4:16 is evident
      from thefact that it is His voice that, in the Second Advent, shakes
      the heavens and earth and makes them disappear, and
      awakens the dead (Heb. 12:26; John 5:29). It is before His
      face in His Second Advent that the heavens and earth flee
      away (Rev. 20:11). It is in His day, the Second Advent
      period, that they will be dissolved (2 Pet. 3:7, 10, 12). Thus
      the identity of Michael and Jesus is established. And the
      identity of the Logos and Jesus is evident from John 1:1-3,
      14; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:6-8; Heb. 2:14, 16; Gal. 4:4. Hence
      our Lord had a prehuman existence which He left when He
      became carnate—when He became flesh. This we proved
      in detail in EB, 37-80. Accordingly, we answer positively
      our question, From what was the carnation? as above we
      answered it negatively, by saying, His carnation was from
      His Logos nature, His Michael nature, that of a Spirit Being
      lower than the Divine nature, but higher than that of created
      spirit beings other than Himself, i.e., of angels.”

      • Interested one

        Hi Anon, and thanks for your reply, I found your post hard to read as I have difficulty with my sight. It was rather cramped with detail.

        So I have broken it up into segments and hopefully I will be able to discuss each point you made.

        Your 1st point
        “Having seen that the starting point of the carnation was
        not from the Divine nature, we are now ready to answer
        from what it was: It was from that of a spirit being of a
        nature below the Divine, but above that of angels. In other
        words, the Being that became carnate was one lower than
        God, but higher than angels.”

        Here you make the claim, it was a “spirit being”. And it was a “spirit being” that was incarnated.

        To be precise this is in effect a reincarnation a changing from one being to another being of a lower rank.

        Matthew 1:18, 20 on the other hand says God is the progenitor of Jesus and it is out of his holy spirit. And NOT out of another being. Just as God was the father of Adam, God is the father of Jesus. Adam was created, Jesus was begotten procreated. Adam sinned, Jesus remained sinless.

        Your 2nd point

        “ It was the Logos (the Word),
        Michael, the Archangel, who became carnate.”

        To me this is conjecture, I have not seen any reference that Michael is the logos or Jesus.

        It is assumed by your inference that because Michael is seem to be doing a similar deeds to that of Jesus than they must be same. By using your reasoning, it can be inferred That God and Jesus are the same because both are coming and are doing similar things.

        That pretty well sums up the rest of what you said as well.

        Your 3rd point.
        “And the identity of the Logos and Jesus is evident from John 1:1-3,
        14; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:6-8; Heb. 2:14, 16; Gal. 4:4. Hence
        our Lord had a prehuman existence which He left when He
        became carnate—when He became flesh”

        To me these are also assumptions, it is assumed the logos (word) is a person. When in reality the word is God’s power and spirit that comes out of his mouth to accomplish his work. Ps 33:6, 9, 11 Gen 1:2. Isa 55:11.

        Johns gospel is written that we may believe Jesus is THE Christ = the anointed one. John 20:34.

        So John 1:1-34 is identifying Jesus as the anointed one, the one upon whom the spirit / word of God rested giving him the power of authority to be the prophet foretold in Deut 8:15-18 and in whom God said he would PUT his word. And Isa 42 :1 in whom God said he would PUT his spirit.

        John Chapter one is the anointing of Jesus as the promised messiah king, priest and prophet spiritual begetting to be God’s spiritual son. Acts 10:38

        • Lee Anthony (Brandon)

          (Phillipians 2:5-8) Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, yes, the death of the cross.
          Also See Gal 4:4 and Rom. 8:3) both say God SENT forth his son.

          • Interested one

            Hi Lee, and thanks for your reply!

            A couple of points you have raised that seem to support a pre-existence. However,on close scrutiny of the scriptures it is rather the opposite. Let me explain.

            First of all the context. It is not talking about any “angel”, or “spirit being”. So a pre-existing Jesus is an assumption or a preconceived meaning that you have been taught.

            The context is about “a man” who was named Jesus 8 days after his birth, and 30 years later was spiritually begotten to be the spiritual son of God. So this man became known as Jesus the Christ = the anointed one. It was the time of his baptism that he was sent into the world to save it. He was a perfect man in the form / image of God, like the first man before he sinned.

            And it is what Jesus did and was observed by the disciples during his ministry that Paul is referring to. This perfect sinless man in the form of God is our exemplar, the one we should follow in deed.

            So we should have the mind of Christ not to think too highly of oneself. Who being in the form of God and unlike the first Adam did not grasp at being like God (Gen 3:5) But emptied HIMSELF that is of his self will to be filled with the spirit of God at his baptism to do God’s will. And rather than be served as king (his future roll) chose to take on the character of a slave. And came to be like ordinary men (sinners). Luke 22:24-27

            He presented his body as a living sacrifice and when he was fashioned as an ordinary man also felt the pain and anguish experienced by sinners, by pouring his life out to death = the penalty for sin. Though Jesus did not sin. He was treated as such so that he would become a merciful high priest.

            God did indeed send his son. But it was not until “he was raised” and educated under the law. Deut 18:15-19, Acts 3:22-26, Luke 4:16-22, Heb. 10:5-9, Acts 10:38

            God also sent John the baptist to prepare the way for God Isa 40:3 as represented by the spirit of God in Jesus one in purpose with his heavenly father.

            Peace be with you!

            • Lee Anthony (Brandon)

              To you who is the Christ?

              • Interested one

                Lee, just on it own The Christ can be any thing anointed. Meaning anything set aside for a holy purpose.

                I believe the Man Jesus at 30 years of age was officially designed to be God’s son set aside to be the spiritual leader of Israel and the whole world. It was after that he was officially known as the Christ. Jn 1:41-51

                • Lee Anthony (Brandon)

                  1 cor. Chapter 10 speaks in context of Jesus. Specifically vs 4 speaks of the Christ… So the Rock is annointed?

                  • Interested one

                    Hi Lee Anthony,

                    I’m not quite sure what your point is! But many things were set aside as being anointed for example the following.

                    ** Ex 40:9-11
                    “You shall anoint THE LAVER AND ITS STAND, and consecrate it.

                    ** Number 7:1
                    Now on the day that Moses had finished setting up the tabernacle, he anointed it and consecrated it with all its furnishings and THE ALTAR AND ALL ITS UTENSILS; he anointed them and consecrated them also.

                    ** Gen 28:18
                    So Jacob rose early in the morning, and took THE STONE that he had put under his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on its top

                    ** Gen 31:13
                    I am the God of Bethel, where YOU ANOINTED A PILLAR, where you made a vow to Me; now arise, leave this land, and return to the land of your birth.'”

                    ** Isa 45:1
                    Thus says the LORD to HIS ANOINTED, TO CYRUS, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed.

                    So, Yes it would seem that “the rock” was anointed set aside for a specific purpose at that time to supply water and substance. It was a “physical rock” out of which flowed water and followed them as they journeyed through the wilderness. And to me it prefigured Jesus out of whom we would gain spiritual waters of truth and upon whom the Church / Congregation would be built.

                    The real rock is Jehovah.

                    ** Deut 32:4 The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice.
                    A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.

                    • Anon JC

                      Again you err. Your biblical interpretation isn’t correct. When Lee used the rock that followed them was christ you proceed to jump to other scriptures where the litersl rock doesn’t mean the same thing. 1 Cor 10:4 isn’t talking about anointing a pillar. It’s talking about the rock that followed them.

                  • Anon JC

                    Lee. He’s blind. We all see his errors but he can’t. I would just leave him alone in his blindness and move on. His eyes will be opened in the millennium.

                    • Interested one

                      Greeting Anon!

                      This is your quote!
                      “Incorrect again brother. The scripture said “the rock that followed them”. The rock your speaking of did not follow them. Keep up. The rock is a type of
                      Christ. You keep trying to hard to refute us and you’re not doing a good job.
                      John 1:15. “For he existed before me”
                      Extremely simple. You’re blinded brother. …End of Quote.

                      You claim the rock is a type of Christ.
                      I said the rock Prefigured the Christ. The principle is the same.

                      The only rock to follow after the Israelites was Jesus many 100 of years later (1Cor10:4)as I pointed out he was prefigured by the rock (Ex.Nu)

                      As I said it is a physical rock (It was not a literal person) as all those scriptures I quoted attest too!

                      The only other rock (figurativly) I know of is Jehovah Deut 32:4 If you know of another than please explain?

                      Now on Jn 1:15.
                      Again we have an issue with translation, most translators know it means superior, but chose to give it order of time rather than order of placement or dignity. And it can be translated as this

                      Jn 1:15 REV Bible
                      John testified about him, and cried out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was my superior

                      The Emphatic Diaglott put out by the wts also renders it similarly.

                      This is the Greek break up.

                      The word “emprosthen”, which means “to be before, ahead of, or higher in position or rank than someone.” “To become” of a higher rank than someone is to “advance in front of someone” or to surpass him, thus, “has surpassed me

                      ēn (ἦν) = verb the imperfect tense, active voice of eimi, (εἰμί) the common word for “to be”

                      And, he was and CONTINUES TO BE

                      The Greek word protos, which means “first.” It can refer to being “first” in time, and thus be translated “before,” OR IT CAN MEAN FIRST IN RANK, and BE TRANSLATED “CHIEF,” “LEADER,” “GREATEST,” “BEST,

                      protos … is THE SUPERLATIVE of πρό (G4253) πρό pró, pro; a primary preposition; “fore”, i.e. in front of, prior (FIGURATIVELY, SUPERIOR) to:—above, ago, before, or eve.

                      The word emprosthen is recognised by most as meaning Jesus ministry is to surpass that of Johns’ and the reason is because of (protos) he was my leader or my superior. The first of me.

                      To me, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, gets the right sense and translates it this way.

                      ** Jn 1:15 Yohannan bore witness of him and cried, saying, “This was he of whom I spoke: ‘He that comes after me is preferred in honor before me, for he HAD PRIORITY OVER ME.’

                      Anon, translators translate most times to their bias, If you believe in a trinity, or if you believe in a pre-existences, your translation is going to reflect your beliefs. It does not make them correct. As this portion of scripture can be translated as I have quoted, differently!

                      I believe this is the correct way of translating, considering the value of a superlative which is like saying you are number 1, in my books, or you are the best! You come first before me (regardless of time or age).

                      The best you can say , it is ambiguous and therefore not proof of a pre-existence.

                • Lee Anthony (Brandon)

                  The CHRIST is more than any annointed individual in NT… It speaks of THE Christ…

                  • Interested one

                    Well, yes! He is the one the scriptures pointed to who would be King and High priest. The leader and commander.

                    ** Jn 1:41-51 He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have FOUND THE MESSIAH” (which MEANS CHRIST). …. Philip found Nathaniel and said to him, “We have found him of whom MOSES IN THE LAW AND ALSO THE PROPHETS WROTE, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” ……” 49 Nathaniel answered him, “Rabbi, you are THE SON OF GOD! You are THE KING OF ISRAEL!” ……51 And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on THE SON OF MAN.

                    I don’t know what else I can say! He is the anointed one whom John the baptist recognised as the son of God when the spirit came down and filled him with the holy spirit.

                  • Interested one

                    Hi Lee Anthony,

                    It seems as though I cannot reply directly to your last comments page 7 #373170

                    Maybe it’s a way of saying the discussion has come to an end, which is fine I happy with that.

                    However, I just wanted to say, I have the same sentiments as yourself, We are at all levels of spirituality, and the translators have put that much bias into the scriptures, it makes it hard to establish what is true and right.

                    I also can see how others believe and why they do. I spread my time going to other meetings beside the WTS and they welcome me, I explain how I believe, and sure we disagree on some things but we always agree to disagree. And they always welcome me back. As a whole they are NOT wicked people as the WTS would have you believe. I also go to an occasional WT meeting, they also welcome me and they are not wicked people as others would have you believe.

                    I tell them I’m a sceptical believer, and share the same thing with them. Have not been disfellowshiped. One brother suggested I remember the things I had learnt as “youth” quoting 2Tim 3:14-15, Well, I said to the brother, you know that does not apply to me, otherwise I would have to continue being a Trinitarians. Lols.

                    Anyway, thanks for taking the time to share some scriptures together, we may be a little wiser I don’t know. We can only hope for better things.

                    Brotherly love.

                  • Interested one

                    Lee Anthony, I have put these reference to-gether and should be considered in relation as to what the rock was in Exodus and numbers.

                    Ex 17:5-7
                    And the Lord said to Moses, “Pass on before the people, taking with you some of the elders of Israel, and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. 6 Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel. 7 And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the quarreling of the people of Israel, and because they tested the Lord by saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?”

                    ** We have Jehovah standing on the rock (Actually, Jesus in his pre-human state we are lead to believe) And than they are told to strike Jesus, and Jesus splits in two and out comes water.

                    Nu 20:10-11
                    And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said unto them: ‘Hear now, ye rebels; are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?’ And Moses lifted up his hand, and smote the rock with his rod twice; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle.

                    Exodus 17:6
                    “Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink.” And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

                    Deuteronomy 8:15
                    “He led you through the great and terrible wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water; He brought WATER FOR YOU OUT OF THE ROCK OF FLINT.

                    Psalm 78:15
                    He split THE ROCKS in the wilderness And gave them abundant drink LIKE THE OCEAN DEPTHS.

                    ** Now not only did they split one rock there are a number of rocks split????? A number of Jesus???

                    Psalm 78:16
                    He brought FORTH STREAMS ALSO FROM THE ROCK And caused WATERS TO RUN DOWN LIKE RIVERS.

                    Psalm 78:20
                    “Behold, He struck the rock so that waters gushed out, And STREAMS WERE OVERFLOWING; Can He give bread also? Will He provide meat for His people?”

                    Psalm 105:41
                    He opened the rock and water flowed out; IT RAN IN THE DRY PLACES LIKE A RIVER.

                    ** He opened Jesus and out flowed water like a river.

                    Psalm 114:8
                    Who TURNED THE ROCK INTO A POOL OF WATER, The FLINT INTO A FOUNTAIN OF WATER.

                    Turned Jesus into a pool of water????
                    I think you need to do some serious study if you believe that a “literal rock” was Jesus.

                    All you have is A SIMILARITY. The Israelites got water and food in a miraculous spiritual way. God provided their food / water by a miracle.

                    And now the Christians have all they need spiritually as prefigured by the rock from which water flowed. Through The Christ = the Messiah.

                    And by the way, 1Cor 10:4 does not use the definite article. (*The* Christ) (some just say was Christ) which is open to debate and interpretation.

                    I still stand by what I said, the rock prefigured Jesus the one through whom waters of truth will flow and upon whom the congregation is built. Him being the chief cornerstone.

                    1Cor 10:4 is not teaching a pre-existing Jesus. He did not come into existence until he was born to his mother and named 8 days later in the first century.

                    • Anon JC

                      Incorrect again brother. The scripture said “the rock that followed them”. The rock your speaking of did not follow them. Keep up. The rock is a type of
                      Christ. You keep trying to hard to refute us and you’re not doing a good job.

                      John 1:15. “For he existed before me”

                      Extremely simple. You’re blinded brother.

                    • Anon CJ

                      Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

                      Unless God waited to create evrything until Jesus was born this clearly shows that the being that was Jesus was the instrument of Creation. !!!

            • just stay sweet and good

              Interested one….I find this position of yours very enlightening since I never really understood the Unitarian position of the origin of Jesus Christ. Brother Russell identified a very important key to the scriptures, and the understanding of them, which I have accepted as my litness test for identifying Godly truths. He deduced from his
              Quaker influences that “LOVE IS THE KEY”. From there I deduced that any theological teaching/doctrine would be evaluated, by me, on the basis of: “HOW DOES IT EFFECT HUMAN BEHAIVOR?” Would you be so kind as to comment on the importance of accepting this idea (no prehuman existance of Jesus) in relation to its effect on human behavior?

              • Interested one

                Hi! stay sweet and good!
                Yes love is all important, and regardless of how we feel we should always be ready to love others. Our Heavenly father and his son were prime examples so we are to believe.

                I would say it is sadly lacking in today’s environment though there is still plenty there.

                Agape.

                • just Stay Sweet and Good

                  Interested One: But still I insist, how does accepting this idea that Jesus Christ had no prehuman existence effect a persons theology and by extension his behavior?

                  • Anon CJ

                    This is what I said earlier. It doesn’t matter becasue he is risen today.

                  • Interested one

                    Hi just Stay Sweet and Good.

                    Because it takes the contradictory statements out of the equation, It honours the God of truth. And it makes one more appreciative of what Jesus did.

                    Let me explain a little more.

                    I have been a Trinitarians and WTS follower, I have not been d/f and I no longer belong to any organisation I am simply one of Jehovah’s witnesses who is of the belief, if two or three are gathered together in Jesus name he is there.

                    We are all brothers with different levels of spiritual understanding.

                    Through my studies I came to see things, that didn’t make sense, and were completely contrary to Jehovah the God of truth. And the doctrine of pre-existences was just one of those things.

                    I could no longer justify, the pretence that Jesus was an archangel, there was no direct link to say he was, just assumptions and conjecture, and these were the same things Trinitarians use to believe the trinity, and I could see that what I was believing was no better than that.

                    We’d point out that Trinitarians were false. To me that was hypocritical. It was OK for us to use assumption and conjecture to prove Jesus is an archangel but wrong for the Trinitarians to do that. We were using the similar logic to prove Jesus was an archangel. That lead me to check out for myself the truth from the scriptures.

                    So what better place to start than at Matthew 1:1-20. Here I discovered, something that had not been taught before (or so I thought at the time) and that is the beginning of Jesus. The word genesis = the beginning.

                    So here, God is telling me that this is the beginning of Jesus. I used the Kingdom Interlinear to follow the Greek text and to my amazement found that the Greek gives us the truth of Jesus origin.

                    The Greek word (ek) is a preposition indicating the source of origin meaning (out of) And not (dia) meaning (through) which would have to be used, if Jesus was a pre-existing being.

                    It would have had to be “through” Mary and not OUT OF Mary, if Jesus was a pre-existing person. Mary was the source and NOT OUT OF MICHAEL (The source expounded by the WTS.)

                    Than reading further I saw the second source (out of) God’s holy spirit. God himself was the progenitor of Jesus life, not an angel. The source of Jesus life came OUT of God himself. Not out of an archangel.

                    So this principle of truth is in harmony with God’s original purpose of begetting. Only this was a miraculous conception, without intercourse, God activating Mary’s seed cell with life out of his spirit.

                    This recording of Jesus origin is enough in itself to show he was not an pre-existing angel.

                    Jesus had a heavenly father and an earthly mother.

                    From there it became plainer and plainer.

                    So should I hold on to something I NOW knew is wrong and untrue?

                    Or should I accept what my heavenly Father has shown me from his word, that is right and true?

                    If the above was correct than I had no option but to accept the direction of holy spirit. Jesus had TWO SOURCE of origin a mother and a father. And therefore could not have pre-existed.

                    No one pre-exists themselves. No one pre-exist their Mother or their Father or their forefather. To believe these ridiculous ideas is to discredit the God of truth.

                    I can not in good faith hold to those ideas! I can not justify such silly things.

                    So to keep it short, it has given me a greater insight into the God of truth, and an greater appreciation of his love.

                    • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                      Interested one I thought, I could feel even that you had a Jehovah witness background. I wanted to be patience with you and see if we could audibly speak at a testimony meeting because your sincerity came through. And I applaud you for defending your thoughts but could see something was like all of us on here.
                      When leaving a situation of deceit and abuse we first start denying things that that situation believes. Them we started denying some clear cut things in the Bible. Hey, some of us even got angry with God for the mesd we were in. Didn’t know we were being setup so God could show up in our lives. We were being trained on a journey. What a roller coaster of emotions.
                      THEN YOU EXHALE! Drop to your knees and cry for God’s mercy and help. You are following the grief structure of death! It doesn’t matter whether a person or religion the grief process is the same.
                      Could we talk to you audibly on one of the testimony meetings?
                      It’s as if a small voice immediately sent up my antenna when I saw your moniker name.
                      You see interested one if you and I have the same adversary, that makes us friends.
                      Thanks for telling us what your awakened brain is seeing, you are coming out of a fog.
                      How long were you a witness?
                      Also let’s switch gears if it is okay with you.
                      What are your thoughts on Armageddon hellfire as taught by the witnesses?
                      Look to the left and find the Bible students understanding and tell us what you think please. Take Care and keep exercising your brain and speaking. Thank you for commenting and telling us a bit about yourself. Peace

                    • greg (Bible Student)

                      Interested one

                      You wrote:
                      “So to keep it short, it has given me a greater insight into the God of truth, and an greater appreciation of his love.”

                      Reading this makes my heart sing. I’m pretty sure that appreciating the depth of God’s love and the magnitude of his provisions toward us all, and acknowledging that all truth originates with God is something we all have in common.

                      I’d like to think that I can see your truth, and I’m pretty sure I can see my own truth, and so I can also see areas where our truths overlap. God’s truth is, of course, what all of us are attempting to get clear and accurate hold on. I respect the beliefs of others to be “sacred ground” and I dare not uproot their sacred garden, nor even trespass, especially without invitation or permission.

                      Therefore, I hereby make it known that I DO NOT wish to spark off a whole new argument by what I’m about to say. So I sincerely beg that you consider YOUR REASONS for reading further before you continue. Moreover, what I say from here onward is directed only to those that are sincerely interested in solidifying and edifying their truths as they try to perceive God’s truth. If anyone is NOT interested, I would encourage them to stop reading and look for something else that they are interested in.

                      (…Moment of reflection and CHOICE inserted here…)

                      Speaking for no one else but myself, what warms my heart most, what gives me a greater appreciation of God’s love is the belief that God was willing to give up something that was most precious to him: namely His very first creation, His companion, His friend and His son.

                      For me, attempting to believe that God simply created another human to whom he had little other attachment really doesn’t inspire within me greater appreciation for his love.

                      Let me put it somewhat differently: If you’ve ever seen persons loading a moving truck, I think we’d agree that someone might be moving away. If the people moving away are close friends, we’re going to experience a greater sense of loss than if the people are just some family down the street. Being made in God’s image, I believe we are capable of forming deep, meaningful attachments to others because our lives overlap and because we share experiences, values, and dreams. I therefore suggest that God’s loss was more profound than that of simply some guy whom he chose to be a prophet. To me, that consideration deepens my love and appreciation for God and His plan.

                      That said, I can agree with the view expressed by Interested one only so far as saying that “the man who came to be known by the name Jesus did not exist prior to his being conceived in Mary’s womb.” The name “Jesus” was the name given to the baby born, and that, in my mind is not much different than saying that “President Trump” did not exist before he was inaugurated. But to suggest that the MAN “Donald Trump” who BECAME president didn’t exist prior to his inauguration is sheer absurdity. For the same reasons, I express my convictions that even though Jesus the man did not exist before he was born, the person who became Jesus did exist prior to his inauguration into humanity, and to me, the scriptures DO CLEARLY indicate that as the proper understanding.

                      Because many others have already so eloquently provided many scriptural evidences and considerations on the subject, I do not repeat them here. Additionally, I expect I will have little else to say on the subject.

                      Warmly and compassionately,
                      -greg

                    • Interested one

                      FOR ” Greg ”

                      Christian Greeting to Greg!

                      Let me say from the outset, I appreciate your sincere interest in me! And your well expressed sentiments, of love and appreciation for Jesus and Jehovah.

                      I do not wish to repeat things so I assume by your comments you have understood my reasons for belief. And that your are still of your opinion and as you says, you may not comment any further and I have no problem with that.

                      It is amazing how you can see absurdities in your own analogy that does not even parallel Jesus being born to Jehovah and Mary.

                      Yet you cannot see the absurdities, that come from Jesus being an archangel!

                      There is no evidence just assumptions and conjecture that Jesus was an archangel. Jesus is a MAN with his own mind and heart and he served God with his whole soul and mind. If he was of a higher source than that of Adam he would not be a corresponding ransom.

                      But I am not here to change your understanding but to show there are alternatives and I take a different view to you.

                      To me it is an absurdity That a MAN can pre-exist himself, that a MAN can pre-exist his mother, That a MAN can pre-exist his forefathers, David and Abraham.

                      I find it an absurdity, when the Bible tells me he is a Man of 30-33 years of age and when he is talking to other grown men, that he is (assumed an angel) really thousands of years of age to have had a glory before the world was or to have been before Abraham. These are self contradictory statements.

                      I find in incredible that your human reasoning (assumes) when Jesus speaks in the way he does, you (assume )he is an angel, when there is no evidence in the text to say he is.

                      You have Jesus words that suggest that! But you RULE OUT THE FACT that Jesus could have been speaking spiritually or figuratively, explaining things he was to fulfil about himself . From what the scriptures had foretold.

                      If Jesus was an angel, God would have told us at Matt 1:20 Where his origin is said to be coming out of two source out of his mother Mary, and out of his fathers spirit. You don’t exist until that takes place. So the pre-existence of Jesus as an actual person before you are born is just utterly ridiculous to say the least. It distorts Jehovah’s word of truth! Ps 36:9

                      So thanks for comments, and input, I’m sorry, that I disagree with some of what you said. However, I will keep them in mind

                    • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                      Interested one just in case Greg does not comment back to you. I would like to bring to your attention something you repeat that hasnt been said: “That Jesus existed as a man” before Abraham his mother and other grown men.
                      I have never heard thst from any Jehovah witnesses and Greg does not say it nor do I think any Christian believes that. Just something I notice in your comments. I believe the Bible that he had a prehuman existence in heaven as the Holy one of God as a SPIRIT CREATURE.That he is the firstBORN OF ALL CREATION. BEING FIRSTBORN IN HEAVEN THEN TRANSFERRED INTO THE WOMB OF MARY. Or however Jehovah did it. We mere lowly humans do it every day now so all humans know you can put an egg with sperm freeze it, take it out and put it in a different woman to birth it years later. You can transfer embryos.
                      God my friend is much, much more. You seem to be in turmoil and perhaps angry at Jesus, so your seek to devalue him.
                      Most coming out of an abusive religion get angry at God. You say however that some things mention in scripture is absurd so maybe that is a slight toward God. Some go into atheism in fact they alledge that out of 100 atheist 70 are witnesses or have been with them. Hopefully you will keep looking to his holy spirit to guide you on your journey. Now tell me what parts I got wrong.😁

        • Anon JC

          Thanks for your reply. Let me list the errors of your thinking.

          Firstly, Jesus was not an INcarnated being he was a CARNATED being. Huge difference. Let me explain the difference to you and incarnated being is basically saying that Jesus was a God – man or a spirit – man or spirit in a body. A Carnated being is one that became man and cast off their formal nature. This in Harmony with Philippians 2:7

          “7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”

          Notice it says “HE took the form”. Not “IT” or “the plan”.

          Your errors also starts with the presupposition that Jesus didn’t preexist and then try to fit all the scriptures such as “came down from heaven.” Into this. I would say your errors lie with the “Biblical” Unitarians.

          Also you stated that we assume the Logos was a being. Jesus was even called the Logos after he was in heaven in revelation 19:13.

          • Interested one

            Hi Anon, nice to hear from you again. I see there may be a slight difference to the meaning of the terms, carnated and incarnated. And I present the two short definitions for your perusal.

            ** Carnate: embodied in flesh; given a bodily, especially a human, form: a devil incarnate. 2. personified or typified, as a quality or idea: chivalry incarnate

            ** Incarnate: (especially of a deity or spirit) embodied in human form.

            On Phil 2:7.
            My understanding of Phil 2 is that it is about a MAN who is called Jesus the Christ, Named Jesus 8 days after birth, and Anointed = the Christ 30 years later. I don’t see Michael, archangel or a spirit being mentioned anywhere in the context. So I would have to assume it is a preconceived idea you have in your mind that it is.

            It has to do with the observable events during Jesus ministry that gives us an example to follow.

            He made himself of no reputation, I see this as a fine example for us to follow.

            He was a carpenter and probably a good one, and being in perfect form could have used that to great advantage to make a name for himself as a great builder.

            But he didn’t he TOOK ON (not changing natures) the character of a slave.

            Instead of being served as the anointed king, he chose to serve others, and become like ordinary men and women, humbling himself, to be treated like a sinner so that he could experience the pain and anguish humans sinners go through. Even to the point of experience the death as a sinner even though he did not sin.

            This was so that he’d be a merciful high priest. He became like his brothers without actually sinning but experiencing the effects that come from sinning.

            Rev 19:13 does call Jesus the word of the God. He was given many figurative titles in the same context. Faithful and True, and royal titles as King of kings and Lord of lords. These are titles given to Jesus after his resurrection and for proving true to the word of God.

            As Rev 19:10 says that the witnessing to Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

            Because he has been exalted he has been given the power/authority to carry out all of God’s word and will. Therefore what he says is as if God said it.

            It is not a personal name, but figurative names like other figurative names , he is the light, he is the water, he is the bread, he is the lamb, these are not personal names, and sometimes figurative names can refer to others, such as God is the light, the disciples are the light, the disciples are living stones as Jesus is the cornerstone.

            If we were to start applying figurative or royal titles as explicit to identification. Than you would have all sorts of problems. Jesus would be Nebuchadnezzar because he is king of kings (Daniel). Jesus would be Jehovah because they are both light, and both bear the title of saviour. I’ve only mentioned a few to make the point.

            A better parallel to John 1:1-3 is Ps 33:6, 9, 11. Compared with Gen 1:2 where the setting are similar. The word is the power of God’s spirit he speaks and things come into being.

            And this is the most likely place John was drawing on to tell us about Jesus being anointed having the spirit of God embodied in him at his baptism. Jn 1:14.

            Peace be with you.

            • Anon JC

              Interested.

              You keep saying “I see”. That’s not proof. That’s you interpreting it the way you want.
              However I’m not going to keep going tip for tat with you. You can believe what ever you want. Just when I discussed the errors that we discuss with others I eventually just say to them “does it matter if he preexisted? He is risen now”. Stick with that and you’ll be ok.

              • Interested one

                Hi Anon

                You don’t have to go tit for tat! I see things differently to you plain and simple. You can take it or leave it! I presented proofs the way I understand them if you don’t like them, that’s fine!

                I just cannot accept stupidity and foolish things like a MAN pre-existing himself! Or A man pre-exist his mother or his father. That simply goes contrary to a God of truth. That’s as bad as believing the Trinity!

                Does it matter to you if You believe the Trinity?

                Someone made the claim that Jesus was an archangel. I just let them know there are alternatives ways of understanding it.

                Cheers, I won’t bother you any more!

                • Anon JC

                  That’s still where you cannot get it through your head. We didn’t say a MAN preexisted himself. Jesus was a spirit before a man. That’s not crazy. That’s Biblical. This site why Unitarians do. They make up a point then refute it. It’s typical. You can ignore all he bible scriptures we discussed. Which is what you’ve done.

            • Lee Anthony (Brandon)

              Jesus WAS A MAN.😳. Scripture says he humbled himself and took the form of a man something lower than what he was.He was Not God, he was a man, b4 he was born as a man he was not a man. Was he Michael? The bible does not say that… Was he an angel? Again it dont say he was…. Was he in heaven with Jehovah? Yes it says he was. It may be crazy to teach this, I never teach people he was michael myself I do say he was the son of God and that he came in the flesh to live and then be sacrificed a perfect man as a ransom for all like the bible says in plain black n white. This all seems to go back and forth with no resolution in site for either party, its beginning to sound a lot lot american politics. His name wasnt even Jesus, Gods name isnt Jehovah these are just the preferred english translations. The argument is almost as pointless as that. Cross or stake? Celebrate bdays or not? Do we have to be right all the time? Will being correct earn us a crown or praise from God and if we are wrong indignation? Are you here to preach to us or are you really an interested one? If so what are you interested in?

              • Interested one

                Lee Anthony,

                Someone made this a topic of discussion, I didn’t, Someone is trying to promote Jesus as an archangel.

                I’m just giving my view, because I disagree, and I’m giving, my reason why I don’t believe.

                I think it matters otherwise why care at all, just live a good life, don’t hurt your neighbour, and do good to others. That’s it very simple. End of discussion!

                Get rid of religion all together, it’s religion that divides. You get,the IT’s THEM AND US ATTITUDE, we’re right your wrong.

                When it all boils down ,we’re all brothers and sisters, some with wrong, views and some with better views, and we chose and change our views in harmony with truth as we get a better understanding.

                Without open discussions like this you cannot define the truth. Why should you be made to conform to something you don’t believe to be correct without proper reason? That’s how it is the WTS org. How is that helping your spirituality?
                When you must believe a group of men tell you what they think is God’s truth? Put not your trust in nobles or in earthly man but in God.

                You quote Phil2 I assume!

                WHO does the context say humble himself? The angel Michael or the man Jesus Christ??

                When was he named? 8 days after his birth the scriptures say!

                When did he become the Christ? 30 years later at his baptism.( That’s when he emptied him-SELF) and was FILLED with spirit /word of God to represent God = In the form of God.

                My translation says it was THE MAN named Jesus Christ who was existing in God’s form /image. A sinless Man like Adam before he sinned.

                Who came to be in the likeness of Men (The image of Adam Gen 5). LIKENESS is not an exact copy. Jesus was sinless, Men were sinner. He lived and was treated like a sinner without sinning.

                Jehovah had “formed” man out of the ground and put him in the garden Gen 2:7-8.
                How had he formed him?

                According to Gen 1:26 In the image (form) of God and likeness!

                WAS EXISTING is not past tense, but present active tense. That was Jesus status throughout his ministry. He just took on the role of a servant rather than expect to be served, a lesson in humility about which is the point of Paul’s counsel.

                Brotherly Love!

                • Anon JC

                  Explain in Php 2:7 how an immaterial Plan in gods man can humble himself! He can’t.

                • Anon JC

                  See there you go again. Get it through your Skull. WE NEVER SAID JESUS AS A MAN PREEXISTED. See this is what we mean. You have these arguments in your head and the go refute them. Please show how a plan can humble himself.

          • Interested one

            Hi Anon

            Your quote
            Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
            Unless God waited to create evrything until Jesus was born this clearly shows that the being that was Jesus was the instrument of Creation. !!! End of quote.

            That translation chooses to translate it like that. Other translations choose to translate it like this!

            Contemporary English Version
            GOD, WHO CREATED EVERYTHING, wanted me to help everyone understand the mysterious plan that had always been hidden in his mind.

            New American Standard Bible
            and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in GOD WHO CREATED ALL THINGS;

            NET Bible
            and to enlighten everyone about God’s secret plan–a secret that has been hidden for ages in GOD WHO HAS CREATED ALL THINGS.

            Nope! Sorry I done see it your way! I see this is about an administration (God’s eternal plan hidden in God) that was revealed at this end time to bring about all things together, (Israelites and Gentiles) in Christ.

            But look I am not out to change your view, just letting you know that there are alternative ways to understand them, you may be right I don’t know, there are too many ambiguous scriptures for me to change at present. Cheers!

            • Anon CJ

              But anyways Im not going to respond anymore. He’s going to believe what he wants. Just like the flat earthers even a picture of the earth isn’t enough for them. I think we should focus on the fact the Jesus is risen and not that he preexisted since it is past.

              • Interested one

                Hi Again!

                Anon, your absolutely right! I believe what is the truth!

                • Anon JC

                  You don’t believe the truth. You believe what Unitarians have said is the truth. It starts with an assumption that if Jesus is not God then he couldn’t have preexisted. That’s an assumption and speculation. You believe speculations. You ignore the words of Jesus himself saying that he is acsendibg to there he was before and had he had glory with the father. Not some forknowledge or glory.

                  • Interested one

                    Anon,

                    You my friendly foe, you believe what you have been told by others! You have been taught by others that Jesus had a pre-existence . You were taught by others that he was an archangel. They showed you ambiguous scriptures and you gullibility believed them.

                    So than you don’t believe Jesus was a REAL MAN????

                    • Anon JC

                      Believe what’ I’ve been told by others? The minute you said “Word = plan” I know you have been listenibgUnitarians. No one gets that conclusion from the Bible alone. even the Concordance doesn’t define logos as Plan. You by friend got that from the Internet. Not in your own.

                • Anon JC

                  Anyways I’m done responding. Have a good night. I won’t be checking back. I hope you one day have your eyes opened to the errors is the Christendom sect of Unitarianism. Have a good evening.

        • Anon JC

          Again incorrect. You and your “Biblical” Unitarian Pseudo-Belifs are inconsistent with the Bible. Jesus pre-existed before birth based on what the Bible said. Your beliefs follow the false belief that Jesus has his beginnings in the earth. However Jesus was said to have existed when he said “Before Abraham was I AM”. Not “I was thought of” or “I was in God’s Plan”.

          Check out the following scripture. Biblical Hermeneutics states we must take the scripture are it’s plain meaning. Not view it through a prism that Jesus didn’t preexist.

          John 6:62
          62 What, therefore, if you should see the Son of man ascending to where he was before?

          “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began” (John 17:5)

          He said “That I had”. Not that some plan was promised.

          Phillipans 2:7
          “7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.”

          If the Logos was just some plan then a plan doesn’t empty itself and become man. That wouldn’t make any sense.

          1 Cor 8:6
          6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

          It states through WHOM attributing this to a person. Not an immaterial plan.

          John 16:23
          “28 I came out from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go unto the Father.”

          Jesus said he came out from the father. Not that God forwknew of him.

          Romans 8:3
          3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

          It says that God sent forth his son in likeness of human flesh. Not as Biblical Unitarians and Christadelphians would try to mean “by sent” for as in sending him forth unto the people.

          Hebrews 1:2
          “2 hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;”

          It says he made the words through his son. Not some impersonal plan.

          Also as for your response on Col 1:15 meaning “first created”. This is exactly what the context says. The word “of” is in the genitive case meaning that he was part of the group being described. Let me break this down for you. Can a 35 years old man say “I’m the tallest OF all of the girls.” No for he is not a girl. Can a 13 year old girl says “I am the oldest OF all of the senior citizens”? No for she is only 13. So can Col 1:15 say “he is the most high OF all creation” when he is not a part of creation? No. We cannot say God is the highest of all creation because God is not a creation. But Jesus is said here to be the preeminent OF all creation.

          Also JESUS first started as a man. The Logos or Michael is before Jesus was born. Even Jesus in Revelarion is called the Word of God showing that he doesn’t have to be a plan or thought to be the word but can be a spirit being. As well.

          Unitarianism starts with the belief that Jesus didn’t preexist and then tried to read all scriptures that says he did through that prism.

          • Interested one

            Hi Anon!
            Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate your sincere efforts to correct what you think is incorrect. They are only incorrect to your understanding, but they are not to mine.

            It is very easy to say your not right or wrong when you are strong in your beliefs, But you have not said any thing in this post that satisfies what you say is right. Lets look at this first point of yours and I will do by best to go over each point separately.

            Your 1st quote:
            Again incorrect. You and your “Biblical” Unitarian Pseudo-Belifs are inconsistent with the Bible. Jesus pre-existed before birth based on what the Bible said. Your beliefs follow the false belief that Jesus has his beginnings in the earth. However Jesus was said to have existed when he said “Before Abraham was I AM”. Not “I was thought of” or “I was in God’s Plan”.
            Check out the following scripture. Biblical Hermeneutics states we must take the scripture are it’s plain meaning. Not view it through a prism that Jesus didn’t preexist.

            Let start with Biblical Hermeneutics and apply it to Jn 8:58.

            Back in verse 40 of the context, Jesus identifies himself as a man? Is this true? I believe it is!

            Now he is about 30-33 years of age according to my understanding of Luke 3:23. Is this correct I believe it is so.

            Is Jesus talking to other grown up men? I believe he is!

            So you believe Jesus (a man of 30 -33 years of age) existed thousands of years of age to be before Abraham?

            I don’t know of any precedent to tell me that!

            So am I to assume Jesus is NOT a MAN? Or am I to assume he is a HYBRID, an angel in man flesh? Who talks sometimes when he is an angel and other times as a man. This is the kind of thing Trinitarians believe.

            So was Jesus talking to these men as “an angel” or as a MAN?

            It’s obvious MAN has not lived that long to have been before Abraham. And added to that, Men as you should know, do not pre-exist their mother of father.

            On that bases of Hermeneutics logic I believe Jesus is truly a man with his own mind and heart not a man with the mind and memory of a recycled angel.

            Therefore following your hermeneutics I have to understand Jesus words in relation to him being truly what he and John the baptist said he was a MAN.

            And rather than assume he is a recycled angel, I assume he is talking figuratively of himself in relation to fulfilling scriptures written about him.

            Remember your the one who assumes he pre-exists! I have not seen that yet!

            • Anon JC

              You’ve provided no explanation only feelings. That’s ok. I’m used to points not being refuted. And I still don’t think you understand what difference between Carnated and INcarnated. You provided the definitions earlier but I still don’t think you understood. Jesus isn’t a recycled angel. He was not a spirit in a body. He was reincarnated because reincarnation means rebirth of a soul and JW isn’t was only a soul (nephesh) when he was man. Be didn’t become a man again as in the Hindu concept of reincarnation. I think you’re just having a hard time wresting with the scriptures I provided. It’s ok. I’m used to it when discussing this with Unitarians.

          • Interested one

            Anon Greetings

            Continuing on from where I left off.

            Your quote:

            John 6:62
            62 What, therefore, if you should see the Son of man ascending to where he was before?
            “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began” (John 17:5)
            He said “That I had”. Not that some plan was promised.
            Phillipans 2:7
            “7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.”
            If the Logos was just some plan then a plan doesn’t empty itself and become man. That wouldn’t make any sense.—–end

            On Jn 6:32: This scripture rather than teach a pre-existence is teaching about the death and resurrection, the raising up from out of the ground to be before his disciples again. The word translated ascend is the same word referring to Jesus as coming up out of the water

            anabainō I go up, mount, ascend; of things: I rise, spring up, come up. See Matt 3:16, Mk 1:10

            On Jn 17:5, Rather than repeat that which I used to refute Jn 8:58 the same principles apply.

            Jesus is a man of 30-33 years of age not millions to have been man to have had a glory before the world was.

            Therefore rather that assume he is a recycled angel, I assume he is talking of a spiritual or figurative nature. Perhaps a promise had been given that if he proved faithful he would receive victorious glory. Like a reward set before him! A glory also set before the disciple before they receive it.

            On Phil 2:7

            I understand Jesus emptied himself of his self will at his baptism to forgo the fulling of ones self interests to come up out of the water to be filled with the spirit of God to do God’s will. Heb10:5-9.

            And rather than be served, as are the exceptions of a designated Kings, took on the role of a slave and served others setting an example for us.
            Regardless of how special or important we feel we are, we should strive to serve others.

            Logos has nothing to do with emptying it self. Rather it was the man Jesus who as filled with the logos/spirit/word of God at his baptism to become Gods spiritually begotten son. Fulfilling scriptures like Deut 18:15-18, Isa 42:1, Isa 11:2. Jn 1:14.

            • Anon JC

              John 6:62 perfectly shows that Jesus is acendinf TO WHERE HE WAS BEFORE. this is an excellent scripture for preexistence. I see in your response you’re struggling trying to make it fit into your reality that he didn’t preexist. And you’re right it’s talking about a resurrection. And he ACSENDED up 40 days. TO WHERE HE WAS BEFOEE. If Jesus didn’t exist in heaven before then this scripture would have stumbled those who though he was from the earth.

              At Pentecost the faithful followers were anointed with the same spirit jesus was. They became spiritual sons as Jesus did. Never once were any of them have said to “come down from heaven” or “glorify me with the glory I had with thee” or any other scripture used to promote the idea that Jesus didn’t or exist.

              If you were honest in bible research and not trying to for everything into your view it would be so much easier.

              • Interested one

                Anon

                If you hadn’t accused me of being dishonest I would no longer be answering your posts.

                I have shown you honestly and precisely how I understand the scriptures, if your happy to believe self contradictory scriptures that’s up to you.

                Either Jesus is a man who is 30 = 33 years of age who is a sinless man, who is whole soul and whole minded, a man. Being the son of his Mother Mary and His Father Jehovah God or he is NOT.

                If he is millions of years of age to be before God in glory or thousands of years of age to be before Abraham are just plain self contradictory. NO MAN HAS LIVED that long.

                You have to say he is not a true man but a man who has the memory of an angel.
                You satisfy the contradiction by saying he had a pre-existence and so that is your way of justifying a teaching that is not found in the Bible. Also ignoring the origin Scriptures explicitly showing Jesus origin. Matt 1:1-20.

                Just because you have conclude to your satisfaction your understanding is correct does not in itself mean it is! And you need to apply the same test of honesty to you own beliefs.

                Enough said!

                • Anon JC

                  You’re dishonest. You’re stretching a text to fit your views. You assumption is that Jesus existed for millions of years. Ti

                  • Interested one

                    Here you go again! Calling me dishonest!

                    1) I claimed Jesus was 30 -33 years of age.That is what the Bible says Luke 3:19 Check out my posts.

                    2) I do not claim Jesus is millions of years of age. But for someone who beleives Jesus A MAN has preexisted and to have had a glory before the founding of the world, is really a long time for a man to have existed.

                    How do YOU explain the self contradictory statement?

                    By YOUR ASSUMING Jesus had a pre-existence which means he could have live for eons or millions of years before the world was created.

                    3) Your the one streaching it when you beleive a MAN pre-exists himself, A man pre-exists his father and his mother, and his pre-exists his forefather David.

                    4) You cannot accept the fact that Jesus a MAN could easily have been talking figuratively or spiritually when he uttered those words without contradiction.

                    • Anon CJ

                      1. ) I claimed Jesus was 30 -33 years of age.That is what the Bible says Luke 3:19 Check out my posts.

                      Jesus as a ,an existed for 33 years. This is true but he even said before abraham was he existed. Not a plan or a shadow.

                      2) We never said jesus as a man existed for milleions of years. Jesus as a man existed 33 years As a spirit being he was already existing.

                      How do YOU explain the self contradictory statement?
                      They are not self-contradictory. They are being misunderstood becasue they refute you.

                      Assuming he had a preexistence? hahaha. You do realize that you have to twist a text such as “he existed before me” and read into it something it’s not. Thats what funny. You avoid each scripture and then have me quoting some scripture I never did then attempt to refute it.

                      3) We never had a man preexisted. READ brother. We said he took on the form of a man. You then proceeded to twist it into “took on God’s will”/

                      4) Again we never said Jesus as a MAN preexisted. This is what Unitarians do. So ASSUME what when we say Jesus preexisted that this means as a human in heaven. No. Then you bring up reincarnation. This is your logic.

            • Anon JC

              Php 2:6-7 CANNOT mean emptying himself at his baptism because that would mean he was in the FORM OF GOD before he emptied himself. I think it’s so easy to see. But you have in your mind that he never preexisted therefore you’ll try to read this scripture with that view and it failed. It says he existed in God’s form and emptied himself and became like men.

              Form of God ——> Man.

              Spirit ——> Human.

              • Interested one

                Anon
                One point before I leave you On “form” it is simply an image or character of someone or something.

                The easiest way to understand “form” is to draw a stick figure on a plain piece of paper in the form of a man and what have you drawn is a figure that REPRESENTS a man.

                Now if you want to draw that man in the form of a king you draw a crown on its head. It now REPRESENTS the King. If you want the man to represent a slave you draw a chain around it legs it now REPRESENTS a bond slave.

                NOTICE: the man did not change his nature, he changed “form” from king to slave.

                Jesus was a sinless man in the form of God = he represented God in his perfect form. But changed form to be of slave form. His nature did not change just his character.

                Rather than serving as King and expecting others to serve him, He humbled himself and took a slave form and began to serve God and his fellow man.
                The scripture does not say he (emptied his nature) but himself, that is of his “self” will, to do God’s will.

                The principle is found at Luke 22:24-27

                And the context is about Jesus Christ who is a man.

                Just for you to consider not to convert you!

                If your happy with what you believe fine I got no problem with that. I’m not your judge.

                Brotherly love.

                • Anon JC

                  So question. How can one who was born a human switch from king to slave? Jesus was never a king before his baptism. I think you’ve hit a wall and you’re trying to struggle with it. He took the Form of MAN! So the contrast is God to man. Jesus was never a king in human form. So if you read carefully it says from GOD KF FOD to MAN. Showing spirit to human. Not king to slave. He was in the form of GOD. God was never human therefore this wouldn’t make sense in the way you’re treating the passage.

                  Yes Jesus was sent from God to preach. I agree. Be where down anyone who was anointed to preach state that they came down from heaven? Or that they were in store form and BECAME MAN? Exactly.

                  • Interested one

                    No I didn’t say that! Jesus presented his perfect human body as a living SELF sacrifice and emptied himself of his will Heb 10:5-9. And came up out of the water to be filled with the spirit of God empowering him and anointing him to be the king Messiah, priest and prophet. From that time he had the authority and power of God to do his will. = in God’s form representing God. Isa 40:3 Jn 1:23, Jn 1:49

                    The point to keep in mind here is even though Jesus took on a slave form he was still active as being in God’s form his position as representing God did not change.

                    And instead of exercising his power of authority over sinful men and women he humbled himself and BECAME LIKE THEM (sinful humans) taking on the role of a slave rather than a King Messiah.

                    A bit like undercover boss if you had ever watched that show, The boss was still the boss but he came like his employees so as to be a more meaningful boss.

                    Jesus dwell with sinners and lived and talked with them and was accused and treated by his opposer as a sinner, experiencing all the pain and anguish sinner experience but he did not sin setting the example for us. To the point of even dying a sinners death so he could become a merciful high priest.

                    It is true Jesus did not rule as King but he was designated to be high priest, a king and Prophet at his baptism. Some of his disciples recognised him to be King of Israel and he rode into Jerusalem riding on a donkey saying your king comes riding upon an ass. Jn 1:49.

                    And the tense (was existing) is not past tense, it is the present active = happening in real time. If it was past tense it would have read who HAD been existing in God form, ruling out it was changing nature from spirit to flesh.

                    Just for you to consider I don’t wish to change your view, but to put before you the alternative. We all understand things differently. I just happen to not believe in a pre-existence and have explained the reasons behind my view. What you do with that is your choice.

                    Peace be with you.

                    Ps I could not understand what you were saying in the last paragraph. Cheers.

          • Interested one

            Hi Anon, back again to tackle this one. I don’t know how many meanings there are of the word sent, but we do have many cases of human prophets sent by God, including Jesus. After all he was not named until he was born and became God’s son. Who grew up under the law and then presented his perfect sinless body as a living sacrifice to do God’s will.

            LIKENESS is not an exact copy. We are in the likeness of God but we are not an exact copy. But he came to be viewed as a sinner, accused of being a sinner etc. but without sinning.

            When Jesus presented himself he was in the perfect form / image and likeness of God just as Adam was before he sinned. Gen 1:26, Gen 2:8-9.

            We are basically in the image and likeness of Adam Gen 5.

            We do have recorded for us WHEN GOD SENT HIS SON. For example ** Luke 4:16-22, Acts 3:22-26.

            It was not until he was raised up that he was sent into the world to preach and teach the good news.

            ** Acts 3:22-26………………God, having RAISED UP his servant, SENT HIM TO YOU FIRST, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.

            With all due respect, I don’t how you can have it mean anything else!

            • Anon JC

              If you notice you have talking points. I purposely never shared any scripture saying he was sent from God because I knew what a Unitarian would state back. Please read NT comments in full to see

            • Anon JC

              I feel like you bring up a point in your mine and then refute yourself. I never quoted quieted acts 3. You brought it up and refuted your own point. Yes God raised up a prophet. But Jesus was a prophet ON EARTH. Never was he called a prophet in his prehuman existence.

              No other human was said to have been in God’s form or have come down from heaven or will ascsent to where he was before. That’s simple and you’re avoiding them. I’m used to this with Unitarians. I used to be a JW and arguing with trinitarians and Unitarians for years. It’s kike arguing with a flat earther. Jesus himself could say”I existed before I was born as a spirit in heaven” and a Unitarian will try to read it as “it means that he was part of the fathers mind who is a spirit and not a person”. They will always try to harmonize errors.

              • Interested one

                I used Acts 3 to point out that Jesus was raised first than SENT, in response to your belief Jesus was assumingly SENT from heaven.

                In stead of saying I avoided scriptures, why don’t you consider the facts that I have? They can be understood in an alternative way,

                Jesus is a very unique human. He had a heavenly father and an earthly mother, His spirit of life comes down from heaven out of God’s holy spirit, to activate the seed cell of Marys womb. Matt 1:16,18.20.

                You trying to split hairs. By using terminology that seems to suggest a pre-human existence when they are just simple statements of facts because of the uniqueness of Jesus biological parents.

                “Came down”, “going to”, are all statements made by a man who was the second sinless man on the planet. The statements are in line with him being a man with a heavenly father. How else he going to say it?

                Of course your not going to find another human like Jesus. ???

                Time to finish the conversation we are not progressing, you have better things to do and so do I., I may have some explaining to do for others I don’t know.

                But for now I appreciate your time. Thanks for presenting your view. I will keep your thoughts in mind.

                Love!

                • Anon CJ

                  Here is one that says he existed before him in
                  John 1:15
                  “John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'”

                  Jesus was sent from heaven. See this is where your biblical interpretation is foggy. You use a bait and switch method. Where you taker another “sent” context such as preaching and equivicate it to the “sent” from heaven.

                  Exaplain how you could equaiviate “took the form of a man” to “taking up God’s will”? One was talking about being in God’s form and then taking on the nature of man. This is not about taking up God’s will from Baptism on.

                  Another strawman arguement is that you said Jesus existed for millions of years. Time is not what Jesus not Jehovah are restricted by.

                  John 17:5
                  “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

                  He is saying he saying that he had glory with him. He did not say “Glorify me as you promised.”

                  • Interested one

                    Anon
                    We are finished!

                    I have answered these thoroughly.

                    You are now going in circles!

                    You have made your point!

                    I’ll keep them in mind!

                    Cheers!

                    • Anon CJ

                      I’m going in circles because youre avoiding each of this. This is exactly what we expect to happen those who use “eisegesis” and not “exegesis”.

                    • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                      Interested one now that the conversation has come to a climax, would you tell us a little about yourself. Are you a Jehovah witness? How did you find our site? Glad to have you comment. I notice your country ( not public), we have testimony meetings on Saturday here in North America but it is 12 Sunday in your country. Also Australia has a testimony meeting with ones coming in from the Philippines also. We would love to hear your voice and your journey. All of us have a story to tell and it’s for the purpose of encouraging each other not tear each other down. You may encourage another. Feel free to come on. Take Care. Jacqueline

                      http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/2018/03/11/testimony-meeting/

      • Interested one

        Anon,

        Well I must commend you on a much better presentation,

        Your right, God, and Lord, are not personal names! But THE CONTEXT helps us to understand which God or lord we are talking about!

        On Rev 19:13 I have answered it, It’s not the answer you wanted to hear! But it is in harmony with the rest of the scriptures! And it is as figurative, as Faithful and true is figurative in the same context.

        You want to take it as a definition! And apply it backwards to Jn 1:1. THAT’ IS YOUR INTERPRETATION or theory.

        I on the other hand believe what John was referring to was the word and spirit of Ps 33:6,9. and Gen 1:2-3. Where (the word) IS THE SPIRIT AND POWER OF GOD.

        It was this spirit/word that was embodied in Jesus at his baptism to become flesh, it is this word and spirit that empowered Jesus as the anointed one. Jn 1:14. Who spoke God’s word.

        ** Jn 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not observe my words. THE WORD (ho logos) that you “are hearing” IS NOT MINE, but belongs to the Father who sent me

        On his resurrection he received the full power of God’s authority to administer the word. Hence he is called the word of the God. Now having power over all of God’s domain on heaven and on earth! Even the angels are to obey him!

        A servant is a slave, That’s what Jesus did he took on the form of a slave and served God and man.

        He was designated to be king, the messiah at his baptism, But rather than expect others to serve him, he serve others, even washing the feet of others, Luke 22:24-27, A service of humility!

        The context of Phil 2:7 is about A MAN named Jesus Christ Who is existing in God’s form or Image

        When God FORMED the first man, Gen 2:7-8 he formed him in his image and likeness. Gen 1:27.

        Adam was in the form / image of God having the power and authority of God to rule over the earthly domain. He sinned! And so did every other man until Jesus who did not!

        Jesus (a Man) in the form / image of God (sinless) emptied him – SELF . That is of HIS HUMAN WILL to satisfy oneself. And was filled with the spirit to do God’s will

        And your correct it was all the actions of a person the man Jesus Christ. As the context says!

        Show me in the context where it says (Michael or A Spirit Being) was existing in God form and emptied himself. To become the man Jesus Christ. IT IS NOT THERE IT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION.

        Was existing is present tense not past tense. If it was past tense it would have said HAD BEEN EXISTING in God form.

        Brotherly love.

        • Anon JC

          No you didn’t give an answer on Rev 19:13. You gave a half behind answer to just have answer to look knowledge. Is the Word of God can be a person in rev 19:13 than so can it in John 1: is. Your whole premise stare as typical Unitarian talking Points. “The does that an angel or God can become human is absurd”. That’s an opinion. If Jesus can become divine after death then he can become human from his preexistence.

          1. Your errors seems to stem like that if those who believe that since Adam and Eve were created human and were told they would live in the earth then there’s no way that anyone could go to heaven. That’s an assumption then they go to reinterpret each and every scripture in that lift. It’s simole but you’re blinded so I don’t expect you to see it. Jesus himself said he came down from heaven. Then you’ll g and say “that every good gift comes from heaven”. That’s not what you go from the Bible but what you’ve read and accepted.

          2. The context of Php 2:7 is not a MAN. Because that would mean that a man humbled himself and took on the form a MAN. That would make no sense S ee you’re backed into a corner. And Anthony Buzzard wouldn’t answer thsi either. Everytime this is brought up it turns into an argument about he trinity because they can’t refute it. I’m used to this and I see it reflected in your answers. It says he took on the form of a man. Not a man took on the form of a man. That’s just redundant. I hope this opened your eyes

          • Interested one

            Anon, Your welcome to your Interpretation, on how you see Rev 19. I’m not out to change you.

            Though, I prefer, to understand it from the perspective, that the word was not a person prior to the Christian era. But it was the spirit and power of God.

            On #1,
            Because of the uniqueness of Jesus parents, having a Heavenly Father and an earthly Mother

            How else is Jesus going to say,where his source of origin is from? His biological Father is in heaven, his LIFE comes down from heaven from out of his father. (Not out of an existing angels life)

            ** Job 33:4 The Spirit of God has made me; THE BREATH of the Almighty gives me life.

            ** Ps 104:29, 30 If you take away their spirit, they die and return to the dust. 30 If you send out your spirit, they are created.

            ** Ps 36:9 With you is the source of life.

            On #2,
            Well you can say, what you like, but I have not seen, the word “Angel or Michael” in the text of Phil 2. But I do see in the text, “Jesus Christ.”

            And I do know, when he came into existence. He was begotten to his Mother and named 8 days later. 30 years on he was anointed by the spirit to be God’s spiritual son.

            And so became known as Jesus the Christ in the first century. And the context is saying we should look to this man as our exemplar of humility.

            ** Phil 2:5-7 Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.

            (This verse parallels the original Adam (In sinless status) who had a seizure to be equivalent of God Gen 3:5, and Jesus in his perfect form did not do that,setting an example for us in humility)

            7 No, but he emptied himself (Baptism) and took a slave’s form and became human.
            (Tell me Anon, describe to me a slave form, What is a slave form???? How would you recognise a person in slave form????? Is it a woman,? a boy,? a girl,? a man,? a king,? a teacher??? what is a slave form????) Draw me a picture of slave form.

            And became human….. he became like everyone else, He didn’t think too highly of himself to be among sinners even though he committed no sin.

            8 More than that, when he came as a man, (Fashioned as an ordinary man like a sinner, just like all of us who sin) he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake (He was sinless, and did not deserve to die, but because this was the penalty for death, Jesus even experience this as a sinner would, so that he become a merciful high priest,)

            You seem to be missing the point that Jesus was a perfect man, and came to be viewed and treated like an ordinary man like a sinner.

            Brotherly love!

            • Anon JC

              Personally I don’t believe Jesus is Michael. This is a teaching of the Second adventists among with the other teaching that russell believed in. I do believe Jesus preexisted.

              >>Tell me Anon, describe to me a slave form, What is a slave form???? How would you recognise a person in slave form????? Is it a woman,? a boy,? a girl,? a man,? a king,? a teacher??? what is a slave form????) Draw me a picture of slave form.<<

              You cut the verse short my friend. Said he took on the form a servant wand became a man. Hard for someone who didn’t exist to a HUMBLE himself and TAKE ON THE FORM of a man. And he wasn’t in the form of God before his baptism. The way your viewing it the scripture should read that he was in the form of man and took on the form of God at his resurrection.

              You claim that it’s about the man jesus. This is incorrect because that means the Man took on the form of a man. This scripture squares with John 1:1 that he became flesh. Also, to say Jesus in his humanity emptied himself is to go backwards. Jesus was anointed with the spirit at his baptism. That’s not emptying himself but filling. I can see you’re struggling with this text. So did Anthony Buzzard. He usually can’t refute it so he just tries to refute the trinity instead.

              Notice how it says when he emptied himself he became a man!!!!!! A man
              Empty himself and take on the form of a man? That’s redundant. What was he before? A man? Then this scripture makes so sense. I think you’re going to have to scrutinize this scripture to make it fit your view. I see it’s been difficult for you. 😌

              • Interested one

                Anon,

                No, it may seem to you that I cut it short, but I didn’t I went on to explain the difference. Man and slave are not the same thing in my books. A slave can be one who volunteers to service someone, or someone who is forced into serving another just like the Israelites became slaves to Babylon. Not all men are slaves.

                The apostle Paul says he became a slave to all! He didn’t change from man to a man, he just changed form, to take on the appearance he was a Jew or that he was under the law.

                ** 1 Cor 9:19 I have MADE MYSELF A SLAVE to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible.

                Paul followed his own advice he had given to the Philippians on how to follow Jesus example of taking on the role of a slave.

                It is easy to understand, its only difficult if you think form is spirit or nature. Which it isn’t. Form is that which can be perceived by the eyes of the beholder. Like Jesus was A TEACHER AND LORD of his disciples, but instead took on the form of a slave and taught his disciples, they should do the same.

                ** Jn 13:12-17 …….Do you understand what I have done to you? 13 You address me as ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you are correct, for I am such.14 Therefore, if I, the Lord and Teacher, washed your feet, you also should wash the feet of one another. 15 For I SET THE PATTERN FOR YOU, that just as I did to you, you should also do .

                A beautiful example of one who was in the form of a teacher and Lord of his disciples taking on the role of a slave washing his disciple feet.
                Another example is found at Luke where Jesus taught his disciple this important lesson.

                ** Luke 22:24-27 he said to them: “The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those having authority over them are called Benefactors. 26 You, though, are not to be that way. But let the one who is the greatest among you become as the youngest and the one taking the lead as the one ministering. 27 For WHICH ONE IS GREATER, THE ONE DINING OR THE ONE SERVING? Is it not the one dining? But I am among you as the one serving

                Notice! Jesus reply, he should have been the one whom they should be serving, but he was in fact serving them.

                At John 1:1-3 I see and understand that the word is the spirit and power of God, by which he accomplishes things, and as described in Jn 1:1-3, Not a person!

                And at Jn 1:14 At his baptism, he is begotten to be a spiritual son, And was filled with the spirit of God’s word to have the authority of God. To do the will of God.

                When one empties them selves it means they are giving up their own personal self orientated pursuits, I think the expression by the WTS was dying to ones self interest to pursue God’s interest.

                By going down into the water is symbolic of empting ones self of a passed life to come up out of the water, born again (filled with the spirit) to a new life in God’s service.

                Jesus was not being baptised because of turning away from a life of SINFUL self interest, but did give up pursuing a secular career like making a reputation for himself as a builder, for he was a carpenter. He was offering his perfect body as a willing living sacrifice to serve Gods interest.

                ** Phil 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

                The term made in the LIKENESS of men. This term means, he was NOT AN EXACT COPY AS MEN, he was a perfect man sinless, so he only came to resemble imperfect men HE WAS NOT MADE A SINNER WITH SINFUL FLESH.

                But he did come to be treated as a sinner and made to experience the effects of those who suffer because of sin. And I have explained this a few time now so I won’t repeat again here.

                Peace to you brother!

                • Anon JC

                  There you go again. I can argue this all Summer as I have the time off. Taking the same word found in one place and making it seem like it goes with the context of another. Typical switch around. Let’s break this down for you since you seem stuck in the Unitarian false theology.

                  1 Cor 9:19
                  Here it is stated that he has become a slave to all showing that he is working for them. Where does it say he come in the form of a man? Or that he was made flesh? Or that he will ascent to there he was before? Moot point. None of the descriptions for Jesus as a man apply to anyone else showing that “coming down from heaven” and “ascending to where he was before” all are unique to Jesus because HE PREEXISTED.

                  Php 2:7.
                  If a man took of the form of a man this scripture mans nothing. Where does any other human in bible said tknhave down that.

                  See you Unitarians start with the assumption that the logos wasn’t a person. It’s an assumption. The whole basis for Unitarianism is that since there’s no trinity then logically there must be no Preexistence. It’s all based on an assumption then you’ll take every scripture that shows he preexisted and try to squeeze it into that interpretation. Anthony Buzzard does it all the time. He gets eaten alive in debates.

                  • Interested one

                    Anon,

                    I could discuss this all summer too! But I don’t see the point! Your so right, in your own mind. No one else can be! If you want to believe it your way that’s fine! Trinitarians use this scripture to prove the MAN, Jesus was God. Your just using all their arguments!

                    Here is a quote:

                    Trench, view of form.
                    commenting on the word’s usage in our passage, writes, “The form of God IS NOT HIS DIVINE NATURE, although He who exists in the form of God is God. This is true because morphe signifies the form as it expresses the inner life-not ‘being’ but ‘mode of being,’ or better ‘mode of existence,’ and only God could have the mode of existence of God” (Synonyms of the New Testament, page 276)

                    Yes, you believe your Trinitarian friends! And yet to them it did not refer to divine nature.Lols

                    Here is what another one of your Trinitarian friends said about form.

                    Wuest
                    makes the following comment, he writes “Our Lord was in the form of God. The word ‘God is without the definite article in the Greek text, and therefore refers to the divine essence. THUS, OUR LORD’S OUTWARD EXPRESSION OF HIS INMOST BEING WAS AS TO ITS NATURE THE EXPRESSION OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE OF DEITY. Since that outward expression which this word ‘form’ speaks of, comes from and is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to His nature is the possessor of the divine essence Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in that divine essence which constitutes God, God”

                    Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, volume II, page 63)

                    Yeah, lols! You and your Trinitarian friends use the same reasoning! Only you put a different slant to it by saying he was an angel/ man, while they say he is a God./ man

                    At least your Trinitarian friends put it in the present tense and NOT in the past tense as you want it. Lols!

                    I take the view that being in the form of God , He REPRESENTS God

                    You missed the point of 1Cor 9:19, You never bother about what Jesus taught in the other scriptures!

                    You do not understand what it means to be in the form of God, You have a theory! And the only way to refute the argument is to make false accusation that I believe some other religion.

                    I quote scripture for you and you just ignore them!

                    You don’t seem to see, that there are two status of man.

                    (1) A PERFECT SINLESS MAN, made in the form / image of God Gen 2:7,8 ,Gen 1:26

                    (2) A SINFUL MAN. who are in the image of Adam who lost the glory of God Gen 5:1,3. Rom 3:23

                    Jesus was a perfect Sinless man, who came to be in the likeness of sinful men. So as to suffer the the things his brothers suffered.

                    You seem to think he was created a sinner with actual sinful flesh! Lols! Yes, you follow your Trinitarian friends!

                    Here are some facts, from the Greek.

                    The word BEING (was existing) indicates a condition that begins in the past (at birth) (or when one is given a title, anointed one for example) and continues into the present until that one ceases to be, (dies or is stripped of their title).

                    Jesus, from the day he was born, was man. He was man in the form of a baby, than he was in the form of a child, later the form of fully grown man. Who was unblemished in the sight of God.

                    Dedicated his life to God and was filled with the authoritative word and spirit of God to do HIS will. Now the spiritual begotten son of God, IN THE FORM OF GOD. Who now had THE CHARACTER and power of God, and did the things that only God could do, for he had given him that authority of his word.

                    Here I list some of those Godly attributes he had, Jesus REPRESENTS GOD.

                    #1 ** Jn 6:16 Jesus walks on water.

                    #2 ** Jn 11:1-45 Calls out to a deceased person come out, and the person rose from the dead,

                    #3 ** Luke 8:23 He spoke to a raging storm and the elements obeyed.

                    # 4 ** Jn 2:1-11 Turned water into wine

                    #5 ** Matt 9:1-8 Forgave sin

                    #6 ** Matt 9:27 Heals the blind.

                    # 7 ** Mark 6:30 Feeds 5000 with some fish and a couple of loaves of bread

                    #8 ** Mark 5:1-20 Casts out demons.

                    Look, were not going to resolve this! Your happy with what you believe and I’m happy with what I understand it to be.

                    You have put up some objections, that you feel are supportive of a pre-existence, that’s your choice. It has not been all that convincing, however I’m not your judge, I maybe wrong , you maybe wrong. Only God in the future will make it clear. However, in the mean time we need to keep putting forth our views to have them scrutinised for testing as with fire. The chaff will be burned up and the truth will remain!

                    May you praise his Name! God bless!

                    • Anon JC

                      Haha. I’m right only in my own mind? Let’s see. You disagree with the JW theology and searched for a non- trinitarian relgion. You found Unitarian garbage and accepted it. The Bible clearly shows that Jesus preexisted. You don’t agree with it so you take every passage and try to squeeze it into your beliefs. This is exactly what other heretics do with modalism. They believe that since God is one that even when Jesus prayed to the father they can prove that they are still one person. That how those who don’t believe anyone goes to heaven also do. They start with a nottion that God created Adam and Eve to live in the earth and then will take all the passages and read into them this believe. You don’t know how to intercept the Bible. You use eisegesis and we you exegesis. They start with a premise and then try to fit it all into their preconceived beliefs into them. Much like you do.

                      You faulty logic shows this. You start with the premise that a spirit becoming A man “absured” in your own words. So how is it ridiculous yet a man becoming as god isn’t? Then when a scripture cannot refute it only give some half baked answer just to have an answer. We are all used to this. Satan has blinded your mind. It’s ok. I can cast all my pearls before swine and they will still trample in them

                      Trenches notes didn’t give scripture. Only opinion. But I do agree that he was not DIVINE before his birth. He was granted DIVINITY and immortality after death and resurrection. He was a spirit before. Show me where Jesus said “I was a plan”. You can’t. But I can show you where he said he would ascend to where he was before. Easily. You just don’t like that it refuted your claim.

                      Your claim is again false. Jesus represented God and was sent after baptism. So how can he empty himself when he was anointed after the Holy Spirit game upon him. If I’m not mistaken that a man taking on the form of God. Not divine then emtyping himself as a human. You For your error the scripture would have to read that he gave up his manhood and came in the form of God!! The alone closes the case.

                      You got bored with the JW theology researched Unitarianism and then accepted their claims. Then you claim it’s bibke based. Which it’s not. 🤣

                      You haven’t convinced anyone in this page. Anthony Buzzard couldn’t refute Phillipans 2:5-7 and neither can you. He just goes on to refute the trinity. But it’s ok. You cannot refute God’s word sweetie.

                    • Anon JC

                      Anyways I won’t cast anymore pearls before swine. It’s like trying to explain what the color purple smells like.
                      Have a great time.
                      See you in the millennium.

                    • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                      AnonJC good morning, i remember when the society used to use that scripture to describe persons at the door who had a brain and was thinking and asking us questions.
                      I now wish I had listened to some of these people.
                      May I suggest since name calling isn’t allowed on this site that you take a break from this conversation. Remember winning an argument isn’t necessary.

                    • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                      Interested one, may we ask please that we close this topic and move on to another one? Thank you for explaining your thoughts on Archangel, Prehuman existance of our Lord to recap. The conversation seems to have taken a fleshly tone on our part. Thank you
                      I for one would like to know your thoughts on armageddon. Does it concern Israel or is it judgement day for mankind? Or any other subject. We do have a sizeable audience.

                  • Interested one

                    Anon!

                    Aah! my friendly opposer! You don’t read well do you? Because if you did you will see I DO NOT BELIEVE Jesus is simply A PLAN (which is what your try to imply, so you can spruik you Trinitarian based philosophies and myths.)

                    You see your Trinitarian friends wanted support for the trinity and so turned “the word” (= God’s spirit and power Ps 33:6,9) into a second person of the trinity. You didn’t like that as WTS student who opposed the trinity, So you turned it into (a god.) (Both Got it wrong!)Lols,

                    So you didn’t mind following the error of the Trinitarian who turned a NON-PERSON THING, into a person that had to turn into flesh to become man. Lols!

                    It is the spirit / word that became flesh, (Deut 18:15-18, Isa 42:1) that is, (it) BECAME ONE with the man Jesus at his baptism, born again to be the spiritual son of God.

                    This is Not at his physical birth that Matthew and Luke speak about, this is 30 years later. He would later be declared God’s son in the fullest sense after he prove faithful and true, after his resurrection. Rom 1:4

                    Just like the spirit of God filled the temple with glory, so Jesus the Man after presenting his perfect body as a living sacrifice, emptied him(self) and when coming up from the water was filled with the glory of God, That is with the spirit and power of God’s word, Deut 18:15-8, Isa 11:2, Isa 42:1.Now = the form of God.

                    ** Isa 40:3 Make a straight highway through the desert for *our God* Compare Jn 1:23

                    Jesus represents God = Having the form of God, he remained that way throughout his ministry.

                    Most of the early English translation translated “the word” as an (IT) = a thing and NOT a person. But you just want to follow your Trinitarian friends I know.

                    But Please at least get some things right about what I understand!

                    How does one empty themselves???? Are they like a bucket filled with water that can be emptied?? Or like a bottle of water? That you can empty and fill up again?

                    When(the Angelic Spirit) emptied himself did he leave his empty shell behind? To re-enter when he returned perhaps?

                    To me and my understanding, it simply means getting rid of the desire to serve one-self! Empting ones-self of Their HUMAN WILL to accept and do the will of God.

                    May you be blessed!

            • Anon JC

              Anyways I’m going to end the conversation there. I hope god opens your eyes to see the glorious truth of him sending his son to the earth. Headed out for the weekend. Have a great night

              • Interested one

                Anon,

                I like wise pray you will be enlighten to know God’s simple truths and some not so simple. lols,

                I hope you have anejoyable weekend.

                Warm Christian love!

                • Anon JC

                  So simple that you’ve accepted the Unitarian thoughts by looking them up and agreeing to them and then claiming they are from the Bible. You still have the mondelt of a JW. . I’ve seen all the same talking points on their websites. I’ve spoken to people that believe that we are all supposed to be vegetarians according to the Bible. I showed here where the risen Jesus ate broiled fish and she still thought it was symbolic. I showed here where Noah was told that we can eat meat and she provided all the poof and Hebrew and Greek for her argument. You’re doing the same. Making the Bible say what you want it to. We can all see it in your Unitarian talking points.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>