I just checked the post and find that there is zero wrong with...

I just checked the post and find that there is zero wrong with it and it is very easy to understand.

So, it would seem that you simply did not like what it showed, back by the Bible and what's Not in the Bible, which you lot effectively ADD.
You did that by quoting the Phil, to suggest it was effectively speaking of a pre-existing Jesus, pretty much emptying himself before coming.

There is no hint in the passage, that it is referring to a pre-existing one, but simply the Jesus of the here and now of the times.
And the Bible clearly shows, how he became and developed the nature of God.
But instead of big noting himself, be became or acted like the least of them and washed others feet, and said I have given you an example to follow, which the Phil writer, obviously picks up on -> let this mind be in you which was in Jesus = a very simple story, hijacked by the desperato's lol.