Christian greetings to Imabetterboy,

I'm personally familiar with arguments you've put forth concerning your conclusions surrounding the pre-existence of Jesus, since I've probably used them when I've written articles over the years as part of my way to explain why I seriously question the teaching that the Watchtower organization promotes in that Jesus is a former archangel (the archangel, specifically, according to the Watchtower's understanding-- if my memory is behaving today).

At the same time, I have come to the conclusion that discussions on this topic rarely go well, and typically degrade once the usual arguments have been spent, to the point where all that's left is finger-pointing at who is interpreting, who is right, who thinks they're right... ad nauseam.

On that note, I see very little I can personally contribute which has not already been covered... but will give it a go and see what comes of things...

Warning: I do NOT know right this moment if this is going to turn into a massive, blinding wall of text. Please forgive me if I repeat points, as I write in the moment and often think of another way of explaining something I've probably explained a gazillion times in earlier paragraphs.

Before I start with your opening post and move on from there to subsequent points raised during the course of the discussion, I'd like to clarify some terminology.

1. Insofar as I understand matters, an interpretation is a conclusion reached that has reasonable alternative possibilities. Personally, I prefer to use the word "understanding," rather than "interpretation" in this context.

2. I know there are distinctions to be found between "metaphoric," "figurative," "symbolism," and similar terms— but as far as I understand such things, these are distinctions with little difference in the big scheme of things and I try not to get hung up on technicalities. ​

I'll begin by saying that I do not believe that the first century Christians— specifically Jewish Christians— held the view that Gentiles came to have regarding the pre-existence of Jesus in some spiritual form. Frankly, it would take far longer to detail my scriptural and historical reasons for such a conclusion than I have available here. And, just as frankly, the everyday Joe doesn't really get caught up in this level of details. JoshuaStone7's forum is special in this regard, in that the discussions are more (advanced) because the participants enjoy said aspects of the outworking and awe-inspiring beauty of our heavenly Father's Purpose. Even so, over the years, some have, it's true, moved on. Such is the nature of message boards— and I say this from having operated forums of my own across the years past.

Alright, on to your opening post...

I'll skip Point #1, the "observable" as a given, although the writer of this letter to the believers in the Philippian congregation was the apostle Paul, who did not personally observe Jesus and asserts that what he knew about Jesus did not come from anyone else. (Cf Galatians 1:12) A distinction without a difference in the context of this discussion.

Point #2: "context" — I would only disagree with you on your point that Jesus became the Messiah at his baptism. We can establish that Jesus is declared begotten at his baptism, and that he was anointed with the holy spirit of Jehovah immediately following his rising from the waters— effectively becoming Christ (which means "anointed." (Cf Hebrews 5:5; Psalm 2:7. Also John 1:32-33)

However, Jesus' Messiahship does not seem to occur until he tells his disciples that he has now received full authority from the Father. (See Matthew 28:18). From that point onwards, as I understand this, Jesus became the Messiah and High Priest. Jesus' role in the midst of his brief earthly ministry was as the "Suffering Servant" prophesied by Isaiah— a prophecy upon which Jews and Christian Jews very much disagreed on. Even to this day, Jews apply the "suffering servant" to the nation of Israel, whereas Christians apply this to Jesus. In any case, Jesus did not come to rule, but to serve and then give his life as a ransom for many. Therein lies the distinction between Jesus' Messiahship and his fulfilling prophecy as the "suffering servant." [Note: John 1:41 describes Andrew explicitly declaring Jesus as being the Messiah, but we should remember that Jesus' own disciples had very wrong notions regarding the Messiah— even as the Jews in Jesus' day had wrong expectations and thus rejected Jesus as their expected Messiah. I see no scriptural or theological conflict between Andrew recognizing Jesus as the Messiah while simultaneously misunderstanding that Jesus' Messiahship would not begin until after his fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy regarding the "suffering servant."]

Point #3: "Existing in God's form." — I'm not clear how you introduce "[Jesus] having the authority of God" here, but I concur that when the apostle Paul writes that Jesus "although he was existing in God's form" he is referring to the exact equivalency to Adam, who was also created "in God's form." (See Genesis 1:27) Likewise, we can confirm that Adam was the son of God. (Cf Luke 3:38)

Point #4: "Was existing" — I would disagree with your conclusion that this is tied with Jesus' Messiahship, for the reasons I expressed above, in your Point #2.

Personally, and according to my current understanding, Paul's expression "was existing" isn't establishing a pre-human existence of Jesus, but rather is speaking of Jesus in somewhat of a past tense, in reference to while he lived among us humans as a human. This is in conjunction with my notes in Point #3.

Point #5: "Emptied HIMSELF" — I agree with your conclusion here, based on Mark 14:24, Matthew 26:28, and Luke 22:20, where Jesus acknowledges the very extent to which he is going in behalf of fallen humankind.

Point #6: "Took a slave's form." — I agree with your conclusion, apart from Jesus then being the Messiah. As our Exemplar, we are moved to likewise set aside our self, submitting our will to that of our Father. I do not believe that taking a slave's form should be understood to mean him putting on human form, since we are likewise admonished not think ourselves greater than our master (we are to assume a slave's form) (Cf Matthew 10:24, et al).

Point #7: "No consideration to a seizure." — I agree with your point here, although I would add that Adam's fault did not lie in wanting to be like God, but rather, in not realizing that he already was like God, having been created in God's likeness. The "seizure" was in taking authority to himself in determining what is right and what is wrong (the self's will), rather than remaining obedient to our Creator. Jesus, like Adam, having been likewise created in Jehovah's image, set aside his self and will and became obedient even unto his own death. Once again, a distinction with very little difference, really.

Point #8: "Became human" — I don't feel your application here does anything to address arguments which arise in favor of this proving Jesus must have had a pre-human existence. I'm going to presume that this is from the New World Translation, because I am seeing several other translations which clear up potential theological confusion, and I'll leave it to others to look into them. In any case, the majority of Bible translations favor a rendering like this: "...being found in human form..." In conjunction with said rendering, I would refer you and other readers to John 1:41, when Andrew excitedly explains that they "have found" Jesus.

Point #9: "He came as a man" — Again, this seems to be a Watchtower translation weighed with doctrinal bias, and I find the parenthetical "More than that... when he came as a man" interpretational rather than a translation of the original Greek text. So, I have nothing to add here beyond agreeing that Jesus was tempted in every way common to us all. Reasonably, this would've included the (temptation) to become a husband and father of sons and daughters of his own, among many other aspects peculiar to humanhood, so to speak. (Cf Hebrews 4:15)

It's getting late here for this old man, so I need to pause for now and will strive to pick up things tomorrow evening.

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
Timothy

 

Joshuastone7 Greetings Brother!

Brother I don't quite understand your question, are you suggesting he is from two earthly lines? Or are you meaning a single line of ancestral parents from David.

But just let me say, this,any child, even if I was to accept your belief, it was an angel, would be a sinner. So that is mutual.

Here is an interesting thing, thanks to modern technology. The seed cell once activated eliminates what is not needed an accepts what is provided through a filtering protected sac so the mothers blood does no come in direct contact with the baby’s blood under proper normal conditions.

The child grows regardless of any consciousness of the mother. Provide the mother takes good care of herself the child will be without defects.

 

PS
I do not believe he was a sinner.

 

I'm pretty certain that everyone here is of the opinion that their understanding is in harmony with Biblical truths, each convinced that something is an "explicit" truth. In fact, how many sects among Christians can we find today grouped according to each respective group's "explicit" truths? The Watchtower organization likes to argue that they (the various expressions of grouped Christians) can't all be right— but my position has been and will continue to be that "they" can't all be wholly wrong, either. Charles Taze Russell was at least honest enough to recognize that each group has varying elements of truth mixed with doctrines established by men convinced, like Adam, that they can discern between what is right and what is wrong.

This is the same as saying that some people are better than others, and you would be acting like a crooked judge. My dear friends, pay attention. God has given a lot of faith to the poor people in this world. God has also promised them a share in his kingdom that he will give to everyone who loves him. You mistreat the poor... You will do all right, if you obey the most important law in the Scriptures. It is the law that commands us to love others as much as we love ourselves. But if you treat some people better than others, you have done wrong, and the Scriptures teach that you have sinned. — James 2:4-6, 8-9 Contemporary English Version​

This is a logical fallacy. Specifically, an ad populum— also called the "bandwagon appeal."

Another logical fallacy— this time, a moral equivalence argument.

I am not seeing where anyone here is disputing the above. The discussion involves what it says or means to each of us in conjunction with our body of beliefs and convictions and understanding.

It is "false" insofar as your understanding (and mine) is concerned, but this is in accordance with what we have come to believe and be convicted in. However, I would qualify that by pointing out that we could very well be wrong, too. (Cf 1 Corinthians 11:19; Luke 6:42)

--Timothy

_____________
For additional insight into logical fallacies in argumentation, see https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/

 

Joshuastone7, Dear brother, I will give a brief reply to this post, as I am in the middle of other things, and will find it hard to get back with my replies. So please bear with me till I return.

Now on the issue above! Was it a miracle? Yes indeed?

It has always been my belief that it took a miracle, and I have mentioned that in many of my posts.

Sorry, you missed them.

I understand it took a miracle for Jehovah to activate Mary's seed, with life from out of God himself, he is the biological father. Not by intercourse but by causing Mary to fall pregnant with life from himself. Out of his spirit holy the scripture says in the Greek.

God formed a new creation in the womb of Mary who, when matured and fully grown will be called the last Adam. (The corresponding ransom), I prefer to say the second Adam the second sinless man ever to walk our planet.

Ek = The Greek text used = The genitive of origin or source of origin

Matt 1:16 = Out of Mary

Matt 1:18= Out of holy spirit

Matt 1:20 = Out of holy spirit

 

Joshuastone7 Good morning to You! Delightful day here! Got a few minutes before I got to go.

I have no problem with you disagreeing. We are human we all see things differently.

But let be ask you, How did Adam get his spirit of life to become a living soul?

Can I ask you, to define what you believe, is the spirit of life? It seems we all have it.

Now, you say you believe it is possible to raise up children to Abraham from stones. How? I will take a guess, by putting (spirit of life) into them not angels?

Jehovah, the biological father of Jesus, did exactly that (imo). to Mary's seed cell.

That is what I believe is being said at Matt 1:16,18,20. where Ek the Greek proposition word for source of origin = (out of) is used for the two sources of his parents (out of Mary) and (out of Jehovahs holy spirit).. It was out of God's spirit. How much spirit, is necessary to activate and seed cell smaller that the period at the end of a sentence...........?

 

Brother, John 3:16 is past tense because it is not Jesus saying that, but the writer of gospel many years after his death and resurrection.

John is relating the account starting at Jn 3:1, and records the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus, The conversation finishes at v12, And John continues to tell the narrative of Jesus, speaking from the point of view that Jesus has already been given and is at his father's side in heaven after the resurrection. The words, " he gave his only begotten son" is written many years after and they are not the words of Jesus but John who is telling the story of Jesus.

I was under the impression “only begotten” was used about 9 times but I might be wrong. I know it is used in these cases as well Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38 Where it speaks of others who are only begotten.

And on Mt 19:4 A very Good scripture! I feel, Jesus shows clearly Adam was created, Whereas Jesus is created by procreation begotten by pregnancy.

** Luke 1:20 But after he had thought these things over, look! Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take your wife Mary home, for what has been conceived in her is by holy spirit.

What has been conceived in her is by the holy spirit = what has been begotten in her is out of holy spirit.

Got to go will be back later


Peace be with you.

 

Yes, I agree, but only from verse 2-12

The reason I have that understanding is because of how it is written. John is telling the story beginning at Vs 1 of a conversation with Nicodemus but the conversation ends at verse 12. Is not my interpretation. That understanding has been around since at least the printing of the Bullingers Bible.

The Companion Bible by Bullinger has notes that make a good case for the fact that Jesus’ speaking ends at verse 12 and John, the narrator, begins with verse 13. In fact, Bullinger lists seven different reasons for Jesus’ talking ending at verse thirteen.
Bullinger’s seven reasons are:

1. Because the past tense of the Greek verbs that follow verse twelve indicate completed events.
   
   
2. Because the expression “only begotten Son” is not used by the Lord of himself, but is used by John describing the Lord (John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).
   
   
3. Because “in the name of” (John 3:18, using the Greek word en) is not used by the Lord, but by John (John 1:12; 2:23; 1 John 5:13).
   
   
4. Because to “do the truth” occurs elsewhere only in 1 John 1:6.
   
   
5. Because “who is in heaven” (v. 13) points to the fact that the Lord had already ascended at the time John wrote.
   
   
6. Because the word “lifted up” refers both to the sufferings (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34) and to “the glory which should follow” (John 8:28; 12:32; Acts 2:33; 5:31).
   
   
7. Because the break at verse 13 accords best with the context, as shown by the structure of the section
   

On verse 14

The Greek verb “to lift up” is the same for both the serpent and the Son of Man, hupsoō (#5312 ὑψόω), and both are in the aorist tense

From REV Bible Commentary.

So this could not have happened in heaven previously. I agree with Bullingers analyses.

To the contrary JoshuaStone7 I have always been of the opinion it took a miracle.

JoshuaStone7 Please read my comments carefully, I have never denied Jesus birth is a miracle. And I quote these posts to clear that up.

What I disagree with is the different kind of miracle. You claim Jesus is a reincarnated angel whom sacrificed his heavenly life to be converted to a man, by a transfer of his life to the womb of Mary.

My Post #3 item 9 “ It is he who has fathered /engendered his own son miraculously”

Here is a clear quote of mine believing it was a miracle. Before your objections. That I didn't believe it to be one.

My Post #13 2nd para. “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?”

Here in this reply, I make the point it was a miraculous conception. And there are ,Questions,your seemed to have over looked.

My comments on Post #28 Now on the issue above! Was it a miracle? Yes indeed?

It has always been my belief that it took a miracle, and I have mentioned that in many of my posts.

Sorry, you missed them.

Your reply! #29 I didn't miss them, I disagreed with you.

I was trying to make clear it was a miracle. I have never thought it wasn't. YOU agreed you saw them but didn't agree.

By your disagreeing you actual agree!

Also in #post 29 I said Jesus was a new creation (an obvious miracle)

Your reply was “ So God put Jesus's life into Mary's womb, but you say it's impossible that Jesus's life could have existed previously... Hmmm... “

To this I would like to say, first I have two children grown up now. But they did not pre-exist except in my mind to have children. They did not have LIFE until they were begotten when I passed the spirit of LIFE from me on to my wife, it was my sperm(that contains the spirit of life) that activated her seed to begin the function of forming a child.

I understand that is the same with Jehovah fathering Jesus out of his spirit causing Mary's seed to function forming the future son of God. It was a miraculous conception. Not by intercourse. Nor a transfer of an angel. Jehovah is the biological father who directly fathered a son miraculously.

Of course Jehovah is a heavenly father and his mother is earthly. Jesus is a son of God and a son of man.

Well I'm sorry that I missed that idea, I am of the opinion Matthew is more than just a genealogy of Jesus descendants from David. But Matthew also give the origin of his biological Father, Saying he is out of God's holy spirit. Jehovah is his source of life.

I understand Jehovah did not send his son into the world until he was a mature man fully capable to carry out his role as a prophet. Heb 10:5-9. Deut 18:15-19, Acts, 3:22-26.Luke 4:18 It was not until he was RAISED UP that he was sent him into the world. After he was baptised Acts 10:38

The main point As I see it, is the difference in understanding the Miracle of Jesus, LIFE.

You claim it is the LIFE of a pre-existing creature who is Jesus, who sacrifices his heavenly life so he can be transferred to the womb of Mary to take on flesh.

I claim it is also a miracle, however, I simply believe Jehovah created a new life, (Gave life) by causing Mary seed cell to become active with LIFE from (out of) himself.

LIFE = the principle of life or the spirit of life. NOT the life as a person. I think the wts say it is an active force that is in every breathing thing.

Here is what I quoted earlier with a couple of small additions.

I understand it took a miracle for Jehovah to activate Mary's seed, with life from out of Himself, he is the biological father. Not by intercourse but by causing Mary to fall pregnant with life from himself. Out of his spirit holy the scripture says in the Greek.

God formed a new creation in the womb of Mary who, when matured and fully grown will be called the last Adam. (The corresponding ransom), I prefer to say the second Adam the second sinless man ever to walk our planet.

Ek = The Greek text used = The genitive of origin or source of origin

Matt 1:16 = Out of Mary = Mother

Matt 1:18= Out of holy spirit = Father

Matt 1:20 = Out of holy spirit

 

Joshuastone7, Yes, I use to be of that same seemingly obvious view for years, until I saw the reality. He really wasn't "given" until his death when Jehovah allowed him to die even though he was not worthy of death. In other words Jesus poured out his life to the death. Gave up his life to save the world.

** Acts 3:22-26 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. .........You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ 26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness

John the Baptists was also a man sent from God. Should we assume that he was sent from Heaven?

** Jn 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

Have peace my friend.

 

I guess I'll pick up my own responding to points raised in this topic of discussion with this portion, since I also dispute a heavenly, spiritual being pre-existence of Jesus.

First, I would agree that Jesus existed even before Abraham "came into existence."

But did he literally exist, as a spirit being before Abraham was born? The Jews standing there certainly understood it that way, which is why they took such offense at the preposterousness of such a claim. Their shock was owing to their thinking Jesus was speaking literally, as shown when they said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" (verse 57)

If we look back earlier in this debate taking place, Jesus tells them that they aren't understanding what he's saying, in spite of his speaking plainly to them. (See verses 43, 45, and 47)

This indicates to me that while they were taking Jesus literally as he spoke to them, he wasn't speaking literally. There was much more to what he was saying.

Again, this is prominent throughout the confrontation taking place between these Jews and Jesus: Jesus would say something to them, and they took it literally and argued with him. Each and every time, and getting more agitated as the discussion/debate proceeded, right up to the point where they move to stone him because they think Jesus is speaking literally, and he keeps pointing out that they're not getting what it is that he actually is saying.

The easiest thing to do here is to consider any other scriptures where someone is described as existing before they were actually born, right?

...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will... — Ephesians 1:4-5 New American Standard Bible

...just as he chose us in union with him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love. For he foreordained us to the adoption through Jesus Christ as sons to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will... — Ephesians 1:4-5 New World Translation
​

If Jehovah chose these followers of Jesus before the foundation of the world— then these followers were before Abraham came into existence. This is in spite of the fact that these followers weren't even born yet.

But for Jehovah, who is Timeless and exists outside the constraints of the Stream of Time in which Creation finds itself presently locked, they already existed, they already were.

"Before I was forming you in the belly I knew you, and before you proceeded to come forth from the womb I sanctified you. Prophet to the nations I made you." — Jeremiah 1:5 New World Translation
​

How is it that Jeremiah could be sanctified before he was even born, if not because insofar as Jehovah was concerned, Jeremiah already was.

So, what about Jesus himself, then?

True, he was foreknown before the founding of the world, but he was made manifest at the end of the times for the sake of YOU... —1 Peter 1:20 New World Translation
​

Just as Jehovah foreknew Jeremiah would be His prophet to the nations (appointed Jeremiah), Jehovah foreknew the role Jesus would have in the outworking of His Purpose. The writer of 1 Peter goes on to say that Jesus "was made manifest" subsequent to Jehovah's having already established Jesus' role in the first century as the "suffering servant" and then as the Messiah King and High Priest following his resurrection:

God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. —Hebrews 1:1-2 New World Translation

[NOTE: Before anyone jumps in here over the "and through whom he [Jehovah] made the systems of things," I want to say that I'll try to come back to that point later on— but if I forget, please remind me to address it if it seems I'm not coming back to it during the course of this discussion/topic.]​

In any case, the above scriptural examples demonstrates that a person can exist as far as Jehovah is concerned, before they actually exist in our sphere of existence, born as a human. After all, we are not inclined to say that Jeremiah had a pre-existence in the heavenly sphere, right? Or those followers of Jesus referred as having been chosen even before the founding of the world, as having a heavenly pre-existence right?

Okay, onto your next scripture...

Taken at face value, it appears that Jesus is asserting that he existed as a spiritual being alongside Jehovah before the world began— especially within the context of the Johannine gospel, which Bible scholars all are in agreement represents a "high Christology" [Link does not, wholesale, represent my own present understanding but does serve to define the term used. Readers and participants in the discussion are encouraged to research the term and application, of course] in comparison with the earlier gospels preserved among believers throughout most of the early first century, making for a striking departure from the synoptic Jesus accounts and theology.

Now, if my current position is that this statement is not an affirmation of the actual, realized pre-existence of Jesus as a spirit being, I should scripturally explain myself, I agree.

There are, of course, the above-cited passages where the prophet Jeremiah (existed) before the world began, as well as the referenced followers of Jesus, so I'll build on those verses rather than re-cite them again here.

But let's take a look at two specifics here:

First, there is the matter of "the world" which Jesus refers to. I'm going to go against the grain here and assert that this is not speaking about Creation. And yes, I know the original Greek word used here is kosmos, which we typically apply to the Cosmos-- that is, our physical universe.

However, the same word is used in a later epistle:

Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever. — 1 John 2:17 New World Translation, et al.
​

I feel it would be a disservice to insist that this is speaking about Creation, as I'm not clear how stars, planets, galaxies, and much more have desires. Instead, and even the Watchtower organization seems to agree, this is a reference to the current system of things which keeps humankind locked into a downward spiral toward self-destruction and eventual dispensation, the system of things (read: kosmos) having been allowed to run its course in accordance with the Purpose Jehovah put in place possibly even before Adam sinned, foreknowing as I have already demonstrated through the earlier scriptures. In other words, I do not believe that Jehovah was being reactive when Adam and Eve sinned there in the Garden, since I cannot believe that our Creator was surprised or caught unaware by their sin— but I won't digress further on this since it will take the discussion off-topic.

Still, I will at least take an educated guess on when this "world" began: about the same time as men began to build their tower of Babel, given that Jehovah destroyed the previous system of things with the Flood.

...and if He didn't spare the ancient world [kosmos], but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others, when He brought a flood on the world of the ungodly... —1 Peter 2:5 Holman Christian Standard Bible
​

With this in mind, let's now factor in the core Christian conviction that Jesus was a corresponding Adam, the equivalent to Adam, the son of God, in every way except without sin.

Whether one holds that the system of things mentioned here is the pre-Flood kosmos or is the present kosmos (system of things), we should be able to agree that neither existed before Adam sinned against his Father and Creator, Jehovah God.

Likewise, we should be able to agree that the relationship Adam enjoyed there in the Garden, with Jehovah, was glorious. Adam was the crowning jewel of Creation, and even given godship over the planet and its creatures, having all these things placed in subjection to him.

An untainted, unrestricted, unhindered, divinely personal relationship, even before the creation of Adam's helpmeet, Eve.

When Adam sinned, he lost the glory bestowed upon him, and for all of his descendants.

I believe, then, that as the corresponding Adam, Jesus is here asking his Father to restore the glory that Adam lost, and with it that profound and unique relationship Adam once had with Jehovah. The tearing of the curtain following the death of Jesus appears to be confirmation that Jesus' prayer was both heard and acknowledged, setting into motion events which will, in due course, bring the faithful back to that original and glorious relationship near/with our Father— ultimately realized when:

...then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. —1 Corinthians 15:28 New World Translation
​

Alright, this is beginning to look like a wall of text, so I will break my response here and resume in a subsequent post.

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
Timothy

 

Let me first start by pointing out what Jesus said to Pilate.

** Jn 18:37 So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is on the side of the truth listens to my voice

All I can go on is Jesus own words that (a) that he'd be a King, and (b) that he should bear witness to the truth.

The short response I would say is, he is to undo the wrong Adam caused by not fulfilling Gods original word to fill the earth and take care of it.

The book of Acts seems to indicate that as well.

**Acts 3:20-22 and he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus. 21 Heaven must hold this one within itself until the times of restoration of all things of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets of old. 22 In fact, Moses said: ‘Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you.

So just briefly, it was so that God's original purpose be fulfilled. And restore all things back together again in Christ. The removal of sin and corruption one important aspect of it. And to show us the way to God our heavenly Father.

And that he would be the King of the Kingdom established before the founding of the world. And it is by this kingdom that Jesus fulfils Jehovah original promise and purposes.

Once he has accomplished that I'm guide by what Paul said to the Corinthians that he would hand the Kingdom back to God his father so that God original purpose is completely fulfilled.

Love to you brother!

 

Greetings Earthbound!!First let me thank you for giving a wonderful and informative response. Yes, my mind too, has changed on the WT view of the archangel. I started to review everything I had been taught by them, when I read the book the Gentile Times Reconsidered.

Up till that time I was convinced they were completely right. But after reading that and a couple of watchtowers in (cover up) response to that, I was convinced, the wts was not the chosen as the right religion in 1919. I still hold to some of the beliefs and even attend an occasional meeting.

Now to your response. Thanks again for a practical and informative reply. I appreciate your objections and views. I will not go into full explanations but briefly comment, believing you will get the point. I must stress it is how I understand them even if I do not say that on every occasion. I simple want to make it simple.

Earthbound, I wrote a 5 page essay in response to your informative reply, However I have thought better off not posting it. I don't think it will improve much of your understanding as you seem to have a better grip of it than me.

I have taken your advice and applied it. And I appreciate the finer points expounded by your response. Let me say thanks again, and look forward to many more of your posts.

Love IABB