Hello, Eric Wilson here.
I’ve been surprised by the reaction my last video provoked from the Jehovah’s Witnesses community defending the JW doctrine that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Initially, I didn’t think this doctrine was that critical to the theology of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but the response tells me I underestimated its value to them. When I produced videos showing that the 1914 doctrine was false, I got very little scriptural argumentation. Oh sure, there were the haters with their hate, but that is just impotent bluster. I got even less resistances to the revelation that the other sheep doctrine was bogus. The biggest concern was whether or not paradise would be on earth. (Short answer: Yes, it will be.) So why did the video on Jesus not being an angel strike such a nerve with Witnesses?
Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses defend this teaching so tenaciously?
There are two spirits at work in the world. There is the holy spirit at work in children of God, and the spirit of Satan, the God of this world. (2 Co 4:3, 4)
Satan hates Jesus and will do whatever he can to keep us from getting a relationship with him and through him with our heavenly Father. The children of God are his enemy, because they are the seed by which his complete defeat is assured; so, he’ll do anything to block the development of that seed. (Ge 3:15) Misrepresenting Jesus is one of his chief ways of achieving that. He’ll do anything to destroy or pervert our relationship with the Son of God, which is why I felt compelled to start this series on the nature of God’s Son.
On one extreme, you have the Trinity doctrine. The majority of Christendom believes the Trinity represents the nature of God and therefore, the nature of God’s Son, or as they refer to him: “God the Son”. This belief is so central to their belief that they do not consider anyone who does not accept the Trinity to be a true Christian. (In case you’re wondering, we will be looking into the Trinity in detail in a series of upcoming videos.)
On the other extreme, you have the anti-trinitarian or unitarian Jehovah’s Witnesses, along with a minority of Christian sects, who—in the case of the Witnesses at least—give lip-service to Jesus as God’s Son, and even recognize him as a god, still denying his divinity and marginalizing him. For any Witness out there who disagrees with me, I would ask that before you write me flaming comments, you engage in a little exercise of your own. When you are out in your next field service group, sitting at your mid-morning coffee break, refer to Jesus instead of Jehovah in your casual conversation. At any point in the conversation where you would normally invoke Jehovah’s name, substitute Jesus. And for fun, refer to him as our “Lord Jesus”, a phrase that appears in Scripture over 100 times. Just watch the result. Watch the conversation comes to an abrupt halt as if you’d just used a swear word. You see, you’re not speaking their language anymore.
In the NWT bible, “Jesus” appears 1,109 times, but in the 5,000+ manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures, Jehovah’s name does not appear at all. Even if you add the number of times the NWT translation committee saw fit to insert his name arbitrarily—because they thought it should go there—you still find a four-to-one ratio in favor of Jesus’ name. Even given the Organization’s best efforts to have us focus on Jehovah, the Christian writers have us looking to the Christ.
Now take a comparative look at The Watchtower to see which name is emphasized.
‘Nuf said? No? Still have doubts? You think I’m exaggerating? Well, have a look at this illustration from the April 15, 2013 issue of The Watchtower.
Where is Jesus? Don’t come back to me, as some have, saying that Jesus isn’t depicted because this only represents the earthly part of Jehovah’s Organization. Really? Then why is Jehovah here? If it is only the earthly part, then why show Jehovah on his so-called chariot. (I say so-called because nowhere in this vision of Ezekiel, nor in the rest of the Bible for that matter, is Jehovah ever depicted riding a chariot. If you want a picture of God in a chariot, you have to go to pagan mythology. Don’t believe me? Google it!)
But back to the matter at hand. The Christian congregation is referred to as the Bride of Christ.
So, what do we have here? If you read Ephesians 5:21-33, you’ll see that Jesus is pictured as a husband with his bride. So here we have a picture of the Bride and the Father of the Bride, but the Groom is missing? Ephesians also calls the congregation the Body of the Christ. Christ is the head of the congregation. So, what do we have here? A headless body?
One of the reasons this diminishment of the role of Jesus has been made possible is the demoting of our Lord to the status of angel.
Remember, humans are only a little lower than the angels.
“…what is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor.” (Ps 8:4, 5 BSB)
So, if Jesus is just an angel, it means that you and I are just a little lower than Jesus. Does that seem silly, even blasphemous to you? It does to me.
Father tells us to, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes.” (Pr 26:5 BSB) Sometimes, the best way to show the absurdity of a line of reasoning is to carry it to its logical extreme. For instance: If Jesus is Michael, then Michael is a God, because John 1:1 says, paraphrasing, “In the beginning was Archangel Michael, and Archangel Michael was with God, and Archangel Michael was a god.” (John 1:1)
All things were made by, for, and through Archangel Michael according to John 1:3 and Col 1:16. Archangel Michael made the universe. We must put faith in Archangel Michael based on John 1:12. Archangel Michael is “the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through” Archangel Michael. (John 14:6) He is the “King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Re 19:16) Archangel Michael is the “eternal father”. (Isaiah 9:6)
But some, still desperately clinging to the belief, will cite Revelation 12:7-12 and argue that who else but Jesus could be the one to throw the Devil out of heaven? Let’s have a look, shall we?
“And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven. So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.”” (Re 12:7-12)
Witnesses allege that this happened in October of 1914 and that Michael is really Jesus.
Modern-day anointed Christians pointed in advance to October 1914 as a significant date. (w14 7/15 pp. 30-31 par. 10)
Apparently, from the context, this battle took place because according to verse 10, “now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ”. Since Witnesses put the enthronement and authority of the Christ at October, 1914, the battle must have taken place then or shortly thereafter.
But what about the ensuing “woe to the earth and the sea”?
For Witnesses, the woe starts with the First World War, then continues with more wars, pestilences, famines and earthquakes. In short, because the devil was angry, he caused much of the bloodshed of the 20th century.
Additionally, the phrase “they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witness” must apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses from 1914 forward.
The problems start right away with this interpretation. First, according to Witnesses, the devil could not have been thrown down before October of 1914, but the war (the woe) he was supposedly responsible for due to his great rage, was already underway by that point. It had started in July of that year, and the nations had been preparing for it in one of the greatest arms races in history for the preceding ten years. Was the Devil planning to get angry?
Further, Christians had been ‘conquering Satan by the word of their witnessing since the time of Christ’. There is nothing unique about the faith and integrity of the Bible Students to distinguish them from faithful Christians down through the centuries.
Moreover, the authority of the Christ did not just come to pass in 1914, but had been in place since his resurrection. Did he not say, “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth”? (Mt 28:18) He got that in 33 C.E., and it would be hard to envision that more authority was given him later. Doesn’t “all authority” mean “all authority”?
But I think the real kicker is the following:
Think about this. Jesus leaves earth to return to heaven to receive the kingdom he has earned for his faithful course on earth. Jesus illustrated this in a parable that begins, “A man of noble birth traveled to a distant land to secure kingly power for himself and to return.” (Lu 19:12) When he arrived in heaven, in 33 C.E., this prophetic Psalm was fulfilled:
Jehovah declared to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”
(Psalm 110:1)
Jehovah tells Jesus, the newly crowned King, to sit tight while He (Jehovah) places the enemies of Jesus at his feet. Notice, God doesn’t destroy his enemies, but he puts them at his feet. Jehovah’s footstool is the earth. (Isaiah 66:1) It follows that Jesus’ enemies would be confined to the earth. That fits perfectly with what is described happening to Satan and his demons in Revelation chapter 12.
Nevertheless, Jesus does not do this. He is commanded to sit while Jehovah does it. Like any king, Jehovah God has armies that do his bidding. He is called “Jehovah of Armies” hundreds of times in the Bible and his armies are angelic. So, to make this Psalm come true, Michael, not Jesus, acts on God’s command and being one of the foremost angelic princes leads his army of angels to do battle with the Devil. In this way, Jehovah puts the enemies of Jesus at his feet.
When did this happen?
Well, when did the salvation, power, kingdom of God and authority of Christ come about? Certainly not in 1914. We just saw that Jesus claimed all authority was already his following his death and resurrection. The Kingdom of God and his Christ began then, but Jesus was told to sit patiently until his enemies were subdued as a stool for his feet.
There is therefore reason to believe the ousting of Satan happened in the first century, just after Jesus’ ascension to heaven. What about the rest of the vision described in Revelation chapter 12? That will be the topic of a future series of videos, God willing. As we look at the rest of the vision can we find consistency with the understanding that it happened in the first century? I am not a preterist, one who believes everything in the Christian Scriptures happened in the first century. I believe that we have to take the Scriptures as they come and follow the truth wherever it leads. I am not saying dogmatically that this prophecy was fulfilled at the time of Christ’s ascension, only that it is a distinct possibility and currently seems to fit with the Bible narrative.
It is a rule of logic that while we may not always know exactly what something is, we can very often rule out what it is not.
The evidence is that this prophecy was definitely not fulfilled in 1914. I believe the weight of evidence points to the first century, but if evidence comes forward to lend credibility to another date, we should all be open to consider it.
Did you notice how, by freeing ourselves from the preconceptions that force us to impose religious dogma onto our study of Scripture, we were able to come to an easier, scripturally consistent understanding than that which we held under our old beliefs? Isn’t that satisfying?
This is the result of looking at things exegetically rather than eisegetically. Do you remember what those two terms mean? We have discussed them in previous videos.
To put it another way, it is far more satisfying to let the Bible lead us to truth rather than try to force it to support our own truth.
Actually, the reason Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Michael the Archangel is Jesus is a direct result of eisegesis, of trying to force Scripture to support their own truth. The prophecies of the kings of the north and south as well as the 1,290 days and 1,335 days of Daniel have all been affected by their need to support 1914.
This all makes for an excellent object lesson on the dangers of this study method. In our next video, we’ll use this as a means to learn how not to study the Bible and then we’ll redo our research utilizing the proper method for arriving at Bible truth. We will put the power of discovery into your hands, into the hands of the individual Christian, where it belongs. Not in the hands of some ecclesiastical authority, some Pope, some Cardinal, some Archbishop, or some Governing Body.
Thank you for watching. Please click subscribe if you wish to be notified of the next video release.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Carol-lee Biggs on 2019-06-12 11:47:49
Hi I'm Carol-lee from Australia, I would like to thank Eric Wilson very much for you study and research for the truth that is written in the bible. Thank you brother for the truth I grew up as a JW never was baptized but kept going back and forward because I was told all my life it's the truth. I'm 61 years old and have seen so many doctrines changed over the years and because I question these changes and not excepting me because of my disabilities and because I am a woman and as a child was subjected to molestation which was ignored from 6 weeks old till I was 8 YRS old by my Mother , my Nana had caught this man interfering with me at 6 weeks old but because of the two witness rule he was kept in my home He was a uncle but my Nan had reported it to JW. I have been praying to Jehovah for help as I have been treated so badly for years. When I read and seen your videos I cried because finally at last someone who speaks from the word of the bible, I finally celebrated the wine and bread in remembrance of Jesus , was baptized to only Jesus not to any church. Thank you Brother Eric Wilson for your words are only from the bible and I look forward to reading and watching your videos as I only seek for the truth. I feel sorry for the brothers and sisters I pray to Jesus that there eyes and ears be opened to to the truth. Thank you so much from Carol-lee
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-06-12 17:28:55
Thank you for your sincere expressions, Carol-lee Biggs. By the way, did you know we have an online meeting at 8 AM Sundays with a number of Aussie brothers and sisters. If you would like to join, please email me at meleti.vivlon@gmail.com
Comment by messenger on 2019-06-12 13:10:10
Very nice coverage Eric.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-06-12 17:31:26
Thanks, messenger.
Comment by CW117 on 2019-06-12 13:33:38
THANKYOU so much Eric for your incredible research on this subject and an explanation to the manipulation of the scriptures by the WT.Because I did not have a lot of knowledge of the Bible and just got frustrated reading it ,I thought the JW teachers knew what they were talking about and it was correct, not WT doctrines, which I started questioning later.You must have God’s Holy Spirit, please keep up the wonderful work and stay well. Sincerely, CW117
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-06-12 17:31:12
I'll do my best, CW. It takes a lot of time since I'm now doing parallel releases in both English and Spanish.
Comment by Frankie on 2019-06-12 18:48:22
Clear, logical, scriptural. Thanks a lot, Eric. I think, that tenacious defending the false WT teaching is a result of thorough indoctrination concerning the marginalizing of Jesus compared to Jehovah. This indoctrination is very deep and is possibly threatened and the mind of indoctrinated person responds similarly to human body during first stages of detoxification - it is very unpleasant. I wish it would be the beginning of the healing process :o).
And reducing the importance of one beloved person at the expense of another beloved person is particularly despicable - because we love both Jehovah and Jesus.
Love, Frankie
Comment by jamesbrown on 2019-06-12 20:22:49
Good morning Eric,
I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for revelling bible truth to me personally.
I pulled the scriptures in Revelation 12 & Psalm 110 apart using your logic & you are 100% right.
I have been active witness since 1970's & have never questioned the teaching of WT as I was told I am becoming an apostate, as one elder told me to question WT is to question Jehovah.
Eric you came along and say "Please Jamesbrown look at the bible from Gods thinking NOT mans".
I go from house to house telling people to examine the bible for themselves & not from church’s point of view, but yet I don’t do that myself, I am a hypocrite, to know the love of the Christ, is to practice the love of the Christ, & he encouraged the listeners to check the scriptures for themselves.
I would love to join the group as I am from Australia, however as I am married to a stanch witness, you well know where I will end up.
Once again Eric I thank you for sharing a doctrinal viewpoint that I held for such a long time, in such a brief, but truthful way by using the bible.
For all active witnesses out their I plead with you to read the bible and ask questions why do I believe blindly what the WT teaches and not the bible?
For all the writers on this website, as you can see from the number of comments that Eric gets (I am speaking personally) please keep it brief.
Thank you again Eric as I will be having this conversation with my friends.Reply by Chet on 2019-06-12 21:13:13
James,
That’s a tough situation. I was in that same situation myself, no longer drinking the Watchtower’s Kool-Aid, but married to the daughter of an elder.
I wish I could give you some sage advice, but all I can suggest is to stick to your convictions. The actual truth of the Bible is a treasure to guard carefully. All I can really offer in the way of solace is that this same process is happening worldwide. Mainstream churches are coming apart at the seams while non-denominational groups of Christians are flourishing. The JW denomination is suffering the same fate. Hopefully, there will come some threshold point where it becomes obvious that they are just another failed religion. Keep praying for your wife to see it with her own eyes.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-06-13 09:12:45
Thanks, JamesBrown. Take heart, the times they are a'changing. It will be hard for your wife not to wake up to the reality that will soon come upon the organization. If there is a good heart there, then God will call it out.
Comment by Chet on 2019-06-12 21:17:05
Very interesting material. Once the props are knocked out from under the 1914 folly, an awful lot of subject matter comes up for review. The fact is; we know only enough to allow us to recognize events as they unfold. As the world becomes evermore depraved, the truth of the Bible stands out in ever greater contrast.
Thanks for your hard work.
Comment by Alithia on 2019-06-13 01:14:18
You make a good point about the importance of the truth and correctly knowing, understanding and recognising Jesus as the son of God.
The Devil has a great interest in muddying the waters in this regard, to what is mans great detriment. Look at the results. 30,000 different Christian denominations in the world! About a dozen different ideas about the nature of Jesus that has raged for Centuries that has resulted in much blood shed and many tears, not to mention turn many completely away from wanting to know Jesus at all!
Many critics even go the point of claiming that Jesus is a myth, there is no evidence for who the bible claims about him, and that he did not even exist.
Others have portrayed Jesus as something and someone that the bible does not say is the case.
The question is why all of the misinformation? Who's agenda would this serve? Why is it of primary importance to understand the who,what, when, where and how of this person God revelled to us as his son in such detail over many Centuries and carefully preserved in scripture?
We know from experience that to interact optimally with another person we need to know that person really well. We know their origins, where they come from, live, their views on things, their likes and dislikes, where they live, who they live with, how they live, their friends, their history, what other people say about them, anything else that can be know about the persons interactions with others etc etc.
Get any of it wrong or not have the right information usually results in a misunderstanding that can end up in an upset or worse. I am sure we all have had this experience with another person we thought we knew well only to realise their was stuff we did not know about them that led to some aggravation or worse. Ever said "I thought I really knew that person but".
Jesus will say at some point, "get away from me you workers of lawlessness". Wont they say the above!
Remember the guy that exultantly told David he slew King Saul in battle thinking David would be happy and reward him? How did that turn out for him?
So it is with our knowing everything about Jesus. We cannot assume our relationship with him thinking it is all dandy because he is such a good guy and he will forgive us if we get it all wrong. This is presumptuous of such a high dignitary. Gods son!
Call someone you are familiar with by another name, ask them about home in Canada if they live in Alaska, or tell them you hate customs they don't have, or discuss their living arrangements in a way that is completely non representative of the real truth? Ask them about their Father and the relationship in a way that disparages the Father and see what happens to your relationship with that person????
We are human and we will err but we need not unnecessarily insult our Lord and Master unnecessarily if we can help it.
I think this series may be just what is needed to clear up a few misconceptions along the way and help us appreciate our Master by having a better understanding of the who, how, why, when and where questions around Jesus.
I feel sorry for you Eric, you are bound to get a bashing one way or another from this discussion (maybe one or two from me) but I congratulate you on your courage to broach this subject and make the tremendous effort to lay out all of the arguments and scriptural proofs.
So far so good!
Love to all from Alithia.
Comment by whatisTruth on 2019-06-15 07:41:48
Hi Eric, i am an fading away jw and always enjoy watching your videos and reading your articles
I always wondered, what it means, to sit on the right of god (psalm110:1)
As an jw, i believed, Jesus had to sit on the right of god, until 1914, when he began to rule! Then he would cast out the devil from heaven.
After your article, I read
1 cor. 15:25:
"For he MUST RULE AS KING UNTIL God has put all enemies under his feet"
That means for me, Jesus sitting on the right of god after ascending to heaven = Jesus rules on the right o God since than!!!
Thank you so much for your great job!!!!Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-06-15 08:33:25
You're welcome. Isn't it great when we free ourselves from the doctrines of men and can just listen to God as he speaks?
Your brother in Christ,
EricReply by Frankie on 2019-06-15 16:56:25
Hi, Eric.
Entire topic is thoroughly elaborated. It is clear that God ousted Satan to Earth and used for this Michael the Archangel and his angels and not Jesus. This is answer to the question "WHO cast down Satan ...”. But I'd like to address the question "When ?”.
It is apparent that Jesus had been crowned as King of God' Kingdom after his resurrection and ascension to heaven (Mt 28:18). The Psalm 110:1 was fulfilled - "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet." So Jesus rules with all authority.
The Psalm 110 continues: " ... "Rule in the midst of your enemies." (Psalm 110:2). This means that there still were some enemies in his kingdom during his governance, e.g. Satan. But how long? After the Michael's winning battle, Satan was thrown down to earth "in great anger, knowing that he has little time." If this battle occurred in 1st century, the "little time” would be 2000+ years (till Armageddon - Rev 20:1-2).
And brothers "conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death.” (Rev 12:11). So brothers had to prove their faith in Jesus, to witness some time and to undergo persecution to death.
I think, if the Michael's battle occurred in 1st century, then, with respect to Rev 12:11, some time (perhaps few decades or more) had to pass from Jesus' coronation to that battle (IMO, not just after Jesus' ascension to heaven). In case of Rev 12:9,10, there is possibility to use the rule 1000 years = 1 day (2 Pet 3:8) - so the little time would be then approximately 2 days. However, I'm not able to give any reasonable date. Btw, I don't believe at all in JW purpose-built interpretation of year 1914, or 1290 and 1335 days.
I would be interested in your view Eric and thank you for your work.
FrankieReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-06-15 17:05:40
Hi Frankie,
I'm actually working on some of that, specifically the 1,290 and 1,335 days, for the next video.
Eric
Comment by jamesbrown on 2019-06-17 19:40:28
Good morning Eric and all,
In my bible reading I discovered about Jesus could not be as you said Michael the archangel:
Matthew 28: 18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
(Philippians 2:9) For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name
Doesn’t a superior position mean a higher one than the one he had in heaven?
In the org we have (Publisher, mistrial servant, elder, CO, etc), so a person goes higher in ranks.
I ran this by my wife & she said I am being negative about the org.
I don’t know am I right in what I am saying?
Thanks again EricReply by Alithia on 2019-06-18 06:38:40
Hello James Brown and all. Good question James, but consider this too.
What name could be higher than the one he had if he was in Heaven prior to his exultation? He would have had the highest name other than Jehovah, so then how could this be? How could this make any sense without resorting to eisegesis.
If his name was superior to angels then he must not have been an angel at least, is that not true?
Think about this. I would like to posit Jesus did not have a pre-existence in Heaven to begin with! Then everything else reads sublime in the scriptures and there is no tension.
I hope this will come up in a latter post by Eric and we can bash it out then, but in the meantime it seems the evidence is against Jesus being an angel ( Michael) at the very least.
Love to all from AlithiaReply by Frankie on 2019-06-21 16:11:40
Hello Alithia.
I hope I understand your comment as to Philippians 2:9 correctly. IMO, I think Jehovah granted to Jesus the 2nd highest name, right after His Father's name Jehovah. This name was granted him "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:10-11, ESV).
So Jesus (as donee) is above all, except His Father (as giver), and Jesus' position in Heaven serves to the glory of almighty God. So the vertical line is preserved - Jehovah, then Jesus, then any other being "on earth and under the earth".
As to Jesus' pre-existence in Heaven, the verses John 1:1-3 are very important for me: "In the BEGINNING ...." and "... ALL THINGS were made THROUGH HIM, and without him was not any thing made that was made."
Love, FrankieReply by Alithia on 2019-06-29 19:09:12
Hello Frankie I hope Meleti discusses (Philippians chapter 2)this passage in his future presentation.
The context is most important to establish conclusively what is meant by "above every other name".
When the context is understood the rest is easy. Lets see. Until then Brother/s.
Love to all Alithia.
Reply by Chet on 2019-06-20 14:18:07
My take is that after his earthly course, Jesus returned o heaven and was, perhaps, granted life within himself. Just a thought.
Reply by Frankie on 2019-06-21 17:19:32
Hello Chet,
"The life within himself” is mentioned in John 5:26. And thanks to this life, IMO, Jesus could tell to Jews what is written in John 5:21 - "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.” (e.g. Lazarus of Bethany, before Jesus' resurrection). Jesus eventually died on the cross as Son of MAN (Heb 2:9), but not as mighty Spirit.
Jesus, as the Word, is only begotten Son of Jehovah. So I think that Jesus inherited this "life within himself” from the very beginning as characteristic quality of His Father (similar to earthly fathers and their children). But this is my logical opinion only, not supported by scriptures (welcome if any).
Love, Frankie
Comment by Alithia on 2019-06-21 19:25:13
Hello Frankie and all others too. Frankie in regards to your interpretation of Philippians and John 1:1 please consider this scripture after Jehovah describes His creative acts and differentiates Himself with the yet to come Messiah as follows.
Isaiah 42:8 New American Standard Bible
"I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
We need to be careful to not ascribe glory that belongs only to Jehovah, that he demands for himself only to others even if it is His Son Jesus.
With regards to John 1:1 the question is whether the word refers to Jehovah Himself or another person or even thing.
Your interpretation only makes sense by starting with an assumption that it refers to Jesus as the word.
This is perilous as there is nothing to suggest that it is other than word association and pre-conceived ideas at this point. Hopefully more later to get more into it with scriptural evidence and grammatical structure.
I have been in many discussions on this point that begins with the reminder to let scripture interpret scripture only to immediately launch the eisegesis missile into the never never.
Please consider your explanation as one only constructed using eisegesis and not biblical exegesis.
Love to all from Alithia.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-06-22 09:04:35
Alithia,
I will be doing a video and article on whether Jesus had a pre-existence. I know this is a belief of the Christadelphians and perhaps others, I don't know. In any case, while Frank gave a brief analysis of John 1:1, I think it unfair to characterize it as the result of eisegesis. I believe a full exegetical analysis of Scripture on the subject of the whether Jesus pre-existed will prove conclusively that he did.
However, I'll leave the details to the video. Any evidence you have that he did not pre-exist will be greatly appreciated as I do not want to leave any stone unturned.
For example, you stated:
"What name could be higher than the one he had if he was in Heaven prior to his exultation? He would have had the highest name other than Jehovah, so then how could this be? How could this make any sense without resorting to eisegesis."
The reasoning expressed here is that on a linear progress, Jesus was just below Jehovah so he couldn't get any higher without become Jehovah. He was on the second to last rung of the ladder. But that is an assumption on how the superiority of a name works and as any assumption, it could be wrong if the premise upon which it is based is wrong. Working on a premise not firmly established in scripture is eisegesis.
More later.
Again, keep them coming because I'm finding scant resources on the "pro-non-existence" side of the argument, and I want to gather all the contrary opinions and evidence before proceeding.
MeletiReply by Alithia on 2019-06-29 19:05:43
Hello Meleti and all.
In regards to there being only scant evidence for a pro-non-preexistence of Jesus this can be logically expected if he did not. If Meleti did not have a pre-existence this would also be the case.
However, Eric, if you claimed to exist in outer space before life here on Earth then I expect the evidence trail would likely also be scant.
Therefore the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate conclusively that you do, and not the other way around, claiming that because your claim cannot be falsified then your claim must likely be true.
Lack of evidence to prove your claim as false is not evidence that proves your claims.
For a long time people believed the Earth to be flat because they could not prove otherwise regardless that the scriptures said otherwise!
With regards to the nature of Jesus there is an abundance of evidence starting from Genesis to Revelation that the nature of Jesus' beginning is simply that of any other human. The scriptures are explicit in regards to his genesis. Of what need would there be for rebuttal evidence for a pre-existent Jesus???
Of course there are a number of scriptural passages that at first glance (And of course with a good old dose of Greek philosophy, bias and preconceived ideas) could be misconstrued to support the idea of a pre-existent Jesus. These can be ready referenced today as Trinitarians have already isolated these passages and "treated" these in their commentaries for Centuries already.
There are solid knock down scriptural rebuttals for all of these as we will see when you put out your VDO on the subject. (It is surprising to me, considering the volume of content that could be considered that you think only one VDO could accomplish this, I hope there will be a progressive series)
I think it would require the progressive and exhaustive approach Tadua used in the series determining the hope for mankind whether an Earthly one or a Heavenly one.
After this thorough examination, the weight of evidence shifted dramatically from previous views and many detractors fell silent in the face of the irrefutable scriptural evidence so beautifully expounded.
The problem is that Trinitarians use the very same sections of scriptures to support their trinity doctrine. This in itself should raise a red flag and cause one to carefully consider their understanding of these passages. The level of bias when reading these sections by Trinitarians is powerful. Therefore it behoves us to carefully examine our thinking process during this examination of this topic.
There are many Youtube "tricky tests" where after looking at a shape, a passage of writing or some picture we eventually see something else! At times depending on who we are, our personality type or preconceived beliefs, or if we are male or female; initially we see something different, before we see another thing that stays there as dominant. We can switch back to what we initially saw but can also see the dominant view intended but also how we could be "tricked" into seeing another form though not being the dominant one with overwhelmingly the most information to suggest it as the dominant one.
Recently when joining a group for bible reading which involved John chapter 1 I was amazed by this very same phenomena and the reactions of the others when after demonstrating clearly and conclusively the strenuous and blatantly dishonest efforts by translators to manipulate the English translations to give the impression of a pre-existent Jesus.
Some of the responses was to immediately "jump around" using other cherry picked versus appearing in differing contexts, teaching different lessons and truths to possibly support what they believed the scriptures are really or should be saying, regardless of the fact that what they wanted to think is clearly not supported in the section of scripture under consideration. Or by Greek Biblical Lexicons, or the fact that some of these words or phrases are still in common usage today, and do not in any way shape or form correspond to how the Translators (Interpreters) have dealt with the section of scripture .
Conceding that there is "something going on" with the text as something more like a bias interpretation than translation seemed difficult to accept .
Well bring it on Meleti, I think this topic will draw out plenty of lively discussion and I am looking forward to the "evidence" you bring forth.
I hope many others join in the discussion too.
Love to all from Alithia.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-07-01 09:44:54
Hi Alithia,
You wrote: "In regards to there being only scant evidence for a pro-non-preexistence of Jesus this can be logically expected if he did not. If Meleti did not have a pre-existence this would also be the case.
However, Eric, if you claimed to exist in outer space before life here on Earth then I expect the evidence trail would likely also be scant."
If I understand the logic here – and correct me if I'm getting this wrong – you're saying that there is no Scriptural evidence proving Jesus didn't preexist, and that therefore that should be the default understanding. That is, we should normally and reasonably believe Jesus didn't pre-exist his birth as a human, unless we find evidence to the contrary.
To use a bit of hyperbole here, if I were to say that there are invisible green dragons flying around in the atmosphere of our planet, all the responsibility for proof lies with me. The default position would be that there are no such things. Ergo, since there is no proof that humans preexist prior to their birth, our default position should be that Jesus did not preexist. Therefore we can only alter that position if we can find proof in Scripture to the contrary.
Is that the position of the non-preexistence community? If so, it would explain why I have not been able to find scriptural arguments to support non-preexistence. If I'm wrong about that, if there are scriptural arguments, please let me know as I would like to make my analysis as comprehensive as possible.Reply by Nightingale on 2019-07-01 16:01:02
Hello Eric and Alithia
I agree Alithia, this topic would need a series of articles like the one you mentioned about the Christian hope because it is a very broad subject and there are so many things to consider.
I have read a lot about this topic during the last few years because during my Jw years I never fully understood Watchtower's explanations about Jesus' nature. I never could understand how before his human life he was Michael the archangel and at the same time a spiritual being and a god named "Word". I could never really explain this to my Bible studies. Why the nature, identity and origin of the main character of the Bible was so confusing and complicated?
It was obvious for me that he couldn't be an angel but that "a god" part puzzled me too. So there was the God Almighty and then a created lesser god in heaven even though God and also Jesus himself said there is only one God? It never made sense to me. Where is this lesser god in the OT and why is there only one mention of him in the NT in a poetic passage filled with symbolism? Apparently Watchtower was puzzled about this too and that's why they used the idea of Ellen White who in her vision saw that Jesus is Michael. They also changed the meaning of "the woman" of Genesis 3:15 from Eve to God's heavenly organization so that it wouldn't look that Jesus was "just" a offspring/seed of Eve.
Then I heard of some groups who didn't believe Jesus existed before his human life at all. That idea sounded strange at first because some scriptures seemed to say that Jesus existed in some form before his human life. After all, didn't Jesus say he was the firstborn of all creation and that he existed before Abraham? But I gave this idea a chance and decided to have a look how these groups and individuals explain certain passages like Col 1:15-20, Phil 2:5-8, a few verses in John and some others that I thought proved Jesus did pre-exist in some form.
What I found out was quite shocking because these verses don't prove it at all. At best they are more or less ambiguous and mostly just misunderstandings. Some are even mistranslations, changed to fit with the Trinity doctrine like John 1 where they made Logos a person and a name even though nowhere else in the Bible that word is a person or name (except in Revelation 19:13 where it clearly says it is a name of Jesus but this verse is talking about him at a future time, not in the past).
All the verses and passages related to the topic should of course be carefully examined one by one and there is quite a lot of work to do. Here is a recent video of this topic that covers some verses like John 17:5 and 8:58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRvk4qYquh4Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-07-02 08:34:18
Thank you Vox Ratio and Nightingale for those valuable links. I'll investigate them thoroughly.
Reply by Vox Ratio on 2019-07-02 05:15:28
Hi Meleti,
If you're really set on going toe-to-toe with this issue, it's only proper that you'll want to steel-man the opposing position. Arguably, one of the most erudite protagonists for the view that Jesus did not pre-exist his birth is the Christian philosopher Dr. Dale Tuggy. Although I personally don't agree with some of Tuggy's scriptural conclusions, he nevertheless is a precise thinker and a seasoned logician. I think you'll find that his material likely codifies many of the strongest arguments for the doctrine that you're currently investigating.
See here for further details.Reply by Alithia on 2019-07-02 18:55:35
Hello Vox and everybody else.
Vox you are no fun at all! I was soooo looking forward to a "The Philistines are upon you Eric" moment with my rebuttals, and you go and give Eric links to Dale Tuggy!!!! Steel man indeed!!!!! (I was not aware of this expression until now, thanks)
Well then, if the intention is just to have a discussion without any ego's, your wrong I'm right, I'm smart your dumb, humility, open mindedness, and considering the others superior to you, type discussions, then I might just add a couple of more links here if Eric or anyone else wants to peruse that deals with the non-pre-existence of Jesus.
With a bit of as heads up, we can all have a better idea and understanding of the others position when we discuss the topic in more detail in the future.
Below is a link to a debate about the Trinity however the points are applicable to the question of Jesus and whether he had a pre-existence too.
The debate is a somewhat diffuse and general one . The points are debated in a more thorough and exhaustive way in many other Youtubes, by the people in the VDO and by many other scholars too. I picked this link because it encapsulates the over-all general ideas and gives a good overview of the general arguments for most of the scriptural passages in question.
Hope Eric has a couple of months spare time to chew over all of the material!!!
https://youtu.be/9SPZE18cISIReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-07-03 10:05:59
What is VDO.
I googled it and got:
VDO Video Data Organization
VDO Value-Driven Organization
VDO Varus Derotation Osteotomy
VDO Very Distant Object(s)
VDO Voltage Drop-Out
VDO Virtual Data Object (programming data model)Reply by Alithia on 2019-07-03 16:09:54
Helo Eric. I am showing my age!. VCR days. 80s. I simply meant, Youtube whatever they are things? Podcasts?, Blogs? Thingies?
I am only a little more progressed than Jules Vernes in technology. Massive flywheels, leather belt driven gear trains and levers. I still have not fully embraced digital tech as I should.
I emailed you a couple more links around Philippians chapter 2 and John chapter 1 for the ensuing discussions.
Regards to you and all from Alithia.
P.S I still think my Swiss army knife is the "bomb"! I am yet to fully work it out.
Reply by Alithia on 2019-07-02 05:36:39
Hello Eric. If I am to take your response/request for more information at face value, not second guessing where you may go depending on my response, and without any skepticism or cynicism, I would say you have summarised correctly what you think my point is.
However the scriptures abound with chapter after chapter of meticulous explanations of the origins/genealogy of the human Jesus as found in the synoptics, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Peter, Acts, James and other books too. Hundreds of versus that identify the Creator only as Jehovah. Hundreds of versus that identify the "word" of God as God, and not something else or someone else. So yes the default rule would apply, or saying it in another way, allow the bible to interpret itself. And where there is ambiguity allow what is in plain speak to dictate the final understanding and not the other way around.
Unless of course one philosophises like the early Church Father Justin Martyr, who began to write the ideas of a pre-existent Jesus in the first Century. "Like we are now talking about Jesus but not as a human but as a Spirit so not as a human so there is no contradiction with regards to his genesis". In addition he is the guy the Catholic Church bases their idea of transubstantiation on, where simple "bread and wine is bread and wine but not really because it is flesh and blood but not really because we would not eat the flesh and blood of Jesus but it is you know, anyway so there". Dangerously entering the invisible flying green dragon scenario! (Not to mention flying dragons with wings abound in scripture!)
Everyone is aware of some ambiguous texts and there are some which are just basically just mistranslated or misunderstood I could list them all here now. But as I said I believe there are solid rebuttals to all of these where anyone might think they support the notion of a pre-existent Jesus. The discussion to ensue can bear this out for every one to decide for themselves.
regards Alithia.
Reply by Frankie on 2019-06-22 18:05:56
Dear Alithia, thank you for your response.
As to Philippians 2:9-11. Jehovah Himself exalted Jesus to such position, which serves to the glory of Jehovah, so the Jehovah's glory cannot be jeopardised.
In Philippians, the word LORD is used for Jesus, in contrast to Isaiah 42:8, where the God's name YHWH (Strong Nr. 3068, Interlinear Hebrew text) is used. Therefore the Jesus' glory does not compete with the glory of God and, on the contrary, Jesus' new position serves for Jehovah's glory (Philippians 2:9-11).
As to John 1:1-3. I only point out 3 verses that are most important to me regarding Jesus' pre-existence. I don't want to list other quotes. I'm curious about the next Eric' video on heavenly pre-existence of Jesus.
As to eisegesis vs. exegesis, my comments were not intended as comprehensive analysis of given topics. I just wanted to point out specific verses for consideration, not as ultimate evidence :o).
Love to you and all picketers. Frankie
Comment by Truth-Seeker on 2019-06-24 01:05:21
Great argumentation, Eric. Don't understand the resistance to your logic. It is so logical that Michael the archangel can't be Jesus just as the Father can't be the Son at the same time. Christendom has the Trinity dogma, Watchtower has the Michael/Jesus dogma, but both organisations are being dogmatic in their teachings and, what is worse, persecuting those who don't buy into it.
Comment by broswilli on 2019-07-26 15:11:57
I sincerely believe JW and Seventh Day Adventist got that Jesus is the same as Micheal. From my studies of John 1:1 the beginning was referring to the creation of the Physical universe, careful study of the bible will make us see that the beginning is always the creation of the physical universe. There is no reference were the beginning talks about the creation of the heavenly beings. Please someone should correct me if i am wrong
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-07-27 10:46:03
But are not heavenly beings, i.e. angels, part of the universe. From the book of Daniel, (chapter 10) we learn that angels are constricted by time as we are. Time is a created thing, part of the Space Time Continuum, so it follows that they could be part of what is referred to in John 1:1.
Comment by edward leisure on 2019-11-05 09:44:16
I want to become a searcher of truth and in the past being an elder and a Bethelite, following men instead of the Christ and Jehovah, you have made it very clear how I have been searching in the wrong way.
THANK YOU SO MUCH for your knowledge and willing heart to help us to know Jesus.
God Bless
Ed L
Comment by K.Miguelicutty on 2021-12-20 18:03:45
Hi Eric. I reasoned on this before I discovered your video here, but can easily agree with your expose and reasoning, What do you think of the timing of Satan's expulsion relative to what Jesus said to the seventy-two when they returned exclaiming how even the demons were cast out by them? (Luke 10:18 “And He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like lightning.”) Was Jesus saying what he had just seen or would see? I tend to take him at his word. While the 72 were gone casting out demons from men, Christ witnessed the heavenly war between Michael and Satan and told them of Satan's fall, upon their return. Or maybe the timing isn't to be known exactly. I always felt the expulsion was when Jesus was baptised because it was right after he met Satan face to face in the wilderness as a man; and Satan was so desperate he was willing to offer all he had (all the kingdoms of this world) to derail Jesus before he accomplished his mission. Just thinking out loud, but it certainly can't be at 1914.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-12-21 07:24:53
My personal view is that this occurred after Jesus died faithfully and said "It has been accomplished". That is why he could then go to visit the spirits in prison that James refers to following his resurrection. But that is just a personal opinion.