How hard is its to explain to you and it says at John 1:14 the Word (not Jesus) became human and lived here on earth among us. It is the Word who became human and he is not named Jesus until Joseph named him Jesus at matt. 1:25 after he was born.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Did Jesus create the angels?
- Thread starter jamesh
- Start date
LOL! Nope - The message of the angel absolutely proves you wrong. He had the name Jesus BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That's the biblical record. Deny and run away from it all you want - It doesn't change a thing.
The Word in John 1:1 and John 1:14 is Jesus Christ. Even YOU YOURSELF said so in your post.
Thanks again for doing that!
You are TOTALLY and COMPLETELY WRONG when you say, "He did not have the name Jesus until Joseph named him Jesus."
Yes, He DID. Luke 1:31 proves that.
He had it BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
You deny what the Bible says about Jesus Christ.
This is what it means and is to be a JW.
That's the biblical record. Deny and run away from it all you want - It doesn't change a thing.
The Word in John 1:1 and John 1:14 is Jesus Christ. Even YOU YOURSELF said so in your post.
Thanks again for doing that!
You are TOTALLY and COMPLETELY WRONG when you say, "He did not have the name Jesus until Joseph named him Jesus."
Yes, He DID. Luke 1:31 proves that.
He had it BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
You deny what the Bible says about Jesus Christ.
This is what it means and is to be a JW.
How many times do you have to be told that Luke 1:31 says you will become pregnant and have a son and you are to name him Jesus? Once the son is born according to Luke 1:31 only then will he be called Jesus. How do you figure it means he was named Jesus before he was conceived when it says you will have a son meaning he will be born and then he will be named Jesus?LOL! Nope - The message of the angel absolutely proves you wrong. He had the name Jesus BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That's the biblical record. Deny and run away from it all you want - It doesn't change a thing.
The Word in John 1:1 and John 1:14 is Jesus Christ. Even YOU YOURSELF said so in your post.
Thanks again for doing that!
You are TOTALLY and COMPLETELY WRONG when you say, "He did not have the name Jesus until Joseph named him Jesus."
Yes, He DID. Luke 1:31 proves that.
He had it BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
You deny what the Bible says about Jesus Christ.
This is what it means and is to be a JW.
LOL! Nope - You're wrong again. You are intentionally, deliberately avoiding and denying what the Scripture SAYS. Here's how and why that's true:
It's very simple - This is something any high schooler can see very, very easily.
It has to do with the tense of the verbs.
In Luke 1:31, the angel tells Mary she WILL BECOME pregnant and the name of the child will be "Jesus".
WILL BECOME pregnant.
That's future tense.
FUTURE, Nathan.
That means she WAS NOT PREGNANT YET. It had not yet happened, at the time of the angel's visitation.
That means that He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
So, you are totally and completely wrong when you say things like, "It's only after he was born that he was given the name 'Jesus'."
Nope.
Luke 1:31 shows and proves VERY clearly that He had the name BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
You are denying what the Bible says about Jesus Christ.
And this is what it means and is to be a JW.
It's very simple - This is something any high schooler can see very, very easily.
It has to do with the tense of the verbs.
In Luke 1:31, the angel tells Mary she WILL BECOME pregnant and the name of the child will be "Jesus".
WILL BECOME pregnant.
That's future tense.
FUTURE, Nathan.
That means she WAS NOT PREGNANT YET. It had not yet happened, at the time of the angel's visitation.
That means that He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
So, you are totally and completely wrong when you say things like, "It's only after he was born that he was given the name 'Jesus'."
Nope.
Luke 1:31 shows and proves VERY clearly that He had the name BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
You are denying what the Bible says about Jesus Christ.
And this is what it means and is to be a JW.
And I have to explain again that it says you will have a son and you are to name him Jesus and it does not say like you are wording it wrong that she will become pregnant and the name of the child will be Jesus. Listen closely it says you will become pregnant and have a son meaning he will be born and you will name him Jesus. Now print it out what the bible says because you want it so bad to say something it does not. Again when she has a son meaning he will be born then you are to call him Jesus. Even if it said what you are trying to make it say that you will become pregnant and the name of the child will be Jesus, that means when he is born the name of the child will be Jesus and not before he is born because it will only become a child once it is born.LOL! Nope - You're wrong again. You are intentionally, deliberately avoiding and denying what the Scripture SAYS. Here's how and why that's true:
It's very simple - This is something any high schooler can see very, very easily.
It has to do with the tense of the verbs.
In Luke 1:31, the angel tells Mary she WILL BECOME pregnant and the name of the child will be "Jesus".
WILL BECOME pregnant.
That's future tense.
FUTURE, Nathan.
That means she WAS NOT PREGNANT YET. It had not yet happened, at the time of the angel's visitation.
That means that He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
So, you are totally and completely wrong when you say things like, "It's only after he was born that he was given the name 'Jesus'."
Nope.
Luke 1:31 shows and proves VERY clearly that He had the name BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
You are denying what the Bible says about Jesus Christ.
And this is what it means and is to be a JW.
LOL! Nathan, the text says JUST what I've said - And now you yourself have stated it.
"You will have a son" That's future tense. It hasn't happened yet. She hasn't conceived yet.
"You will call him 'Jesus'." That's future tense also.
He had the name "Jesus" not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That's the biblical record of Luke 1:31.
All your posts are doing is dishonestly denying and running away from it.
Not a surprise.
The posting history is here for all to see for themselves, Nathan. You cannot even imagine (which is saying a lot) how content I am to allow any honest and fair-minded reader to decide between us as to what the biblical record is. It's black print on white page, and all your posts can manage is to dishonestly deny and run away from it.
This is what it means and is to be a JW.
"You will have a son" That's future tense. It hasn't happened yet. She hasn't conceived yet.
"You will call him 'Jesus'." That's future tense also.
He had the name "Jesus" not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That's the biblical record of Luke 1:31.
All your posts are doing is dishonestly denying and running away from it.
Not a surprise.
The posting history is here for all to see for themselves, Nathan. You cannot even imagine (which is saying a lot) how content I am to allow any honest and fair-minded reader to decide between us as to what the biblical record is. It's black print on white page, and all your posts can manage is to dishonestly deny and run away from it.
This is what it means and is to be a JW.
You are proving my point and it is in the future tense like you also notice. Listen closely you will have a son means in the future you will have a son and then it says you will call him Jesus. Meaning when she has a son that is born he will be called Jesus. Again listen closely and both times it says you will meaning later he will be born and also later he will then be called Jesus.LOL! Nathan, the text says JUST what I've said - And now you yourself have stated it.
"You will have a son" That's future tense. It hasn't happened yet. She hasn't conceived yet.
"You will call him 'Jesus'." That's future tense also.
He had the name "Jesus" not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That's the biblical record of Luke 1:31.
All your posts are doing is dishonestly denying and running away from it.
Not a surprise.
The posting history is here for all to see for themselves, Nathan. You cannot even imagine (which is saying a lot) how content I am to allow any honest and fair-minded reader to decide between us as to what the biblical record is. It's black print on white page, and all your posts can manage is to dishonestly deny and run away from it.
This is what it means and is to be a JW.
In other words if a boss tells an employee you will do this that means in the future the employee will do that, then they will do it later. When she is told she will have a son that means a child will be born and then he will be named Jesus. Notice you say you will call him Jesus and that is in the future tense correct? Meaning like you note in the future he will be called Jesus.LOL! Nathan, the text says JUST what I've said - And now you yourself have stated it.
"You will have a son" That's future tense. It hasn't happened yet. She hasn't conceived yet.
"You will call him 'Jesus'." That's future tense also.
He had the name "Jesus" not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That's the biblical record of Luke 1:31.
All your posts are doing is dishonestly denying and running away from it.
Not a surprise.
The posting history is here for all to see for themselves, Nathan. You cannot even imagine (which is saying a lot) how content I am to allow any honest and fair-minded reader to decide between us as to what the biblical record is. It's black print on white page, and all your posts can manage is to dishonestly deny and run away from it.
This is what it means and is to be a JW.
You are proving my point and it is in the future tense like you also notice. Listen closely you will have a son means in the future you will have a son and then it says you will call him Jesus. Meaning when she has a son that is born he will be called Jesus. Again listen closely and both times it says you will meaning later he will be born and also later he will then be called Jesus.
LOL! Nope - You're wrong again. If you read not just closely but HONESTLY here's what happens:
"You will have a son"
That's future tense. It hasn't happened yet. She hasn't conceived yet.
"You will call him 'Jesus'." That's future tense also.
But the name was given right then and there.
He had the name "Jesus" not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That's the biblical record of Luke 1:31.
You will call him Jesus like you admit is the future tense and thus he has not been called Jesus yet. Go to matt. 1:25 and she remained a virgin until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus after he was born. They knew what his name would be before he was born, but he was not named Jesus until after he was born.LOL! Nope - You're wrong again. If you read not just closely but HONESTLY here's what happens:
"You will have a son"
That's future tense. It hasn't happened yet. She hasn't conceived yet.
"You will call him 'Jesus'." That's future tense also.
But the name was given right then and there.
He had the name "Jesus" not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That's the biblical record of Luke 1:31.
LOL! Still intentionally and dishonestly missing the point of the verse.
No surprise. This is what it means and is to be a JW.
You can't even own what you yourself have posted.
Here are your very words: "Provide the scripture where he had the name Jesus before he ever came into this world. Until you can he was only known by Jesus when Joseph named him Jesus."
Luke 1:31.
He had the "name" Jesus not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
Only intentional dishonesty would say otherwise.
I want to thank you for doing this, Nathan. Exposing your posts for the VERY intentional dishonesty they are for all to see is like an early Christmas present!
No surprise. This is what it means and is to be a JW.
You can't even own what you yourself have posted.
Here are your very words: "Provide the scripture where he had the name Jesus before he ever came into this world. Until you can he was only known by Jesus when Joseph named him Jesus."
Luke 1:31.
He had the "name" Jesus not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
Only intentional dishonesty would say otherwise.
I want to thank you for doing this, Nathan. Exposing your posts for the VERY intentional dishonesty they are for all to see is like an early Christmas present!
It is you who is missing the point. I know he had a name picked out before he was born. no it does not say he had the name before he was conceived. listen closely and at matt. 1:18 while she was still a virgin she became pregnant by the HS and at vs 19her fiance Joseph decided to break the engagement quietly, then at vs 20 he fell asleep and the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said go ahead with your marriage to Mary for the child within her has been conceived by the HS and she will have a son and you are to name him Jesus. He did not have the name Jesus he was to be named until he was conceived, then as mentioned at vs 25 she remained a virgin until her son was born, then also at vs 25 Joseph named him Jesus.LOL! Still intentionally and dishonestly missing the point of the verse.
No surprise. This is what it means and is to be a JW.
You can't even own what you yourself have posted.
Here are your very words: "Provide the scripture where he had the name Jesus before he ever came into this world. Until you can he was only known by Jesus when Joseph named him Jesus."
Luke 1:31.
He had the "name" Jesus not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
Only intentional dishonesty would say otherwise.
I want to thank you for doing this, Nathan. Exposing your posts for the VERY intentional dishonesty they are for all to see is like an early Christmas present!
Again it is after he was conceived he was to be named Jesus.
LOL! Yes, Nathan - Verse 31 of Luke 1 DOES indeed say that He had the name before He was even conceived. Any honest person can read and understand that very, very easily. If you read not just closely but HONESTLY here's what happens:
"You will conceive and have a son"
That's speaking in future tense, Nathan.
Future tense means it hasn't happened yet. She hadn't conceived yet.
The angel would not have spoken in future tense if that had already happened.
This shows and proves that what the angel says is before conception.
Any honest reader very, very easily sees and understand this.
"You will call him 'Jesus'." That's speaking in future tense also.
The thing your posts keep avoiding - like an alley cat would a full immersion bath - is that the name "Jesus" WAS given right then and there, at that moment. He had the name "Jesus" not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That's the biblical record of Luke 1:31.
I do understand your desire to run away from it, and go to other verses, like you do in the above.
But it's too late. The verse says what it says and shows what it shows.
"You will conceive and have a son"
That's speaking in future tense, Nathan.
Future tense means it hasn't happened yet. She hadn't conceived yet.
The angel would not have spoken in future tense if that had already happened.
This shows and proves that what the angel says is before conception.
Any honest reader very, very easily sees and understand this.
"You will call him 'Jesus'." That's speaking in future tense also.
The thing your posts keep avoiding - like an alley cat would a full immersion bath - is that the name "Jesus" WAS given right then and there, at that moment. He had the name "Jesus" not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That's the biblical record of Luke 1:31.
I do understand your desire to run away from it, and go to other verses, like you do in the above.
But it's too late. The verse says what it says and shows what it shows.
Last edited:
I do not understand the problem as you admit it is in the future tense when it says you will call him Jesus? Meaning he will not be called Jesus at matt. 1:31 until the son is born and you are to name him Jesus. Only after he is born did he get the name Jesus. The angel said it before conception, but again it says you will have a son and you are to call him Jesus. That means only after his birth did he get the name Jesus.LOL! Yes, Nathan - Verse 31 of Luke 1 DOES indeed say that He had the name before He was even conceived. Any honest person can read and understand that very, very easily. If you read not just closely but HONESTLY here's what happens:
"You will conceive and have a son"
That's speaking in future tense, Nathan.
Future tense means it hasn't happened yet. She hadn't conceived yet.
The angel would not have spoken in future tense if that had already happened.
This shows and proves that what the angel says is before conception.
Any honest reader very, very easily sees and understand this.
"You will call him 'Jesus'." That's speaking in future tense also.
The thing your posts keep avoiding - like an alley cat would a full immersion bath - is that the name "Jesus" WAS given right then and there, at that moment. He had the name "Jesus" not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That's the biblical record of Luke 1:31.
I do understand your desire to run away from it, and go to other verses, like you do in the above.
But it's too late. The verse says what it says and shows what it shows.
LOL! I believe you definitely do understand the problem. Considering the posting history, there is no reason at all whatsoever to believe you do not.
You wrote: "Provide the scripture where he had the name Jesus before he ever came into this world."
Luke 1:31. It's all been explained and proven; and although you don't agree with or accept what the verse says and shows, that doesn't invalidate the verse in any way whatsoever - It just shows that you deny the biblical record.
This is not a surprise - This is what it means and is to be a JW.
"Until you can he was only known by Jesus when Joseph named him Jesus."
Nope. According to Luke 1:31, He had the name even before His conception.
His name was known and given by the angel(s), and by Mary before He was ever in Mary's womb.
That's the biblical record.
You wrote: "Provide the scripture where he had the name Jesus before he ever came into this world."
Luke 1:31. It's all been explained and proven; and although you don't agree with or accept what the verse says and shows, that doesn't invalidate the verse in any way whatsoever - It just shows that you deny the biblical record.
This is not a surprise - This is what it means and is to be a JW.
"Until you can he was only known by Jesus when Joseph named him Jesus."
Nope. According to Luke 1:31, He had the name even before His conception.
His name was known and given by the angel(s), and by Mary before He was ever in Mary's womb.
That's the biblical record.
How many times do you have to be told that matt. 1:31 says you will become pregnant and have a son and you are to name him Jesus? Only after she has a son is he to be named Jesus. You are twisting it because that is all you have and you know the trin is toast if you can not prove there was a Jesus before the Word became flesh. He was not named Jesus before his conception like you are trying to say and instead the name Jesus was for when she had a son and not when conception happened.LOL! I believe you definitely do understand the problem. Considering the posting history, there is no reason at all whatsoever to believe you do not.
You wrote: "Provide the scripture where he had the name Jesus before he ever came into this world."
Luke 1:31. It's all been explained and proven; and although you don't agree with or accept what the verse says and shows, that doesn't invalidate the verse in any way whatsoever - It just shows that you deny the biblical record.
This is not a surprise - This is what it means and is to be a JW.
"Until you can he was only known by Jesus when Joseph named him Jesus."
Nope. According to Luke 1:31, He had the name even before His conception.
His name was known and given by the angel(s), and by Mary before He was ever in Mary's womb.
That's the biblical record.
Wrong again and as usual, Nathan.
First of all, your first sentence is totally wrong in the reference. It is LUKE 1:31.
Secondly, it is nothing less than an open, blatant, and deliberate falsehood on your part to say I have twisted anything. The posting history here shows that I have not done that in the slightest.
Thirdly, it is simply irrefutable fact that He had the name "Jesus" before He was conceived. That's what Luke 1:31 is saying, and the proof of this is by the angel's use of the future tense in the message to Mary.
"You will conceive and have a son"
That's speaking in future tense, Nathan.
Future tense means it hasn't happened yet. She hadn't conceived yet.
Because the angel would not have spoken of her conceiving in future tense if that had already happened.
This shows and proves that what the angel says is before conception.
"You will call him 'Jesus'." That's speaking in future tense also.
From this, it is very, very easy to see and understand that the name "Jesus" was given right then and there, at that moment.
That means He had the name "Jesus" not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That is the biblical record of Luke 1:31.
Any honest reader very, very easily sees and understand this.
It is truly pitiful (and actually worse) that your posts do not reflect the ability to read the verse honestly.
But - This is what it means and is to be a JW.
First of all, your first sentence is totally wrong in the reference. It is LUKE 1:31.
Secondly, it is nothing less than an open, blatant, and deliberate falsehood on your part to say I have twisted anything. The posting history here shows that I have not done that in the slightest.
Thirdly, it is simply irrefutable fact that He had the name "Jesus" before He was conceived. That's what Luke 1:31 is saying, and the proof of this is by the angel's use of the future tense in the message to Mary.
"You will conceive and have a son"
That's speaking in future tense, Nathan.
Future tense means it hasn't happened yet. She hadn't conceived yet.
Because the angel would not have spoken of her conceiving in future tense if that had already happened.
This shows and proves that what the angel says is before conception.
"You will call him 'Jesus'." That's speaking in future tense also.
From this, it is very, very easy to see and understand that the name "Jesus" was given right then and there, at that moment.
That means He had the name "Jesus" not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That is the biblical record of Luke 1:31.
Any honest reader very, very easily sees and understand this.
It is truly pitiful (and actually worse) that your posts do not reflect the ability to read the verse honestly.
But - This is what it means and is to be a JW.
Yes it is speaking in the future tense when it says you will conceive and have a son and like you admit it then says and you will call him Jesus which you admit is in the future tense also. You admit it means she had not conceived yet, then it also means he had not been named Jesus yet and instead in the future when he is born he will be called Jesus. You can not say one stands for the future and the other means it happened at the time when you admit they are both in the future tense.Wrong again and as usual, Nathan.
First of all, your first sentence is totally wrong in the reference. It is LUKE 1:31.
Secondly, it is nothing less than an open, blatant, and deliberate falsehood on your part to say I have twisted anything. The posting history here shows that I have not done that in the slightest.
Thirdly, it is simply irrefutable fact that He had the name "Jesus" before He was conceived. That's what Luke 1:31 is saying, and the proof of this is by the angel's use of the future tense in the message to Mary.
"You will conceive and have a son"
That's speaking in future tense, Nathan.
Future tense means it hasn't happened yet. She hadn't conceived yet.
Because the angel would not have spoken of her conceiving in future tense if that had already happened.
This shows and proves that what the angel says is before conception.
"You will call him 'Jesus'." That's speaking in future tense also.
From this, it is very, very easy to see and understand that the name "Jesus" was given right then and there, at that moment.
That means He had the name "Jesus" not only BEFORE He was born; He had the name "Jesus" BEFORE HE WAS EVEN CONCEIVED.
That is the biblical record of Luke 1:31.
Any honest reader very, very easily sees and understand this.
It is truly pitiful (and actually worse) that your posts do not reflect the ability to read the verse honestly.
But - This is what it means and is to be a JW.
It says she will become pregnant by the HS and she will have a son and you are to name him Jesus. Meaning when she has the a son he will be called Jesus. Now read matt. 1:25 and she remained a virgin until her son was born and Joseph named him Jesus. Meaning when the son is born he will be called Jesus and that is what Joseph did. It does not say the angel spoke his name to Mary at matt. 1:25 and the angel said to Joseph go ahead with your marriage to Mary and she will have a son and you are to name him Jesus. It is Joseph and not Mary the angel spoke the name to that the child would be named at matt. 1:25He had the name before He was even conceived Nathan. The angel spoke His name to Mary -- Before she ever conceived.