This scripture is quoted by Trinitarians, and the WTS to support pre-existence of Jesus. Two view I have had myself over the years. But that changed when I came to the realisation of Matt 1:1-20 is the actual origin of Jesus existence. He never had a pre-existence according to theses scriptures. Therefore pre-existence is an assumption based on misunderstanding of reference that seem to indicate pre-existence. I went through each of these reference to see if it was so, according to the dictum of the Bereans.

The Text
** Phil 2:5-8 Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human. 8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake

Here are my reasons why it does not teach pre-existence.(a word not in the Bible)

#1) It is an “observable” account of Jesus humility seen by his disciples in their presence.

#2) The context is about none other than a man called Jesus (Named / circumcised 8 days after his birth), who became the Christ (Messiah officially) at his baptism.

#3) Existing in Gods form / image = Him having the authority of God. = being sinless as the first Adam before he sinned.

#4) Was existing according to the Greek is the present active sense from the time he becomes the Messiah = in the Image / form of God. If it was past tense it would say, who HAD BEEN in God's form. This is his position /status / condition in the moment during his ministry.

#5) Emptied HIMSELF = dedicating HIMSELF to do God's will, giving up any earthly pursuits to give his life in service to God as a living sacrifice. When he came up from the water he was FILLED with the spirit of God, officially giving him the authority of God to do his will.

#6) Took a slave's form . Chose to take a slaves role in his ministry rather than expect others to serve him as the King Messiah. He was still in God's form, He just chose (took) a slave's form to show his disciples how we should live.

#7) No consideration to a seizure = a direct contrast to first Adam who thought it not robbery (a seizure) to take from God what was God's prerogative, to be like God.

#8) Became human = to be like an ordinary man (humans) who were sinners, to experience the effect of sin but without sinning.

#9) He came as a man after experience what ordinary men face he came to experience the ultimate experience that man suffers as a sinner, death, but he humbly submitted to that. A sinless man experiencing the sin effects of ordinary humans,without sinning, so he could become a merciful high priest.

So that is the simplicity of it. When considered in context and in chronological time this scripture is not about pre-existence but about a perfect man in God's form = the last Adam who showed extreme humility throughout his short ministery.

Love to all!

 

OK lets get this straight before we go on to confuse the issue. Matthew is full of detail. God gives a great insight on the origin of Jesus.

#1) If Jesus is a descendant of David, than it is obviously he didn't have pre-existence.(he is in the loins of David’s descendants) No Man pre-exists their forefather. Do you agree that is correct?

#2) The word translated history at Matt 1 and birth at v18 is the Greek word “genesis” = beginning.

Strictly speaking it means the beginning of Jesus, his origin. Same word used for the first book of the Bible. Do you agree ?

#3) When God made Adam he breathed into him the spirit of life and he became 'active',= a “living” soul. An act of creation. Do you agree?

#4) To produce children Adam had to pass the spirit of life (within the sperm) from him to Eve to activate her seed cell. Is that correct? Is that the normal way of procreation known to people at that time as begetting? To produce a child it need two sources under normal conditions. Am I right on this?

# 5) For Jesus to be begotten it needed two sources a father and a mother for a conception to take place? Do you agree?

#6) Does Matt give us the two sources of his origin, his beginning? YES.

#7) Do you agree that the word (ek) is the Greek genitive for source or origin, and means (out of) and is NOT (dia) = through. Ek is used a number of time in Matthew, vs 3,5 Is this correct?

#8) Who are the two sources of Jesus origin/source? Matt 1:16 =The first source his mother, he is OUT OF Mary. Second source, the Father Verse 18 he is OUT OF holy spirit. V 20 = out of holy spirit, the spirit of life from out of God the source of life. Ps 36:9 God Jehovah is his father. Do you agree?

#9) Now is Jehovah telling me the truth about the origin of Jesus? Is this not very direct and explicit detail outlining Jesus origin, his beginning? Has not Jehovah given us the two source of his begetting? It is he who has fathered /engendered his own son miraculously..

#10) Where in this account is there a suggestion he was from another source? One outside the two sources of origin, Perhaps a recycled / reincarnated angel?

Shalom

 

Oh great! Lets forget about truth! It does not matter.!

Matthew claifies Jesus origin very clearly. The reason there is no pre-existing mentioned in Matthew is because there is none.

I asked you questions to define matters. (your suggestion) But now you sidestep and avoid them. Lols!

 

Dear readers and genuine truth seekers,

Jesus origin.

Matthew account clearly outlines the origin of Jesus. Giving us the two sources of origin. His father and his mother, Out of God's holy spirit (Mt 1:18,20) (Ps 36:9) and out of Mary. (Mt 1:16) Jesus is God's only begotten son. Begotten to Mary in the first century. Born, circumcised and named in the first century. Jesus is the second perfect earthly man, the first earthly man Adam sinned. Jesus didn't.

Jehovah is telling us the truth of Jesus origin, specifically!

All the scriptures relating to Jesus should be in harmony with this explicit truth. It cannot be ignored if your interested in truth.

Of course if its too hard just have God create a miracle and there that solves it, God can do any thing. May as well believe a trinity, God can recreate himself as a man. Lols.

Only trouble with that logic, is that it is impossible for God to lie. And Matthew has told us the truth of Jesus origin.

Please do not be fooled by the pre-exist theory. It is false. Jesus existed only in the mind and heart of God as to his plan and purpose to save mankind. He was foreknown, (as prophesied 1Pet1:20) not pre-existing.

Love and blessings in the spirit of truth..

 

Joshua, I thought that was what we were doing. I have butted out without insisting I'm right saying, I agree to disagree. And to keep your thoughts in my mind. If at a later date if I find them correct, I will abide to follow it.

You object to some of the things I say, and I should be given the opportunity to express what I believe in open discussion.

I am not forcing you to believe me, but to give me respect. I have not said things that are offensive or wrong. Other than express beliefs that seem contrary to you. I am a genuine truth seeker and I would hope each on your board would be.

Are you just looking for people to agree with you on this forum? Are you saying we cannot speak openly about what we believe. I am one of Jehovah witness, I am not allowed to openly speak about our personal understanding in the congregation without the fear of dis-fellowshiping. Is that the same here? To me that is stifling the truth.

If you want to speak about how great the meeting was last week, or how you found this scripture exciting etc.. mundane and irrelevant things than fine, I don't find those discussion very interesting its like patting each other on the back..

I have scanned the forum to find subjects that interested me, I found very little. That is not saying there were no good subjects, but not ones that would interest me. I have been amazed that there is not many participants or post for such along time. I found that curious. So I tried to create more interest my posting some of the truths I have found, now I am not saying you have to believed it, but I'd appreciated if you were to ask me why I believe it.

I would prefer you to object in someway without attacking ME with rhetoric, but with open discussion on the scriptures as you suggested. Explaining the scriptures rather than insisting you or I are right. Truth is truth we have nothing to fear from truth. Truth is what teaches me, I am convinced by truth and persuaded by proper logic. Not by rhetoric.

Please forgive me if you have found anything offensive, believe me that is not my intentions. I will try my best to avoid offensive talk. Always!

Shalom

 

Joshuastoe7, You have suggested that the following scriptures prove Jesus pre-existence. I'm of a different opinion which I will discus below.

Jhn 8:58 “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been."

Jhn 17:5 "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

Jhn 16:28 "I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."

Jhn 13:3 "Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God;"

To me these are like contradiction, as I understand Jesus is a real man. And these scripture seem to contradict that fact.

So first let me explain why I have come to that conclusion.

Well, First of all I understand, the scriptures teach us that Jesus actual origin was in the first century? For example, Matthew and Luke are very explicit as to his origin, pointing out his Mother and his Father. Out of God and out of Mary. With NO indication he came from another source, such as from an angel. Matt 1

So to me ,Jesus is a man from heaven. Because Jehovah is his source of life just as Jehovah was the life source of the first Adam who sinned.

To me He is as earthly as Adam was. I don't see him as an archangel or God. The scriptures seem to be saying, He was begotten to Mary to be God's only begotten son. Spiritually begotten at his baptism. Where God called the earthly man his son. As God had said he will be called my son. Luke 1:32 Ps 36:9

Later on I read that John the baptist identified Jesus as a MAN, and Jesus himself Identified himself as a man, and the disciples identified him as a man. The Bible teaches me, he was about 30 years of age (not millions) which to me clearly shows he could not have had a pre-existence)

I have pondered the thought of Jesus being a corresponding ransom he had to be of an equal of the first Adam. That is he had to be wholly man having the mind of a man and the body of a man. IMO

He could not have the mind of a man and the mind of an angel. To me that would make an imbalance in the scale of Justice. I would assume He could have God's guidance and spirit, just as Adam had the same opportunities. But, the thing I am certain about is, that Adam was not given the mind of an archangel.

So my conclusion is if Jesus is truly a man, and is of 30 years of age. Than the above scriptures cannot be true unless there is a logical way to understand them. I think it is the way we interpret his words that has lead to confusing him to be God or an angel.

The scriptures have been taken literally by Trinitarians and WTS, and so they reason if Jesus speaks like this he must be God or an angel because that is what they seem to indicate. However, I am of a different opinion, I don't see them as being literal, but spiritual. He is a man of 30 years of age, and standing before other grown men. No man has lived that long. (My logic, I don’t think God wants me to believe absurdities) So in my eyes its not literal. He has to be talking figuratively or spiritually to justify him being a man and not what I would call a hybrid a man with the mind of an angel which of course I do not see as a corresponding Adam.. He has to have the same advantages Adam had IMO.

I found in the scriptures, a bases for him speaking spiritually or figuratively?

** Mk 4:34 Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them, but he would explain all things privately to his disciples .

** Matt 13:35 in order to fulfil what was spoken through the prophet who said: “I will open my mouth with illustrations; I will proclaim things hidden since the founding.

So I came to these conclusions because, Jesus proclaimed things hidden, (revealed the scriptures Luke 24:25-27) To me he is revealing how he is fulfilling the things written about him. Another good scripture I found that supports this was Jn1:41-45 where the disciples were able to identify Jesus from the actual scriptures written about him.

So in answer to the above scriptures I believe and understand He is Not speaking literally but talking spiritually or at times figuratively. Therefore, instead of teaching a pre-existence, I believe Jesus was teaching spiritually as a man, and in harmony with what we'ed expect of a man 30 years of age. Explaining his role in fulfilment of scriptures. Being the son of man as promised ..

Shalom.

 

OK Cheers!

 

Joshuastone 7, Did you consider why I believe Jesus is a man? Because if he is not a man, I can't believe the scriptures. Are you saying he is not a man? What is he, if he is not a true man? Your confusing me!

Am I wrong to believe he is a literal man and he had a literal Father who is heavenly, and he has a literal mother who is earthly? Jehovah fathered him by a miraculous conception according to Matthew 1:20. tell me are those scriptures incorrect? Is not God his father, and isn't Mary his mother? A son of God and a son of man?

Joshuastoe7, thanks for this scripture, I have looked at it, but I have a problem with it. To me it is not saying going BACK to the father, but rather going TO the father. Tell me, from what Greek word is, BACK translated from?

I have no problem of Jesus going to his father. That's because Jehovah is his father.

It is only mumbo jumbo in your opinion!

The way I understand it Joshuastoe7 is that Jehovah is the source of all life as Ps 36:9 says, and that began in the account of creation, that each would produce after its own kind, the spirit of life,or the principle of life, is passing on from one generation to the next through its individual seed. He began life in humans by breathing in to Adam the breath (spirit) of life.

From where do you think, life came from,.... the earth? Tell me how did the animals get their life, if it was not from heaven?

Again its only mumbo jumbo in your opinion!

OK, let me see if I got you correctly! You are saying in the context of these scriptures where Jesus seemingly, means pre-existence, it is literal? Is that correct? So your saying Jesus is NOT a MAN ? Correct?

The problem I have with your claim is literal, is, if he is speaking literally, than a Man literally came down from heaven. Do don't see that as a problem to your understanding? Did Jesus a man literally come down from heaven? Please you need to help with this confusion.

The way I see it Joshuastoe7, is Jesus is a man. Who is standing in front of other grown men.

And he says, (he a man) has come down from heaven, you take that literally? To me Jesus has to be (talking )spiritually. To me he is saying he has authority from God that comes down from heaven. Just as John the baptist had come from heaven, being sent by God but was a man..all prophets are sent from heaven or God that is how the Jewish people understood a prophet, their authority came from God or down from heaven.

Tell me, what are the things, in the context, that show he is someone other than what he himself claims to be a man Jn8:40? Is he not, Joshuastoe7, a man of 30 years of age? Or is he something other than a man? Where excactly does it say for example he is a reincarted angel? Someone is assuming he means,he preexisted? What??? A man has preexisted before he had birth to his mother? Where excactly in the context, does it say he is something more than a MAN? Joshua I have a hard time believing a man prexists his mother?

How were his listener to interpret his words? Because Jesus (a man) who says he came down from heaven (literally), be understood by those listening?

Would they assume he is God, an angel? Or a man?

Who is interpreting it right? You? The Trinnies? Or those, who understand Jesus to be a sinless man having authority from heaven?
Shalom.

 

Thank you!

Thanks for being honest you don't know.

The rest is your conjecture your interpretation and contradicts the clear explicit scriptures of his origin in Matt 1 that gives the two sources of his begetting, his father and his mother. OUT OF Mary and OUT of God.

God was literally his father and Mary was his mother.

I don't remember saying that, coming from the father is metaphoric. If I did I'm sorry that is incorrect. So I don't know I would have made that mistake.

I thought I had said that God was the source of his life. That came from heaven out of his spirit just as he had breath the spirit of life into Adam, the difference being, Jesus was begotten not created but procreated. Jesus would be the new man. That is why he is called the only unique son because he is begotten not created.

It is your opinion its mumbo jumbo. It is not irrational, the scriptures says he had a father Jehovah and a mother Mary, out of God and out of Mary. I cannot ignore those clear explicit details of Jesus origin.

Rather than address the scriptures you rubbish me. Saying it is my interpretation, I'm irrational, and what I say is mumbo jumbo. An old trick of Ad hominem..

That he certainly did I came from my father too.

Here is another Ad homien, (I make the statement meaningless if it applies to everything). Pointless cause everything come from God by virtue of the fact he is the creator.

I have connect why its not literal.

As you say Jesus is a man, and he says, he as a man came down from heaven. He is a grown man. Take it literal he came down as a fully grown man. The context has Jesus speaking spiritually. He did not come down as fully grown man, so either Jesus is lying or he means something NOT literal.

I take it literal and you claim I'm putting my interpretation lols.

Thank God we cleared that up, For a while I thought you may have thought he was a recycled angel who had a pre-existence.

I have no problem Angels manifesting themselves as men. However, according to Matt, 1 Jesus was not an angel but a son generate out of his father's spirit and out of Mary his mother. Who would be called in the future God's son. So it was not an angel placed in her womb. It was a begetting.
Think about that!

Your conjecturing giving your opinion and interpretation to say Jesus is an angel = angel man. His a man most of the time but occasionally,he lets us know he is an angel who has existed for millions of years and not a man of about 30 years of age.

When Jesus died the spirit of life left him and he expired died and was buried. Three days later the man Jesus (not an angel)was resurrected, his body changed preparing him for his access to heaven. He was not an angel. He was reassuring them they too would be resurrected That was no a guarantee for all men Acts 17:31.

Now listen! Please, You keep making the claim he is ONLY a MAN, nothing else. And I agree, and I believe according to the scriptures, he is a man of about 30Years of age.

Its all your weaving and manoeuvring around the scriptures trying to find something which you think,will justify that he is also a angel. You cannot have it both ways, otherwise he is not a correspond sacrifice for Adam.

It is a man who gives his life to pay the ransom price.

He is either a whole man with the mind and memories of a man, OR he is angel masquerading as a man with the mind of angel.

So he is a man and nothing more. And he is 30 years of age. Literally he is a man. So as a man he has not lived million of years to have had a glory before the world was, or he was before Abraham etc. So he is obviously a literal man speaking to literal men but he is not old enough to pre-existed literally, as a man. So he is obviously speaking spiritually, about how He is fulfilling the scriptures that spoke of him in prophecy before Abraham. He was to enter into his glory after fulling the scriptures that he would be struck in the heel. Gen 3:15

Well, here you go again. The word “returning”and the word “back” are not in the text, He went to the Father. It has been translated to religious bias.
Even so Jesus life original came from God and now completing his initial goal was going to God. (the life) he was granted with from/out of the father is obviously to the father. But you are mistranslating the Greek.

This idea, is not without errors and faults, as a trinny man, and an angel man, I'd did it all the time thinking it was correct.. you cannot make it and hard fast rule. Otherwise Jesus would be Nebuchadnezzar, And Jehovah would be Jesus you could make up anything you want. I don't rely on that logic, I certainly consider it but I take it with a grain of salt... Some of it will be right but most would be wrong.

I showed by simply looking at the context itself, Jesus could not be talking about literally existing before his mother or his forefather.. That is what I call stupidity, Men just do not exist before their Mothers or forefathers. You may as well believe the trinity they do the same thing... God can do impossible things but he still sticks to principles of truth.

He is a whole man, mind and heart and body, who was born to his father Jehovah and Mary his mother in the first century. And was not sent into the world until he finished maturing in the law. Act 3:22-26. Luke 4:16-22.

 

Agreed.

 

Additionally, there's nothing wrong with challenging another member's posts. When a person registers on the forum and then post their thoughts, it's a given that they understand, that other members may ask for more clarification, explanation, scriptural support, etc.

I have no problem with that.

Based on what I've read on other forums, the impression I get is that one can get the Bible to say anything they want, by simply adding their own personal interpretation.

That's why getting the context of the Scriptures, according to the Bible, is very important.

I wouldn't know how to debate scripture. My knowledge bases are mostly legal and financial matters. So I'll take my example from the financial realm.

I've been studying the WT's business model for several years now. I can make an educated guess as to what I think is happening currently and how I think the WT's financial position will go in the near future. But since the WT isn't transparent with much of the information, it means I have to go digging for it. I have to fill the "gaps" in with what I know of the financial world.

Until the WT collapses, I won't know with 100% certainty IF I'm correct in my "theory." At this point in time, it is a theory, a guess, an opinion, an interpretation.

 

Hi Wallflower,

Nice to hear from someone else, I was beginning to think there are only two people active on this site. Lols, No not really.

You are right, you can just about make the Bible say, whatever you like. I'm a skeptic believer, I don't agree, that the Bible is without errors, which has been borne out by scholars over the years identifying added texts etc.

I don't believe Jesus pre-exist because that is simply self-contradictory, Men have never pre-existed there mothers or forefathers or themselves for that matter.

According to how I understand the scriptures Jesus was to be a man of the line of David, so his seed had to be in the loins of his predecessors, not already existing. He can only be existing in Gods mind as as to his future plan to save the world. A plan is not in itself a person, but a purpose to accomplish something in the future. That plan comes to realisation in the birth and baptism of Jesus.

And the Bible makes it very clear that Jesus is begotten to Mary at Matt 1:120, a whole line of begats (aprox40) to the begetting of Jesus who is out of Mary his mother, and out of His father's holy spirit. No interpretation is needed. Jesus is an earthly son of God miraculously begotten, Son of God and son of man

Jesus is unique as he has a heavenly father and an earthly mother, so he has been termed the man from heaven, the new man.

I accept the fact that God can do impossible things, however what keeps me sane is: is that it is impossible for God to lie. He will not expect me to believe things that are contrary to true principles or things that are absurd, stupid or foolish. It has to make sense.

ON the wts money, where exactly does it go? Most of the work is done voluntary and expenses met by congregation members.

Do you really think they will eventually fall, before we see the new world? How do you see it coming about? Though this is not the subject of this tread.

Shalom